Euro Clashes: Will Internal Conflicts Damage the Future of Europe?

Written for The HuffPost UK

Much discussion between scholars has taken place on the topic of the European Union as a potential global power in a world where regions, such as the BRIC countries of Brazil, Russia, India and China, are becoming ever more prominent. The potential for the EU, and therefore its member states, to become influential international game players is certainly high and the Union has played an increasingly bigger role in international negotiations in recent years. However, to be a significant contender with global influence requires unity and coherence and a key question we should all ask ourselves is - are we there yet? Recent events suggests not.

During her visit to Greece last week, German chancellor Angela Merkel was greeted with violent protests against the current restrictive economic policies that Germany has proposed to help weather the storm of the Euro crisis.

These protests were to be expected. Certainly it is no secret that relations between Germany and Greece have steadily declined in recent years as a result of initial German reluctance to support the proposal of a Greek bail out in 2009. Yet whilst protest is healthy in democratic societies, the Greek population arguably took matters a step too far in comparing the policies imposed by Merkel to those of Adolf Hitler and revealed a fatal flaw within the European Union that could, euro pessimists would have you believe, ultimately lead to problems for the Union as a global contender.

The complete lack of unity between members of the European Union is a serious problem when attempting to formulate policy, resuscitate failing economies and compete with global powers such as China and the United States and was worryingly very evident last week. With current policies such as the 2008 Lisbon Treaty struggling to balance maintaining the Union, the single currency and the future of European foreign policy with a view to propelling the EU into the international arena as a global power, it seems relevant to ask - what hope can the Union possibly have if state antagonisms remain at the centre of how countries within the Union perceive each other?

By dressing up as Nazis, Greek protestors showed that, under pressure, states within the European Union revert back to suspicion and resentment of each other and historical grievances come to the surface. On a basic level, a state's national interest will always take priority over the interests of the collective but much of the future of the European Union relies on co-operation and unity. The recent episode in Greece suggests that perhaps the Union is not ready for such a commitment to each other.

The European Union was created with a common interest in strengthening regional relations and strengthening Europe's position on the world stage. It cannot be denied that positive outcomes such as the stabilization of much of Eastern Europe have resulted from the EU's creation and that today Europe has become a permanent feature in trade and has become increasingly significant in certain areas of international politics - Europe was the first to place sanctions on Iran following the perceived failure to comply with the Non Nuclear Proliferation Treaty.

Yet despite these successes, even when awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for creating stability and unity in regions such as the Balkans, member states appeared more interested in who would receive the prize than what the accolade meant for the Union's future image as a world power. The European Union has great theoretical potential and yet clear divisions between states still remain and until those are resolved - Europe can hope for little more than to remain a significant regional power with global power aspirations.

The Leveson Inquiry: Should We Care About Cameron's Response?

Written for The HuffPost UK

Talking to the BBC earlier this week, Hugh Grant expressed his fear that recommendations to change the way the media acts in society would fall upon deaf ears once the results of the on going Leveson Inquiry were released.

Set up to assess the ethical, practical and cultural factors of the media in today's society, the Leveson Inquiry has been closely followed by those that argue the media has overstepped it's boundary and become too powerful. Given that the media has long enjoyed the freedom to act as they please Grant is perhaps right to voice his fears. Showing a typically cautious response to controversial issues, Cameron has publically recognized the failures of the media sector but has been careful to remain ambivalent as to how far he would be willing to go to prevent the media abusing information available to them.

On the other hand, Grant and other critics of Cameron are arguably missing the point when debating how Cameron will act when faced with the results of the inquiry. Whether Cameron listens to the results and recommendations is of secondary importance at this very point in time. Any policies implemented will inevitably be a re hash of former policy in an attempt to appease a number of interested actors; a fact that political journalists should have realized at this point.

What is interesting and perhaps more important to come out of the inquiry is potential answers the inquiry will provide to questions surrounding what can be regarded as the public realm and the private, what information is allowed to be used and what isn't, what causes harm and what is infringement on an individuals right to privacy? Answers to these questions will have far more lasting an affect on the media culture and how society responds to the media than any direct policy by one specific person.

