The Russian invasion of Ukraine, on February 24, 2022, will be remembered among the 21st century’s pivotal events, a turning point in world history.

There is no aspect of today’s international relations and global economy that has not been touched by the conflict and the reactions it has provoked. Barely three decades after the Berlin Wall collapse, a Cold War 2.0 is looming with a global geopolitical realignment affecting world trade, supply chains, and financial networks.

The renowned French anthropologist and historian, Emmanuel Todd, has even claimed that World War III began; he also added that the leaderships involved show a worrisome “nihilistic vertigo”.

The conflict is perceived in Moscow as existential for Russia. However, there are indications that it could be existential for Western democracies as well. NATO’s Secretary General has even claimed that the real risk is not an escalation but a victory of Russia.

Whoever will prevail will get a bigger voice in dictating the future world order rules; particularly, if will continue to be under the exclusive US leadership or will move towards an authentic multipolar setting.

After this conflict, nothing could be the same again; but for transatlantic relations, the Russian invasion of Ukraine has been a real panacea.

In 2019, then US President, Donald Trump, threatened to withdraw the United States from NATO if its other members had not increased their military spending. He was followed by the French President, Emmanuel Macron, who argued that “What we are witnessing is NATO brain death” and that “America’s ally is turning its back on strategic issues.”

In the summer of 2021, then, US, and NATO, ruinously withdrew from Afghanistan. The humiliating exit from Kabul raised serious doubts about the Alliance and it stirred strong transatlantic tensions.

Today the situation has reversed, and NATO members should thank Vladimir Putin’s reckless decision for that. If one were to think of a celebratory moment of the revived transatlantic relation, nothing would do better than a bust of the Russian leader provocatively placed inside the North-Atlantic Council great hall in Brussels with the inscription “The man who saved the Atlantic Alliance” underneath.

Today NATO and the EU are cohesively confronting Russia in Ukraine by providing massive economic and military aid, and the strongest sanctions ever imposed to Moscow. The latter include the end of all Russian oil and gas supplies to Europe, the freezing of as much as $350 billions of Russian funds deposited in Western banks, as well as a significant increase of European countries’ military spending. Germany alone announced a huge and unprecedented €100 billion increase. If NATO further eastward enlargement towards Ukraine has been momentarily stopped, the one towards Northers Europe appears successful with the forthcoming entry of Finland and, if Turkey will consent, Sweden.

President Biden’s brave visit to Kiev on February 20th has been the iconic moment of such sequence of successes.

It should not go unnoticed, however, that the war has triggered reactions which go far beyond the European continent and the transatlantic partnership.

Last May, the Atlantic Alliance launched its new Strategic Concept by claiming that: “The Russian Federation is the most significant and direct threat to Allies’ security and to peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area… [and to] the rules-based international order. “

China has now been included in the Concept for the first time by emphasizing that: “[its] stated ambitions and coercive policies challenge our interests, security, and values… It strives to subvert the rules-based international order… The deepening strategic partnership between the People’s Republic of China and the Russian Federation…attempts to undercut the rules-based international order…”   

It was a radical political evolution. If Russia was Europe’s main energy supplier, China is still the EU’s top trading partner, not to mention that it is the United States’ too.

Both NATO and the EU have then embraced not only America’s stance towards Russia, but also its growing concern about China. It is all built upon Biden Administration’s narrative that has framed nowadays geopolitical moment as the inflection point of an epic confrontation between democracies and autocracies.

To confront Russian and Chinese autocracies, the renewed transatlantic partnership is even ready to stomach an increased, dangerous, coordination between Moscow and Beijing, unprecedented since the heights of the Cold War in the1950s and 1960s. NATO and the EU, apparently, are also giving up to the globalization as we have known it for the last three decades. Traditional energy and supply chains are changing or are re-considered, trade routes are re-oriented and words like near-shoring, re-shoring and de-coupling are now frequently used in the economic and trade jargon. 

While the whole outcome and cost of this geopolitical shift are still uncertain, there is no doubt that Europe has already borne the higher price.

The diversification of energy supplies from Russia is presenting hefty bill for European consumers and for their economies’ competitiveness. Sanctions against Russia, and those looming against China, risk putting all supply chains under significant stress and to disrupt a quite fruitful trade relationship. Among this policy shift unintended consequences, there are also higher inflation and raising interest rates. Both could radically change the last four decades economic patterns.

The Chip Act adopted by Biden Administration last October, to stop the selling of semiconductors to China, might trigger a major technological war which could somehow hobble the ongoing Fourth Industrial Revolution, not to mention the rising tensions about Taiwan.

The so-called IRA (Inflation Reduction Act) recently adopted by Washington to boost the green energy transition is creating strong commercial tensions with the Brussels.

Unfortunately, despite all Western predictions, sanctions have not yet brought Russia to its knees. According to the IMF, in 2024 the Russian economy is even predicted to grow by 2,1%, more than Germany and United Kingdom. 

Furthermore, the sanctions against Moscow have been adopted only by the Western democracies and few other Asian like-minded countries.

The strengthened transatlantic bond, then, has not been matched by a similar increased world leadership of the so-called Global West. Western democracies’ long-held belief that the world revolves around them is challenged. A different world is taking shape. Although confusely, the so-called Global Rest appears on the rise and developing its own geopolitical consciousness. An increasing number of emerging economies are perceiving themselves as alien from many western narratives, visions, and policies, as well as from the tightly Western-led global financial system. De-globalization is looming, and de-dollarization too.

A global poll published on February 22^nd has confirmed previous assessments. To a large extent, Global Rest seems believing that “US and European support for Ukraine is driven by the desire to protect Western dominance”. In other words, it would have nothing to do with defending democracy and Ukraine’s territorial integrity.

