Hugo Chavez swearing in postponed due to illness

Written for The Upcoming

The inauguration of the elected Venezuelan President, Hugo Chavez, due to take place on the 10^th of January has been postponed as a result of Chavez’s continuing illness.

The inauguration of Hugo Chavez has been postponed until further notice causing divisions between the opposition and the incumbent government. Photo: UKBERRI.NET

Still being treated in Cuba for a lung infection following surgery related to his cancer, Chavez remains unable to travel currently, making an inauguration ceremony in Venezuela impossible for the time being.

The decision made by legislators to postpone the inauguration, thus giving the ailing President time to recover, has led to division in the country with many in the opposition party, including party leader Henrique Capriles, according to BBC reports, calling this division a constitutional crisis due to the perceived manipulation of the constitution on the part of the incumbent government.

Indeed, while the opposition party cite Article 233 of the Venezuelan constitution that declares “when there is an absolute absence of the President – elect before taking office, there shall be a new election…within the next 30 days”, the government insist that Chavez’s absence is only temporary and cite Article 234 that allows for the Presidency to be filled by the elect Vice President for a period of 90 days.

While opinion is divided over whether to call Chavez’s absence absolute or temporary, no headway can be made in finding a resolution and the question of who will govern the country remains unanswered.

The likelihood of elections being held, however, is being described as tenuous with the opposition arguing that the incumbent government’s mandate should expire on the 10^th and that the Speaker of the National Assembly, Diosdado Cabello, should occupy the role of President until new elections are held.

However, Angel Gonzalez and Kejal Vyas of The Wall Street Journal report that the Supreme Court are unlikely to rule in favour of this unless directly requested by Chavez or in light of the President’s death.

Although the focus in recent months has been on whether Chavez is healthy enough to run a country, nothing has been disclosed about the seriousness of his illness or even the type of cancer the President is battling.

Reports worldwide, therefore, have varied considerably and reports are reduced to mere speculation at this point in time. The Supreme Court plan to meet on Wednesday at 14:00 GMT to decide what action should be taken. Until then, the fate of the Venezuelan government remains unclear.

Indian Gang Rape Suspects Appear in Court

Written for The Upcoming

The five men accused of gang-raping a 23-year-old student in Delhi, India arrive in court today facing charges of abduction, gang-rape and murder following the victim’s death in hospital days after the attack.

The five men accused of raping a 23-year-old student in Delhi arrive in court amongst worldwide protests and calls for the death penalty.
Photo: Chase Carter /CMCARTERSS

In what has been considered a landmark court case for India and the judicial system, the suspects, who have appeared in court in the district of Saket, face the prospect of the death sentence if successfully convicted.

The six men, five of whom have been named in the Press as Ram Singh, Mukesh Singh, Pawan Gupta, Vinay Sharma and Akshay Thakur (whilst the sixth remains unnamed due to his age), arrived at court in a blue police van to be met with a flurry of lawyers, protestors and journalists. Whilst two of the suspects are said to have agreed to give evidence against the others in return for a more lenient sentence, Divya Gopalan of Aljazeera has spoken to prosecutors who are reported to have seemingly irrefutable forensic evidence against all of the accused.

Making headlines across the world, this particular case has highlighted the apparent flaws in the Indian judicial system. Facing worldwide criticism following the accusations from the victim’s father that police had initially been reluctant to pursue the case, the Indian government has faced mounting pressure to securing convictions in cases of violence against women.

In the light of worldwide scrutiny and the urging of UN Secretary General to take action, the Indian Prime Minister, Manmohan Singh, has made a concerted effort to meet the victim’s family whilst the Indian government has promised that the case will be fast-tracked. Indeed, reports from the Saket Court for the time being suggested that the case will be transferred to a higher court following this primary appearance.

The high-profile nature of this case, and the worldwide outrage it has elicited, places a heavy burden on the Indian government and its judicial system to appropriate justice and improve the speed of convictions. At the moment, India is seemingly answering calls for improvements: yet only time will tell.

Nukes in North Korea are nothing to worry about.

Featured on Opinion Panel,  HuffPostUK and The Pryer

Wednesday the 12th of December 2012 marked the first successful attempt by North Korea to launch a rocket into space. Calling it a triumph for the year old Administration of Kim Jong – Un, North Korean officials such as Kim Ki-nam have stated that the rocket launch was a Satellite and it’s launch was an “independent right” that should not be condemned by the international community.