Since the early 19th century questions surrounding the divide between public and private, state and individual, intervention and freedom have influenced ideologies and politicians regarding how the state is structured. Arguably the most influential and recognizable figure regarding these issues was John Stuart Mill. Still very relevant to issues today, Mill argued against excessive state interference on the basis that society could be divided into to very distinct spheres (the private and the public) and that the state could only legitimately interfere in one - namely the public sphere.

For Mill, the public sphere was defined as those areas that affected society as a whole. If an individual's actions resulted in harm being caused to others then Mill would claim that the action should be subject to state interference. On the other hand, if an individual's action affected none but themselves the state could not interfere. For Mill, the individuals right to freedom of speech, press, action and involvement was critical to the well being of society and much of what Mill writes can be seen in the way the state has acted for the last two centuries.

Yet the recent scandals surrounding the media suggest that the division betwen public and private is not as distinct as Mill would like. Cameron himself has stated, "We don't want heavy-handed state intervention. We have got to have a free press. They have got to be free to uncover wrongdoing, to follow the evidence, to do the job in our democracy that they need to do."

In Mill's distinction, every individual has the right to freedom of speech and as such a journalist is doing no wrong in writing an opinion. However, when what is written causes harm, even if it is arguably necessary harm, can the press be regarded as entering the public sphere and therefore subject to state intervention?

Much of what has been discussed throughout the Leveson Inquiry relates to this issue. Were the press right to steal information from unwitting individuals in the search of evidence to back an opinion or a story. Is it freedom of speech, press and action for a journalist to write controversial stories that will inevitably lead to consequences for an institution, an individual or society as a whole? Will state intervention regarding the press infringe on our rights to personal freedom and is this a good or necessary result?

The story of Max Mosley is a good example. Many argued that Mosley's sexual antics were rightly publicized due to the idea that as a powerful man with high influence his actions could cause potential harm to the public. Yet many argued his private life, regardless of how colourful, should remain private and as such the media need to be regulated to prevent such incidents happening again.

What it boils down to is the question regarding what is private and what is public? What does the state control and who decides? In light of these questions, the potential answers the Leveson Inquiry will provide is far more compelling a result than Cameron's response. Hugh Grant, take note.

British Politics: Style Over Substance?

Written for The HuffPost UK

On Wednesday 26 September David Cameron became the first British Prime Minister to appear on a chat show in the United States. Chatting and joking with David Letterman, Cameron spoke of British ambitions and the crisis in Syria.

So far not groundbreaking news, but following the infamous publicity stunts of Mayor of London, Boris Johnson, in the weeks of the Olympic and Paralympic Games and the current culture of paying more attention to Theresa May's leopard print shoes or Samantha Cameron's new dress, this recent publicity move from Cameron raises questions about the way politics is presented and enacted within Britain today.

Across the pond the rise of John F Kennedy famously changed the way the game of politics was played out in America. His presidential campaign marked a step away from the traditional focus on matters of pure policy towards a focus on personality, publicity stunts, fashion and then - and only then - on political issues.

This year's Presidential campaign is no different. Barack Obama is a constant on American chat shows and make no mistake that, whilst it was entertaining and thoroughly enjoyable, Obama's rendition of Al Green's Let's Stay Together during his speech in New York a couple of months ago was most probably thought up by his clever PR team to reinforce his image of a cool and approachable president.

Is Britain going the same way? The era of 'New Labour' in the early nineties marked a transition phase. Whilst previous Prime Ministers Margaret Thatcher and John Mayor had maintained a sense of tradition within politics, even if the policies themselves often caused controversy, Tony Blair and the Labour party courted aspects of pop culture ("Cool Britannia") being photographed with popular TV actresses and musicians.

Fast forward to 2012 and Boris Johnson is being heralded as the next Conservative Prime Minister after becoming stuck in a zipwire and then being filmed dancing to the Spice Girls at the Olympic Closing Ceremony. For what reason? Because he makes people laugh, but should he be judged as a politician purely by these antics? Probably not.