A long list of countries – mostly Global West’s traditional partners – are showing disaffection towards the US-led rules-based world order that since 1945 has been shaping global politics. Algeria, Argentina, Egypt, Indonesia, Nigeria, Saudi Arabia, Turkey, United Arab Emirates, just to name a few, perceive such order as biased, sometimes hypocrite, and often imbued with double standards; its rules seem formally valid for all but a few selected Western countries. These emerging economies are queuing to join what appears to be the vanguard of the Global Rest, the BRICS (Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa), the G7’s real global alter ego.

No doubt that Russia has been effectively isolated from the Global West; no doubt either that the transatlantic partnership has been strongly reinforced. However, there are also discomforting indications that the Global West appears more and more isolated from the Global Rest. Prevailing against autocracies requires winning hearts and minds globally, as much as among Western constituencies.

The well-deserved condemnation and punishment of Russia notwithstanding, the conflict could have been better used by the EU as a unique chance to give content to its widely claimed strategic autonomy, particularly by pushing harder for negotiated solutions while maintaining the support to Ukraine.

The EU has instead opted for being the US’ junior partner, and a Polish-Baltic traction institution. It is dismaying that even the recently exited UK seems having a greater political influence in Brussels than before.

A quite successful re-strengthening of the transatlantic relationship has been accomplished. It is a crucial outcome considered the uncertain times ahead.

Maybe it could have been achieved better.

If the price that Europe, especially, has paid was worth will become clearer only in the coming years.

L'articolo The war in Ukraine and the Transatlantic Partnership proviene da InsideOver.

In his Address to Congress last April, President Biden issued a call to action to deliver on the promise of democracy.  “Can our democracy overcome the lies, anger, hate and fears that have pulled us apart?  America’s adversaries – the autocrats of the world – are betting it can’t.”

As we consider this global call to action, we should look no further than one of liberal democracies strongest players – the commercial geospatial industry.  With a mix of entrepreneurial spirit, risk capital, and enlightened policy, this sector is ready, willing and able to contribute to the global transparency that advances our common cause by creating coherence from chaos, and separating fact from fiction.  The data generated from satellite imaging technology provides the visibility that helps us partner as allies and combat disinformation.  In other words, geospatial intelligence (GEOINT) can identify and see through the obfuscation.

Commercial imaging companies openly capture images that can be leveraged strategically to shed light on complex geopolitical events.  This light can inform a public narrative that supports our interests and exposes the misinformFor example, in mid-2020, the location of detained Uighurs and other Muslim minorities in Western China became increasingly difficult to find.  The Chinese mapping platform Baidu Maps previewed blank reference map tiles over the areas in question, ultimately masking the reality.  Investigative journalists at Buzzfeed turned to commercial satellite imagery from Planet to uncover thousands of prisons and internment camps in the region, exposing China’s false narrative.

Technology now enables a near-continual sensing of all of the world’s activity.  Such a holistic collection will enable a detailed model of the planet and all that is happening on it.  There are many benefits of such a model including increased agricultural yields, strengthened supply chains, enhanced natural disaster preparedness and response, accurate measurements of the environment, and real-time detection of nefarious actors.  However, such a world will demand a rethinking of privacy itself, requiring us to find the optimum balance between the benefits of this technology, their implications for our privacy, and the potential for misuse.

First, it’s important to know who is doing the collecting and what is done with the collected information.  In the past, the collectors were governments – for good and for bad – and the original driver for remote sensing technologies was national security.  However, with the recent increase in innovation and technological advances from both government and commercial sectors, the potential for transparency escalates exponentially, an attribute I find pertinent to our success as a liberal democracy in this technological age.

With this increase in imagery and data collection, we will be able to cross-connect data streams from human activity to physical reality; ultimately answering the questions, “Where are the people?” “Why are the people there?” and “Where are they going to be tomorrow?”  Clearly, there are good and bad uses of the answers to these questions.

Properly thought through, an era of radical transparency can lead to a healthier planet and a more humane world.  However, achieving such a world means also striking a balance between access and control, openness and privacy, and good and evil.  As the expansion and growth of such surveillance is likely inevitable and incessant, we must calculate a means to deal with such a reality.  If approached with caution and aforethought, this will benefit our society exponentially.

Anticipating the ways this radical transparency might be misused is the most likely solution for establishing regulations that will encourage the good and thwart the bad.  We must first determine who controls our data, who can access it, why it can be accessed, and with what oversight.  We also need to firmly establish what role the derived data would play in our legal framework.  We ultimately need to answer the question, “How might our society adapt, innovate and evolve to harness the power of geospatial data and technology while mitigating its ethical challenges?”

As we seek to address that question, I suggest we all take a heavy dose of humility as these are unchartered waters and precipitous actions could have deleterious effects.  It is essential this situation is addressed with deliberate and well thought out actions, as well as the flexibility and ability to modify rules and regulations as we better understand the ramifications and consequences of our decisions.  I would observe that until we can agree on data privacy norms, it will be hard to create lasting rules around transparency.  The stakes are enormous.  In fact, one could see this discussion and debate as existential, especially as it pertains to human freedoms.

Our transparent society is here to stay, no matter how hard one tries to eliminate their digital presence.  If you think of this transparency as light – as I do – it shines both ways.  I believe transparency is good for liberal, democratic societies.  As U.S. Supreme Court Justice Brandeis observed, “Sunlight is said to be the best of disinfectants.”  I further believe the bedrock of civil discourse is trust; not so we agree on every issue, rather, but so we appreciate the other perspective and empathize with differing views.  I posit that transparency favors justice – and that evil lurks in the dark.