The international community, however, have viewed the launch as something very different to the official North Korean Story and much of 2013 will no doubt be spent keenly examining any further progression. Many reports have indicated that the rocket launch is the beginning of the North Korean attempt to create long-range missiles that, if successful, could launch nuclear weapons as far as North America.

The United Nations, the UK and the US have been most vocal in their condemnation of the move by North Korea whilst political commentators have argued that the rocket launch has proven to be the final nail in the coffin for the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty that has served to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons for more than thirty years. Overall, there seems to be a general consensus that a nuclear-armed North Korea, positioned by former President George W Bush along the ‘Axis of Evil’, is a very worrying prospect for international peace and stability in 2013 and beyond. But is it?

Assuming that the rocket launch that took place is the beginning of attempts to create long – range missile capability, the existence of nuclear weapons in North Korea, whilst certainly unnerving, arguably won’t change the status quo of the international system all that much. Looking at the theoretical perspectives, the overarching view is that nuclear weapons has actually reduced the prospect of all out international conflict and has increased stability.

Why?

From the layout of the international system since the onset of the Cold War, it is evident that the existence of nuclear weapons introduced a much higher risk for all countries involved and as a result much less outright conflict occurred; the higher the stakes, the less risk a country is willing to take. Instead, states undertook a game of brinkmanship in which countries would seek to push the boundaries and provoke reactions without eliciting all out war.

Examining the Cuban Missile Crisis, in which Russia sought to place nuclear missiles in Cuba despite US condemnation of the move, this game of cat and mouse to achieve small gains was evidently in play. Both countries threatened nuclear warfare yet arguably had no intention of following through. The result being that both sides conceded significantly and gains were made. Today, this game of brinkmanship as a result of nuclear weapons can be applied to Iran and it’s recent negotiations with America. Indeed, Iran arguably seeks to push the boundaries applied to the international system yet, as thinkers such as Barry Posen have argued, has no intention of seeking nuclear war with America and it’s allies. Essentially, nuclear weapons act as a negotiating tool.

Glance at the history of nuclear weapons and it’s no coincidence that no world war has taken place since their creation. As Kenneth Waltz argued in the 1980s, “Nuclear weapons have been the second force working for peace in the post – war world”. Whilst during the Cold War, nuclear weapons acted as a shield and a deterrent towards other countries, today they merely serve the purpose of showing other states you mean business in order to prevent attack or invasion. When looking at the North Korean rocket launch from this perspective, then, the perceived attempt to create long-range missiles is unnerving yet not earth shattering.

When considering the rocket launch from a practical perspective, it’s recent success is perhaps even more underwhelming. Indeed, one must not forget that only in April this year the country suffered international embarrassment when it’s scheduled rocket launch failed to reach significant heights and fizzled our spectacularly before entering space. One success when blanketed between several failures does not signal an immediate threat to international peace and stability.

Looking closely at the North Korean economy, the likelihood of a sustained nuclear weapons program is doubtful. Continuously ranked low in international surveys and data, it seems unlikely that the country can afford the $52 billion price tag it took for the United States to maintain nuclear capability in 2008. With a food crisis, economic decline and economic and political isolation, North Korea face many more challenges and obstacles before effective nuclear capability is reached.

So should we be worried about this recent rocket launch and the prospect of North Korean long – range missiles?

Taking the specific issue, I’d argue not for the time being. Yet the US and other members of the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty must treat this recent event as a serious wake up call. Attempts at negotiations with both Iran and North Korea have been unsuccessful perhaps indicating that an overtly aggressive stance is not particularly effective. Whilst nuclear weapons remain, countries will try and seek them and perhaps one must look at this from a theoretical perspective rather than a national security threat.

As Scott Sagan has commented, “It seems to me that recent American policy has created a far greater risk of giving states incentives by threatening them so often”. Perhaps, we should look at the recent rocket launch more pragmatically and less as if it is the coming Armageddon. With Kim Jong – Uns recent declaration that peace should be brokered between North and South, perhaps the new leader is not as bellicose as the US and others have given him credit for.

What's Happening in Gaza? An Attempt to Look at the Conflict From a Novice's Perspective

Written for The HuffPost UK

In the last two weeks the world has seen a rapid unfolding of events within the Middle East. France and Britain have officially recognized the Syrian opposition, Egypt has proven its ability to act as a global mediator in events outside its borders and once again conflict has erupted in Gaza between the Palestinians and Israelis. Coming at such a troubled time for the Middle East, the renewed fighting between the two sides is highly significant.