Whilst political interest in Britain is declining and the turnout for general elections has been at its lowest for the past three political elections, interest in fashion and culture is increasing. As a result, British politics seems to be increasingly dumbed down to what its leading players are wearing or who they can be seen with.

Looking at country stereotypes Britain has always been presented as the stuffy older brother to America's fast paced, loud-mouthed youth. In Hollywood films, the British are often found wearing tweed, drinking tea and are often presented as cold hearted and traditional.

In most areas of life, we know that Britain is a far cry from these stereotypes: yes, granted, we drink tea, but we do have Cool Britannia, Kate Moss and the success of the 2012 Olympic Games to show that Britain can be more a contemporary to America. Despite this, though, politics and politicians have always maintained a distance from these more frivolous social aspects of Britain and this has, arguably, been to the benefit of society.

When a political leader spends more time worrying about who he should associate himself rather than the policies he should be enacting, it is ultimately the people that lose out. Look at today's dissatisfaction with political parties. Yes Samantha Cameron can dress to impress but satisfaction with the way the government works is at a gruesome low.

Politicians have always linked themselves with popular people for support but the problem today is that this is all politicians seem to focus on. Is Britain following American politics in its focus on personality and style over substantial policy change? Let's face it, in today's current climate we need politicians who know what they are talking about and although leopard print does suit Theresa, I'd far rather talk about her actions than her shoes.

U.S Pledge to Afghanistan: Will the presidential campaign alter things?

Featured in The Pryer.

The run-up to the United States presidential election is already upon us, with the recent announcement of Paul Ryan as the Republican vice-presidential candidate.

One issue that candidates have been less vocal about is Afghanistan and American military forces. Earlier this year Britain’s defence minister announced plans to cut the British forces by more than half amongst shouts in the House of Commons that Britain can no longer afford such an army. One wonders which route the American president will take, how this will affect Afghanistan and whether the US can maintain such a foothold in the Middle East.So far the two presidential candidates, Obama and Romney, have discussed the issues of the healthcare proposals Obama’s administration put forward (so-called ‘Obamacare’), the role of women in society and, only this week, a Republican party member was discussing the explosive topic of abortion.

Under the Obama administration, the United States has pledged to support Afghanistan for ten years after the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel in 2014. The announcement of this partnership in April of this year raised interesting questions about the nature of nation-building and aid, as well as continuing U.S. interests in the state and region.

While the partnership sent a message to the Afghan people that the West will not abandon them, it was seemingly also a warning to the Taliban and neighboring states that a Western departure will not be an opportunity to make mischief.

Cynically speaking, the announcement was timely for President Obama given the controversies that have marred America’s relationship with Afghanistan—the burning of Korans by U.S. soldiers, the recent release of photographs showing soldiers posing with Afghan bodies, and the murderous rampage of Staff Sergeant Robert Bales.

The promise of continued American support signifies an attempt to assuage such tensions while making a graceful exit, but one must wonder; if Obama secures a second term, is a long-term influx of American aid what is needed in Afghanistan?

Writing in the Guardian in November 2011, Bill Easterly warned of the American tendency to use development initiatives as opportunities to strengthen defence. Easterly suggests that the American habit of providing aid to war-torn and fragile states in the interest of national security is “misguided.”

Instead the focus should be on “areas with a better track record—health, education, infrastructure, and clean water and sanitation—operating in societies where war, repression and corruption do not make it pointless for aid to operate.”

Obama has continued an aid legacy that according to Easterly is ineffective, would a second term unhindered by the need to consider re-election prospects change this? Would Republican Romney offer a different perspective on the topic of aid and Afghanistan?

Perhaps a more potent question that rises from the American pledge is: will it even work? Speaking at Carnegie Council in 2011, Francis Fukuyama discussed the problems that arise when outside influences attempt to help a nation rebuild itself: “I don’t think we realize how difficult it is, how many resources it takes, and how long a process it is.”