Thus, we should be considering our society’s core strengths – entrepreneurial spirit, risk capital, market competition and respect for the individual and their rights – as we rethink what the notion of privacy should mean today.  If we anticipate many of the ways that the abundance of data might be misused, we can establish rules, regulations, and governing authorities to encourage the best uses while thwarting bad actors.  If approached with thought and caution, this technology has the potential to make transparency a force for good and change the world for the better.

President Biden concluded his April State of the Union speech by acknowledging that our democratic form of government was being tested and challenged as never before — especially by regimes with very different social compacts.  A transparent world reduces confusion and increases shared awareness and trust.  It is in that world that I see democracies innovating, competing and winning.

L'articolo The perils of “transparency”: welcome to tomorrow’s world proviene da InsideOver.

The Trump administration recently dispatched Alex Azar to Taiwan in what became the most high profile visit in nearly 50 years. The US Secretary of Health and Human Services visited Taipei on the pretense of investigating the coronavirus pandemic.

Breaking with Tradition to Embrace Taiwan

Reading between the lines on Azar’s visit, however, it’s apparent that the secretary’s travel to Taiwan was about more than the island state’s handling of COVID-19.

The fact that Washington chose to send a top-tier official to Taiwan speaks volumes about how it views its current relationship with China, which claims the nation as its own. The US is actually one of the few states that refuses to recognize China’s ownership of Taiwan, even after it lost its place in the UN 50 years ago.

“China firmly opposes any official interactions between the US and Taiwan. This position is consistent and clear. China has made stern representations with the US side both in Beijing and in Washington,” Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesman Wang Wenbin said before the visit.

“I want to stress that the one-China principle is universally recognized by the international community. Any attempt to ignore, deny or challenge that principle is doomed to fail.”

The Direct Approach

While past American administrations have at times tip-toed around the issue, and none of them dared send high-level representation, President Donald Trump has taken a more firm approach with Beijing with fewer punches pulled. The result: Azar landed in Taipei, upsetting China, and stoked even more anger by criticizing Beijing’s response to the coronavirus.

Azar’s message for Taipei was one of unity, regardless of Beijing’s objections. That was the point: to prove to China that the US is unafraid of it. In a strong way, Azar’s visit to Taipei was more of taunt to Beijing than it was a courtesy for Taiwan.

A Mission to Preserve Democracy

“There are three overarching themes for this trip. The first is to recognize Taiwan as an open and democratic society, executing a highly successful and transparent COVID-19 response,” Azar said.

“The second is to reaffirm Taiwan as a long partner and friend of the United States, and to highlight our history of broad collaboration on health and public health. The third is to note that Taiwan deserves to be recognized as a global health leader with an excellent track record of contributing to international health.”

Taiwan’s Difficult Position

Azar’s first tenet was perhaps the most important. Beijing continues to encroach on island states in the Pacific Ocean. They are indisputably threatened by the Communist Party of China’s territorial ambitions and claims to International waters. 

Additionally, Beijing has shown no hesitation in suffocating democracy in Hong Kong. Naturally, Taiwan could be next and China has said as much, even going so far to threaten the use of force to reunite it with the mainland. 

Washington’s renewed relations with Taiwan comes amid a complete reshaping of US policy in the South China Sea. America is now highly keen to increase its support of state’s like Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines to deter further Chinese expansionist plans.

Virus Misgivings

Azar also seized the opportunity to attack Beijing over the coronavirus, which has become a popular tactic for the Trump administration.

“The Chinese Communist Party had the chance to warn the world and work with the world on battling the virus. But they chose not to, and the costs of that choice mount higher every day,” Azar said.

He added that if the virus had originated in the US or Taiwan, it would have been easily defeated. Although the virus has run rampant across America, the island state quickly took control of the situation when the virus reached it. While it boasts a population of 23 million people, only seven have died with a mere 480 cases. 

China Moves to Isolate Taiwan

Even still, China blocked Taiwan’s admission to the World Health Organization as an observer. The decision is one of several attempts to weaken the government of Taiwanese President Tsai Ing-wen. Simply put, Beijing has sought to isolate Tsai wherever possible. As a result, America has an impetus for increasing its support of Taiwan.

“This behavior is in keeping with Beijing’s approach to WHO and other international organisations. The influence of the PRC (People’s Republic of China) far outweighs its investment in this public health institution – and it uses influence not to advance public health objectives, but its own narrow political interests,” Azar said.

Shoring Up Support for Taiwan

The Trump administration’s decision tp send Azar was about more than simply COVID-19. The virus pandemic simply gave Washington an excuse to shore up support for Taiwan at a critical juncture. After Hong Kong fell to Beijing, Taiwan could soon follow if it does not have proper assistance.

Unfortunately, most of the international community respects China’s claim over the island state, leaving few to help outside the US. Azar’s words, while harsh on Beijing’s coronavirus management, were more directed at maintaining a democratic Taiwan than its response to the virus.

L'articolo Azar’s Visit to Taiwan More About Democracy Than Coronavirus proviene da InsideOver.

As numerous countries introduce their own emergency measures to slow the spread of the novel coronavirus, Hungary has emerged as the first democratic casualty of this crisis. On March 30, the Hungarian Parliament voted by 137 to 53 to approve the government’s demand for the power to rule by decree during the Covid-19 pandemic.

What Does the New Law Mean?

The new law means that Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban and his governing Fidesz party can make any new laws they see fit without Hungary’s parliament needing to approve or pass them. It is not yet known how Orban may use these powers, although various people have been arrested for “fake news” in the past several weeks for what the government said is fearmongering about coronavirus and inflating the amount of cases.

Orban claims that he will use his new powers appropriately, but the leader of the Jobbik Party — Hungary’s main opposition party — Peter Jakab, claims that this law has put the entire country into quarantine. Orban’s ruling party called Fidesz used its parliamentary majority to approve of the emergency legislation. Whilst the bill may have received the blessing of Hungary’s elected parliament, that does not mean that it is a democratic law. Orban’s new decree will have wider political consequences that could result in the widespread eradication of people’s freedoms.

Nonetheless, a pro-government polling agency called Nezopont discovered that 90 per cent of the public want the emergency measures extended and 72 percent believe that the criminal code should be strengthened. This data is questionable considering it originates from a pro-government source, but it will no doubt be used by Orban to justify this new law.

This decree has no time limit to it. Therefore, this law could remain in place when the coronavirus epidemic has ended. So far, the Prime Minister has failed to specify whether this law will be removed once the number of Covid-19 cases has peaked and begins to decline. Hungary currently has 492 recorded cases of coronavirus and 16 deaths, although as mentioned critics and some citizens believe the actual number may be far higher.

A Further Blow to Democracy

Anyone accused of spreading misinformation in Hungary could face up to five years of imprisonment. Those found to be breaching the quarantine measures implemented as a means to stem the coronavirus outbreak in Hungary could face up to eight years in jail.

In a further blow to democracy, by-elections and referendums can no longer be held for as long as the state of emergency remains in place. Hungary’s next parliamentary elections are not due until 2022 and if the decree is still in effect by that time, it is more than likely that the elections will not take place.

It is unclear what the Hungarian government means by false information and if Fidesz decides what is true or false, then they could easily manipulate the context of this situation to imprison dozens of journalists and activists.

Hungary Has Embarked on the Same Path as China

In China, an ophthalmologist at Wuhan central hospital called Li Wenliang was interrogated and threatened by police for warning his classmates on WeChat about the coronavirus. He was then released and returned to work before contracting the virus himself and dying from it. China is a good example of what happens when governments are allowed to determine what the truth is, and it is tragic that Hungary has embarked upon a similar path.

Slate Magazine has gone as far as suggesting that Hungary should be thrown out of both the EU and NATO for its emergency decree. Although the Hungarian Government passed a state of emergency in 2015 that closed down media outlets which criticized its anti-refugee policies, there has to be consequences when a NATO member edges closer towards a blatant dictatorship.

Hungary is Breaching its NATO Commitments

Article 2 of the Washington Treaty states that members must strengthen their free institutions. The 1999 Membership Action Plan reiterated this point much more firmly and even specified what rules NATO members must follow. It is clear that Orban is breaking them. For example, the Prime Minister has failed to uphold his commitment to democracy since he started to close media outlets in 2015, as this is an infringement on press freedom.

Former Italian Prime Minister Matteo Renzi has also warned that Hungary’s actions put the nation on a collision course with the EU.

It was always likely that some governments would use Covid-19 as an opportunity to restrict democratic freedoms further, and Hungary has become the first EU member state to do so. Hopefully, other nations do not follow their example.

L'articolo Has Hungary Gone Too Far with its Coronavirus Measures? proviene da InsideOver.

On Tuesday, March 3 public attention in the United States will be completely dominated by Super Tuesday. The day is in fact destined to represent a turning point in the primary elections to nominate the presidential candidates for the Democratic party.

Super Tuesday: a Key Day in American Politics

For over thirty years “Super Tuesdays” have been a fixture of America’s leading parties, representing the first wide-ranging national contest for candidates aiming to take part in the White House elections in November of the electoral year. Given that Donald Trump‘s nomination is taken for granted in the Republican party — which on that day will formally stage the caucuses and primaries in 11 States — all eyes today are set on the Democratic contest which will be battled out in fifteen primaries: voting in fourteen states of the Union and the choice of American residents living abroad.

Alabama, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Maine, Massachusetts, Minnesota, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Vermont and Virginia will be voting to establish which of the Democratic candidates will prevail: February’s vote indicated the socialist-inspired Vermont senator Bernie Sanders as the man to beat. However centrist former Vice-president Joe Biden — winner in the recent South Carolina primary — is by no means out of the game, while the surprise drop out of young technocrat and former South Bend mayor Pete Buttigieg has relaunched billionaire former Mayor of New York Michael Bloomberg as a possible third wheel.

1,344 of the 3,979 Democratic National Convention delegates who will be voting for the White House candidate will be contended during the 3 March contests, in States ranging from the traditional blue strongholds of the east (Vermont, Virginia, Massachusets) and west (California) to the conservative states of the deep South which are mainly Trump’s electoral domain. Today is set to be one of the most decisive Super Tuesdays of all time. Rarely has a Super Tuesday fulfilled the function for which the parties implemented it over the last decades: to indicate ahead of time the dominant line in the nominations race in order to identify the party’s true front-runner. As polarization between the two predominant parties becomes more marked — and Biden and Sanders’ race heats up — Super Tuesday is becoming more decisive.

L'articolo What is Super Tuesday? proviene da InsideOver.

Somalian president Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo signed a bill into law on Friday, Feb. 21 that will allow Somali citizens to directly elect their leaders for the first time in 50 years. For a country that has been ravaged by one of the longest civil wars in Africa, the move marks a decisive step towards a more democratic country. Somali’s held its last democratic elections in 1969 after which the country descended into lawlessness.