Economist Dambisa Moyo is more specific in her criticism of outside influence, stating that the problem with aid is that citizens cannot hold their governments fully accountable as the agendas of aid donors often influence any decision made.

At the time of the announcement the main question was: in the case of Afghanistan, will the American partnership hinder government with hidden agendas or will Afghanistan benefit from the protection of the U.S from potential threats?

Today I am asking, will the pledge change under a new President and why are the candidates remaining quiet over an issue that until recently was front page news?

When Enough is Enough.

Featured in The Pryer

Thursday 2^nd of August should have been a wake up call for the International Community and yet for most the news of Kofi Annan’s resignation as special envoy of the UN and League of Arab States for Syria will not have registered. This is the depressing reality of international politics today. Whilst stories of victims in Aleppo continued to be broadcast many fail to realise that it is time for serious change.

For lack of a better phrase, the twenty – first century is stuck in a rut and going nowhere very fast. This needs to change and not only because the crisis in Syria has reached critical point. Look at all policies regarding domestic and international politics in the last century. How much has effectively changed? Not much is the answer.

Yes, there have been slight shifts here and there and the odd successful international policy but we are still stuck in the same relationships and organisations that grind to a halt at the prospect of action, we are still vulnerable to economic downturns due to the folly of others, we still have nuclear weapons despite decades of trying to eliminate them and we still live under the loom of distant war whether it be with Iran, China, North Korea or whoever. Effectively, the International System has ground to a halt.

In his farewell letter for The Financial Times Annan wrote “The UN has condemned the further descent to civil war but the fighting still goes on with no sign of relief for Syrians…while the Security Council is trapped in stalemate, so too is Syria.” Annan’s words are cutting in their truth about an entire political system that relies on age old alliances to save a situation despite an unwillingness for anyone to step forward and act.

Whilst reading Keith Payne on the topic of the popular Cold War theory of nuclear deterrence and its future, I was struck by his assessment of U.S defense policy and America’s reliance on a theory created in Cold War context. In his book he writes, “The confidence in deterrence that typified the Cold War is presumed to apply in China and to rogue states as if dramatic changes in opponent and context are irrelevant.” The argument being, that much has changed in the system and yet America has failed to grasp that policies might need to change alongside.

The United Nations has been symbolic of the step towards international cooperation since the end of the Second World War yet is now seemingly used as an excuse by all nations to shrug off responsibilities; Likewise the ever-popular Non – Nuclear Proliferation Treaty or the European Union. Where direct action has been necessary in the past these symbols of international cooperation have provided an excuse not to.

So far so dramatic, but think of examples. Had one of the nuclear states stepped up and eliminated nuclear stockpiles many would have followed yet states continue to splutter and negotiate. Had one country in Europe spoken up about the spending of others long before crisis hit perhaps the euro zone would have fared slightly better.  Had one country spoken up against Russian and Chinese reluctance to assist in Syria perhaps more forces would have been sent and Aleppo would not have suffered like they are doing so today.

Whilst this all sounds idealistic, maybe we should recognize that our system is failing and change is needed. Can we honestly say the United Nations is working? Can we hold our heads high and say we are doing all we can? Can we point to one nation that is providing necessary leadership? The West has long heralded its system of democracy and international cooperation as the one to emulate but are we failing to recognize that systems are crumbling and we should return to the drawing board? If Kofi Annan cannot see a way forward without change, then perhaps we should take note.

Army Cuts: A shift for the 21st Century.

Last week the Secretary of State for Defence Philip Hammond announced major cuts to the size of the British Army. Amidst battles to save the pound and the euro, improve Britain’s social infrastructure and keep the governing Coalition from falling apart in general, the issue of war and defence has taken a backseat. Is this a good move on the part of the government?

In a word, Yes. In general the 21^st century has witnessed a major shift in attitudes to war. Where once the maxim of Carl Von Clauswitz that war was a logical extension of politics held precedence for a nations foreign policy, the same no longer applies. Since 1945 outright war has been the very last option a state seeks to enact and bar a few obvious examples in the last decade, major wars between states have been few and far between.