‘Our Beloved Citizens Will Have the Chance to Execute Their Democratic Rights’

“This night marks a historic night for our nation, because after nearly 50 years our republic and our beloved citizens will have the chance to execute their democratic rights for one man, one vote in the forthcoming 2021 election, “ Farmajo declared after signing the bill.

“No one has special status and it will be the time for everyone to seek a mandate from the people based on their performance,” he added.

Also expressing delight and optimism was chair of the national independent electoral commission Mrs Halima Ismail Ibrahim who said, “It is such a historic time for Somalia. This bill will give Somali people the right to political participation which they have been denied for 50 years.”

Under the new “one person, one vote system” Somalis will vote directly for parties with parliamentary seats being allocated according to the final tallies. The elected members of parliament will then elect the president and prime minister, with the latter coming from the party with majority MPs.

Somalia’s Previous Clan Election System

The new system is unlike in the previous 4.5 system in which clan elders were entrusted with the responsibility of choosing delegates to elect leaders. Under the system key government positions and parliamentary seats were shared equally among the four major clans with the rest going to smaller tribes. The system — which had the backing of the UN — was formulated to help give clans equal representation owing to the country’s fragile security situation.

However with time the International community turned against it describing it as a recipe for chaos. This was because it was dominated by clan leaders who did not necessarily represent the interest of their groups. It also gave the four largest clans eight out nine positions while marginalizing the smaller ones.

Major Challenges Still Remain in Implementing New Somali System

Although Somalia’s international partners have praised the new system, they have also pointed out the areas and challenges that still need to be addressed, in order for the new legislation to be implemented. They have urged all stakeholders — among them the Federal Government of Somalia, the Federal Parliament, the Federal Member States and political parties — to work together and support the electoral body NIEC in implementing the law.

Of late there have been clashes between the federal government and the federal states of Puntland and Jubaland. In Jubaland for instance an armed struggle is brewing In Gedo between the local security forces and those loyal to the federal government. And in Puntland, offices of the electoral body were shut down by the local authority early this month.

There are also certain aspects of the new law that need further clarification and which the international partners want to be resolved as soon as possible. These include the “representation of the Benadir region in the parliament”, “the modalities for electing the seats allocated for Soamalilanders” and the identification of seats that will be reseved for women in to ensure the 30% representation .

The 30% parliamentary gender quota was introduced in 2016 to boost women representation and participation in political affairs. Over the last few years the number of Somali women representation has been increasing but is yet to reach the 30% target. At the moment women representation in parliament stands at 24% of the 329 constituencies.

Optimism About New System Giving Somali Women a Political Voice

Nevertheless Ibrahim has expressed optimism by stating “Parliament will put in place necessary measures to make sure women get their 30% seats reserved. We are not there yet, but we have come a long way. There was time when had only 4% representation in parliament.”  Female participation in Somali politics to date has mostly been hindered by cultural constraints.

The Political Parties Law is another issue that  the international partners  have raised “as part of the essential legal frame work required to enable elections to take place on time. They have emphasized the importance of “prioritizing consideration and adoption of the amendments to this law by the Federal Parliament.” This will allow political parties to register for elections.

2020 will be a pivotal year for Somalis who have been denied the right to political participation for 50 years. However this milestone will only be achieved when the Somali leaders come together and show their commitment to the “one person, one vote” system. The election — which is expected to take place between 2020 and 2021 and is expected to cost $53 million according to Ibrahim — can proceed properly if leadership brings people together.

L'articolo Somalia Takes a Key Step Toward Real Democracy proviene da InsideOver.

It’s the most important election for a generation. ‘Boris’ is ahead in all manner of polls but the result remains unequivocally unpredictable.

The 2017 snap election presented many Brexiteers with an opportunity to unseat the MPs attempting to sabotage the result of the EU referendum. Other voters may have called it a ‘Selexit’: a means of selecting the political party to deliver Brexit and by extension nominating the preferred version. Either way, voters participated in the last general election on the assumption that Brexit was going ahead. That certitude has been increasingly eroded with each rejected deal and each episode in Parliament.

The upcoming election is, at first glance, a coded second referendum. Remainers are being persuaded towards the Liberal Democrats who vow to cancel Brexit, whereas the Conservatives, who pledge to ‘Get Brexit Done’, are going for the Eurosceptic vote. The newly created Brexit Party is deliberately not standing in Conservative strongholds to avoid splitting the pro-Brexit vote. Early speculations even envisaged the Brexit Party and Liberal Democrats as the two new major parties. But this general election is not simply an EU referendum in party political clothing. If it were, the result would be predictable and it is anything but.

In the time that the UK Parliament has vainly negotiated a Brexit deal, so many socio-economic issues disappeared from the frontlines of political discourse. These include poverty, inadequate housing, low wages, educational cuts and poor job security, especially zero hours’ contracts. The announcement of the December election caused these problems to step back into the limelight and they became highly weaponised in the Labour Party’s election manifesto that vows to address them.

While the other parties’ Brexit policy is their main vote winner, the promise to address ongoing austerity is central to Labour’s game plan with the Party promising to give the People ‘a final say on Brexit’. Reminding the electorate of the problems that have worsened while Brexit has dominated has worked in the Party’s favour, providing ‘its strongest lead over the Conservatives as the Party most concerned about people in real need in Britain (59% vs 34%)’. Thus, the return of forgotten austerity seems capable of securing a Labour victory and affecting the subsequent ‘Final Say’. We could see voters persuaded to forgo Brexit in favour of fixing the austerity long overshadowed by EU matters. Just that outcome seems plausible, further opinion polls contradict it.

The latest Ipsos MORI Political Monitor polls show Labour to have convinced voters of their compassion, but not their leadership competency. The party’s ‘being fit to govern’ rating is nine points lower than in 2017 and a staggering 75% of those asked described the Party as ‘divided’. The perceived schisms in Labour can only have been strengthened by its ‘Leave’ wing that actively opposes the Party’s official ‘Remain’ stance. And here is where the Conservatives’ selling points come in. Until now, the Tories were always more divided by the EU than Labour. Now the tables have turned and that ability to keep to a consensus and plan may well be what is attracting voters. 49% of those polled see Boris Johnson as ‘the leader who would make the most capable Prime Minister’ and Johnson has a 21% lead over Jeremy Corbyn for general likeability. More voters say the ‘Conservatives have a good team of leaders (37% [+10] vs 22% for Labour) and are fit to govern (46% vs. 29%).’ Concurrently, the polls predict traditional Labour strongholds of Bishop Auckland, Great Grimsby, Stoke-on-Trent North and Workington will elect the Conservative candidate. These are all places that voted to leave the EU.

That the traditional Socialist heartlands are now favouring Tory rule poses the question – why? Is it simply because voters there favour the Brexit that Boris promises or because the Tory Party seems simply more organised? Or does it bleed into the wider issue of delivering the will of the People? Many voters feel those with the power to uphold the referendum result have deliberately sabotaged it. That some Labour MPs have needed to be persuaded to respect the ‘Leave’ outcome has angered so many, as did the vetoing by the ‘Tory Rebels’. The Liberal Democrats have been ridiculed by some for keeping the word ‘democrat’ in their name while vowing to overrule the result of a democratic vote. Yet 18% cannot trust them to keep their promises in any event. Thus, are the Tories doing so well in the polls and winning in Labour heartlands because voters are adopting a ‘better the devil you know’ mentality, enhanced by the good organisation the Party espouses? Or is it because many British voters feel ignoring the vote to leave would be so undemocratic, any future votes would simply not be worth the ballot paper they are cast on?

Simply put, this election is chiefly so unpredictable because it is impossible to tell what people will prioritise: tackling austerity, party reliability, good leadership and organisation, delivering Brexit or the upholding of democracy, the definition of which is open for interpretation.

L'articolo UK ‘Elexit’: The Most Important and Unpredictable UK Election proviene da InsideOver.

Finding a news story in the international media about the Alternative for Germany (AfD) where the terms “far-right” or “extreme right-wing” are not applied to the party is a difficult task. Media outlets such as the BBC, CNN, ABC and CBC use these epithets and the same pattern can be found amongst newspapers such as The Washington Post, The New York Times and The Guardian, to name but a few. Also, Deutsche Welle, Germany’s state-owned international broadcaster, does so as well of course. Virtually every article about the AfD on its website describes it as “far-right” or “anti-immigrant”. The Left Party, the successor of the SED, the former East German Communist Party (1946-89), gets a free pass and is generally referred to simply by its name. Environmentalist groups or pro-open borders NGOs being described as “extreme” or “radical” by such news organisations would be a novelty indeed.

Violence and intimidation

AfD stands accused of stirring up hatred but, on closer inspection, the party is very often the victim of hatred and indeed violence itself. According to information acquired by Bundestag member Martin Hess from the German Federal Government and reported in Die Junge Freiheit, AfD was the main victim of political violence and intimidation in Germany in the third quarter of 2019. The period saw 52 attacks against the offices or facilities of political parties and 26 of these were carried out against AfD; of the 278 attacks on representatives and members of political parties 127 of them were carried out against AfD members, with 113 of them being classified as having an extreme left-wing political motivation; and of the 905 election posters damaged or destroyed 406 belonged to AfD. Behind the statistics lie some unsettling events: politicians attacked on the street, cars being smashed up and set on fire, threats, offices ransacked and a house daubed with paint and graffiti describing the owner as a “Nazi Pig”.

Parliamentary personae non-gratae

According to AfD Parliamentarian René Springer in an interview with the Swiss weekly newspaper Die Weltwoche in April 2019, AfD members are shunned in the Bundestag. When Parliamentary joint leader Alice Weidel sat down to eat in the Bundestag restaurant other parliamentarians at the adjacent table stood up and walked out whilst the Left Party and SPD members simply refuse to speak to their AfD counterparts. Social ostracism is accompanied by institutional mischief. According to parliamentary rules of procedure, each parliamentary group is entitled to a seat on the Praesidium of the Bundestag but has to gain a majority of votes for its candidate.

Since October 2017 four AfD candidates have been rejected by the members of the other parliamentary groups in an unprecedented campaign to block a party that gained almost 13% of the vote in the 2017 general election and is now represented in all 16 of Germany’s regional Parliaments.

A threat to the constitutional order?

The German Federal Office for the Protection of the Constitution (BfV) has intervened in respect of the AfD question. It announced in January 2019 that the AfD would be treated as a “Prüffall” (“test case”), meaning that there were indications of extremism within its membership. Junge Alternative (Young Alternative), the party’s youth organisation and der Flügel (the Wing), a national-conservative group led by the controversial leader of the Thuringian party, Björn Höcke, would, however, be treated as “Verdachtsfälle”, a more serious measure meaning that intelligence can be used to gather information about the two groups.

The Administrative Court of Cologne did however subsequently hold that the BfV must not use the term “Prüffall” in public as it would unfairly stigmatise AfD. The BfV has itself been at the centre of controversy in recent years. The former head of the agency, Hans-Georg Maaßen, publicly called into question media claims, backed by Merkel, that Germans had “hunted down” foreigners during the Chemnitz disturbances of 2018. Maaßen was subsequently moved to a different position and was eventually placed in early retirement after a controversial farewell speech.