The creation of organisations such as the United Nations, trade alliances such as MERCOSUR and whole regions such as the Euro zone illustrates the distinct shift the International System has experienced in way of state interaction. Where once the system was defined by its wars and then its allegiance to a certain block during the Cold war era, the system now relies on cooperation. In an era where diplomacy and discussion takes precedence, the British government have taken the plunge and begun to dismantle what has become, since the Iraq war in 2003, a huge financial and PR drain for the government.

Some have been quick to criticise the move with the view that once cut, the Army will never recover and we will be severely weakened in terms of defence. Whilst I understand the argument, it is almost impossible to agree. Britain has long relied on alliances to boost its international strength. Without an Empire we would not have been considered a formidable power and the defeat of Hitler Germany only succeeded with the assistance of France, Russia and America. A more worrying move is the expansion of the Territorial Army. Whilst I understand the need for reserves, I am distinctly uncomfortable with the promotion of youths practising at playing soldiers.

I am in no way slamming the British Forces, who I think do an incredibly brave job, nor am I applauding the loss of thousands of jobs and livelihoods. However, when looking at the world today we need to ask ourselves, what need do we have a sprawling army? Surely we have other priorities.

French Politics: Separation between State and Bedroom please.

Last week the latest saga in what has been described by the Telegraph as a “catfight” between the current and former lovers of France’s recent President Francois Hollande took a turn for the public and has raised interesting questions about politics and the roles that love, sex and infidelity have to play in the French political arena.

The tensions between Hollande’s former partner Segolene Royal and the current First ‘Girlfriend’ of France, Valerie Trierweiler, are no different to tensions that would surround any relationship between two women in one mans life. Yet what distinguishes this relationship and to a certain extent causes alarm is that all players are significant political figures and the prize is no longer Hollande but the French public. 

In the past we have seen politicians use the personal lives of opponents to win an election. No one will forget the infamous speech President Bill Clinton was force to make after his affair with an employee was discovered yet France has failed to recognize that whilst the public look to the women beside politicians, personal scandals can do no favours and the “C’est la vie” attitude we have come to expect just doesn’t cut it in current political climes.

Looking at last week’s French parliamentary election in which Royal was running, this is evident. With starkly different political policies to his predecessor and the recent questioning of relations between France and Germany, the French elections were an opportunity for Hollande to promote a sense of direction and calm for a general public clearly unimpressed with the actions of Sarkozy. Trierweiler, however, deflected any news of the political outcome with, what one can only suspect as, a calculated tweet in support of Royal’s opponent. Where Clinton, Obama, Cameron and all others would be in public overdrive, Hollande of course has said nothing.

Whilst Twitter is the forum in which meaningless isms are posted on a regular basis, the decision to open fire on issues relating to politics when they should be personal is a dangerous one yet one that frequently occurs in France. One has only to look at the history of the French monarchy to see how the indulgence in women and sex left government estranged to its people. And let’s not forget former President Nicolas Sarzoky, his high profile divorce and his marriage to former model Carla Bruni.

Marrying Bruni soon after his messy divorce to another presidential hopeful, Sarkozy portrayed a man more interested in women than in politics. In 2008 Sarkozy’s popularity was steadily in decline due to the view that the President was ignoring his country to have fun with his new wife. Sarkozy’s visit to England in 2010 was an opportunity to discuss a deeper relationship between the two countries, yet all politics was forgotten when a picture of a naked Carla Bruni went on sale at Christies. Whilst Sarkozy publicly showed disappointment one can only a suspect smugness in the man who paraded his wife around as an example of his pulling power.

Jacques George, author of Sex et Politique, has claimed when discussing France “To come to power, you have to seduce, and to stay there, you have to prove yourself vigoureux.” Is this the correct way forward? Should Sarkozy and Hollande have mixed politics and sex? Whilst every country has its scandals in parliament, one can’t help but think that France continues to take it too far.

It seems that England has trouble separating Media and State, America continue to confuse Church and State and France seem to think that the State takes place in the bedroom. Only time will tell if France will tire of the scandals of Hollande as they did so with Sarkozy.