Political programme

Does the AfD deserve such vitriol? A sober and rational analysis of the party’s Political Programme, however, indicates a patriotic centre-right party seeking to protect German state sovereignty, promote direct democracy on the model of Switzerland, bolster federalism, streamline the state and remove party political influence in the arts and culture.

The Programme does call, inter alia, for the defence of the Judeo-Christian and humanist culture of the West, measures to reverse Germany’s demographic decline, the safeguarding of the traditional family, the prohibition of gender and ethnic quotas, stricter controls on mosques and Imams, and also opposes government energy policy and some of the claims of the environmentalist movement. What the AfD is trying to do is shift the Overton Window by raising the legitimate and reasonable concerns of sections of the population that want a wider choice of political options than has been on offer from the established political parties in recent years. Such proposals are not “fascist”, “Nazi” or totalitarian. The Programme makes no mention of the Führer principle, the abolition of elections and political parties, the destruction of trade unions, the gagging of the press, the need for Lebensraum in the East or Aryan racial supremacy. True, there have been some unsavoury comments by individuals. One member who described Claus von Stauffenberg, the army officer who attempted to assassinate Hitler in July 1944, as a “coward” and a “traitor” was thrown out of the party. The party leadership is also seeking to expel another member over alleged antisemitism.

Alexander Gauland

The Saxon born journalist and historian, Alexander Gauland, had been a lifelong member of the CDU until in 2012 he and other conservative-minded members known as the Berlin Circle were told they had no future in the upper echelons of the party. This led them to set up the AfD in 2013. The CDU/CSU’s drift to the left opened up a gap on the right and they have filled it. In his book, Anleitung zum Konservativsein (Guide to Being Conservative) written some ten years earlier, Gauland bemoaned this leftwards shift. He argued that concepts such as Heimat (homeland), Leitkultur (leading or guiding culture) family, tradition and art had been discarded by the party. He lauded the English conservative thinker, Edmund Burke, as his model: a man of “moderation” and the “middle ground” who favoured organic and moderate reform to conserve what is worth conserving.

Gauland has himself admitted that AfD’s rise can in part be ascribed to the failings of the established parties, above all their unwillingness to address issues falling outside the narrow corridor of respectable opinion. AfD has on the other hand always been prepared to discuss openly and critically the difficulties of the Euro, the bailout of Greece, Merkel’s open-door migrant policy, migrant crime, Islam, multiculturalism, environmentalist hysteria and the threats to German identity posed by globalisation and globalism. The party brings a refreshing candour to political debate. This is surely the key to its rise.

The Brunswick party conference

Gauland has called AfD a “gäriger Haufen” (a group or a crowd in the process of fermentation) and, as we have seen, the party is not, as some would have us believe, a bunch of football hooligans brandishing the black, white and red flag of imperial Germany. At the federal party conference held in Brunswick in November 2019 co-chair Jörg Meuthen stated in his keynote speech that the party must now become “capable and willing to govern” and must be a “patriotic respectable middle-class party”. So far, of course, voices within the CDU/CSU calling for coalitions with AfD have been isolated but as the SPD swings to the left and the CDU/CSU runs adrift these voices may well begin to multiply.

L'articolo Is the Demonisation of Alternative for Germany (AfD) Justified? proviene da InsideOver.

Seventeen candidates wanted to become the new leadership of Germany’s Social Democrats. In twenty-three regional conferences across all 16 German states, they introduced themselves to party members and the public in an attempt to stand out as the perfect fit for the former working-class party, that is fighting survival at this stage.

After the, what German media dubbed a controversial casting tour, concluded, over 425,000 SPD members were eligible to vote. On Saturday, it came down to the last two remaining teams. Vice-Chancellor and Minister of Finance Scholz and his co-candidate Klara Geywitz were expected to win, according to the polls. To everyone’s surprise, it was the other remaining duo that succeeded.

Congratulations to Walter Borjans, former Finance Minister of North Rhine-Westphalian and Saskia Esken, Member of Parliament. For those who now feel ignorant for not having heard their names rest assured that neither had most Germans. With just under 53 percent both prevailed. Now Germany’s former proud major party is led by two individuals, who hardly ever appeared in federal politics before and who have been labeled inexperienced and low-profile – in the more moderate assessments of Germany’s media.

The latter did not stop voters to put their faith in Borjans and Esken. And it illustrates their states of mind: the profile is secondary, experience tertiary. Relevant, so it appears, is only the stance on the grand coalition. As an exit, so the legend goes, would reanimate the patient SPD.

The notion that the grand coalition needed to be revisited was a major part of Borjans’ and Esken’s program. Scholz and Geywitz were in favor of continuing to work with the CDU/CSU. The voters disagreed. And despite several high-profile MPs siding openly with Scholz and Geywitz, both received just under 45 percent.

After the latest crushing state election defeats, where the former major party even failed to score double digits at times change was desperately needed. The youth wing within the party, the “JUSOS” and their chair Kevin Kühnert have long been opponents of the grand coalition and seek a hard turn to the left. Naturally, the group endorsed Borjans and Eskens.

Borjans’ and Esken’s manifesto reveals where the journey is supposed to go. Inter alia, the team seeks to turn away from the balanced federal budget, one of Merkel’s signature policies, increase the minimum wage to €12 per hour, force the implantation of stricter climate policies and renegotiate the coalition agreement. The issue? Particularly the latter is pretty much seen as impossible with the CDU, as already stated by chair Kramp-Karrenbauer. Nonetheless, the pressure on Borjans and Eskens in on and the base wants to see results, if necessary, a long-awaited goodbye to the grand coalition.

The result marks a paradigm shift, that was more than necessary. For the SPD to become successful again, it needs to reinvent itself first. Ten years as Merkel’s junior partner and a CDU that, under Merkel, has moved further and further to the middle, have left little room for the SPD to score with an own identity.

A sharp turn to the left and away from the CDU’s moderate stances should thus work in theory. However, it is hard to believe that the two new chairs possess the pedigree to facilitate the party’s resurrection. Furthermore, the division within the party has widened. Young uber progressives attempt to replace the pragmatist, who, for obvious reasons, have no interest in a new general election. The divide and the lack of faith in future leadership are also illustrated by the voter turnout for the candidates. Only 54.9% of the 425,000 members submitted a vote, despite their party being desperate for a change of course.

Most importantly, if Borjans and Eskens were true to opt-out of the grand coalition and force a new general election, can both be trusted in running a campaign of this magnitude? And where would it leave the party that currently polls between 13 and 15 percent?

It has been almost two decades of decrease popularity and inadequate party chairs. This time, it was supposed to be different. A magnum opus of party democracy. A vote for the people, by the people. The result remains the same. And so will the SPD’s descent.

L'articolo New Leadership for Germany’s SPD proviene da InsideOver.

Malta’s Joseph Muscat thought, on Sunday night, that he was giving the people what they wanted. He was wrong. Battered by a political crisis rooted in the murder of a journalist, the prime minister bowed to public anger, announcing his plan to stand down in January. But for the slain woman’s family, Muscat’s EU counterparts, and – crucially – the maddened Maltese masses, it is not enough. Worried that his continued tenure prevents a truly free investigation into one-time cabinet colleagues, they want him gone now.

For two years, Malta’s political establishment has quaked from the fallout of Daphne Caruana Galizia’s murder. A renowned investigative journalist, Caruana Galizia had exposed corruption at the highest levels of the Valletta government. Among her scoops was the involvement of Muscat’s chief of staff and tourism minister – Keith Schembri and Konrad Mizzi – in the ‘Panama Papers’ scandal. Both men deny any involvement in the 2017 car-bombing that claimed the reporter’s life – but last week, as allegations mounted, Schembri and Mizzi resigned.

Three men – two brothers and a third individual – have been charged with the killing, but few believe that they were anything more than hired hit-men. The search for the true mastermind brought police aboard a luxury yacht last month, trying to slip from Maltese water at dawn. Its owner, casino magnate Yorgen Fenech, has since been charged with complicity in the killing, which he denies. Caruana Galizia was reportedly looking into his business affairs when she died.

When Fenech went before the courts, he made a shocking accusation. Schembri had conspired in the murder plot, the businessman alleged, requesting immunity from prosecution in return for material evidence. For Muscat, an old school friend of Schembri’s, it was a disastrous development. Even when his former chief of staff was released by police without charge, the prime minister struggled to defend his proximity to those caught up in the case. Some decisions “could have been better made,” he admitted on Sunday, announcing his intention to stand down in the new year.

For Caruana Galizia’s loved ones, it’s a pitiful gesture. A day after Muscat’s declaration, the family launched legal action against the prime minister, demanding he resign immediately and play no further role in the murder probe. “Fenech wasn’t acting alone. The other villains are hiding behind Muscat,” said Mandy Mallia, the slain journalist’s sister, at a raucous demonstration outside government headquarters on Tuesday.

The vitriol of the protesters – some of whom pelted the prime minister with eggs as he arrived – speaks to Muscat’s dizzying fall from grace. Winning two landslide elections in his six-year tenure, he has enjoyed a largely successful premiership outside of the scandal. Malta is Europe’s fastest-growing economy – the island’s GDP leapt 6.8% in 2018 – and has seen significant social reform in recent years.

But the chaotic affair has, in the minds of many, tarnished his reputation beyond recovery. When Schembri was first outed as a beneficiary of secretive Panama shell companies by Caruana Galizia, Muscat defended him. And when Fenech – an alleged associate of Schembri – was revealed to be a suspect in the case, the prime minister still stood by his strategist – even including him in meetings on the investigation.

This apparently laissez-faire approach to alleged wrongdoing is below the prime minister’s position, critics argue. Beseeching Muscat’s MPs to put “national interest” before party loyalty, Opposition Leader Adrian Delia has called on them to “do what [he] didn’t do of his own volition” – immediately withdraw from office.

Delia’s rationale is clear: while Muscat clings to power, can the police probing members of his administration act with absolute liberty? The prime minister is himself free of any alleged connection to the murder – but it’s the principle that counts. For many in the country, the divide between Muscat and those suspected of involvement in the killing is just too narrow to tolerate.

Among EU ranks, there are concerns too. This week, an urgent delegation of MEPs arrived in Malta to examine the island nation’s rule of law. “Not reassured,” was how the mission’s leader described her feelings after meeting with the prime minister and promptly called on him to quit without delay.

For Manfred Weber MEP, a senior member of the group, the apparent lack of political accountability threatened the “entire European project,” he said. A hasty conclusion to the debacle is what the EU wants most. Left unchecked, the culture of impunity that has plagued the Caruana Galizia case could erode the bloc’s rule of law more widely. Free speech, democracy, justice – key pillars of EU doctrine – are all under threat in Malta, observers say.

But Muscat seems unperturbed. He struck a defiant tone on Sunday, saying the affair must not be allowed to “define everything that [Malta] is”. But for those furious citizens out on the streets, not least members of Caruana Galizia’s family, the case is everything to the island nation. Until he’s gone, that cannot change.

L'articolo Malta’s Prime Minister Muscat Says He’ll Resign proviene da InsideOver.