So what is happening?

At the point of going to press, calls for a ceasefire between Palestine and Israel had been made after both Hamas and Israeli leaders issued statements and put forward conditions for the negotiation process that is currently being led by the neighboring state of Egypt. As of 21 November a ceasefire has been brokered yet the likelihood of a successful ceasefire holding at this point in time is tenuous. Indeed, despite international calls from the United States, the European Union and Russia for both parties to begin diplomatic negotiation there is still fear within Gaza of a ground attack implemented by Israeli soldiers and missiles are still being sent erratically.

Why this latest eruption?

The relationship between the Palestine government and Israel has come under increasing tension since 2006 and the Palestinian election that led to the rise of Hamas. Recognised by the European Union and the United States as a leading terrorist group that is accused of recklessly endangering the lives of civilians to achieve policy goals, the election led to the Israeli government blockading the border between Gaza and Israel. Although the Israelis defended this decision with claims of self-defense and the protection of it's citizens, Hamas and the Palestinians residing within the Gaza strip have accused the Israeli government of breaking international law and illegitimately causing the suffering of Palestinian people.

Although unofficially recognised as a state, the Palestinians were due to meet with the United Nations General Assembly this month to discuss upgrading their current observer status to non - member status. The political impact of this being that, whilst still not recognised as a formal member of the United Nations, the Palestinian government would have greater international standing and legitimacy. Had talks gone through and Palestine's status been upgraded, Palestine would have been in a position to call Israel's actions since 2006 a breach of international law.

In light of rising frustrations within the Gaza, the missile attacks on Israel is seen by some as a way to garner international support and raise awareness to the perceived plight of citizens of Gaza suffering as a result of Israeli blockades.

How legitimate are the actions of both Israel and those in the Gaza?

Neither Hamas nor Israel are completely immune to international criticism. Whilst the argument has been made that Hamas have provoked this recent eruption of conflict, Israel's claims of self-defense have also come under scrutiny. Although, Hamas seek to gain state recognition against Israel it is the very fact that the Gaza is not yet recognized that has led to calls of Israeli attack to be challenged; as Gaza is not considered an official state, some argue it is still under Israeli occupation and as a result Israeli actions cannot be seen as self-defense.

What is clear is that as the conflict continues and the casualties rise, the less certain the outcome will be. Indeed, what was originally a conflict over territory, both Israel and Palestine claim ownership of land surrounding the Gaza strip and Jerusalem, has escalated in current years. This escalation will only get worse once Palestine secure non-member status within the UN and can threaten to the Israeli government to the International Court of Law.

With most international actors calling for a two state resolution and a dividing of territory, this conflict is one of many that have occurred over a forty-year period. Internationally, then, the recent conflict has caused a headache for key players such as the United States and the European Union. Indeed, Barack Obama has backed Israel's decision to bombard the Gaza strip in order to neutralize violent factions of Hamas yet in doing so runs the risk of pushing the Palestinians into the arms of Iran. This is looking more and more likely with reports of Iranian missiles being used against Israel in the recent attack.

For the European Union, both Israel and a state of Palestine are of strategic importance. As one of the largest donors to the Gaza, the Union has recognized the importance of economic and social troubles that have led to rising desperation within the Gaza. On the other hand, Israel has become one of the largest trading partners for the Union within the Middle East. As a result both the United States and the EU appear to be torn between conflicting interests.

Within the region, Israel must be careful not to alienate Egypt. Indeed, with support from both Turkey and Iran, the Palestinian quest for recognition as an official state, territorial gains and an upgraded UN status appears to be gaining prominence. With Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan so unstable - Israel is currently in a delicate situation. Certainly, bellicose language from the prime minister has alluded to possible conflict with Iran in the near future. To be successful the state would be wise to limit anti-Israeli sentiment.

What the future holds for relations between Israel, a state of Palestine and the Gaza strip is far from easy to predict. Factors such as whether the UN consider Palestine's request for an upgrade, whether Iran will seek to involve itself in regional conflicts more and finally whether Israel and Palestine will ever agree on border divisions will all affect how the two sides will develop. What is certain at this point in time, however, is that the Middle East is once again at crisis point and that the international system must keep an eye on unfolding events.

Why Pink Floyd's 'Comfortably Numb' Perfectly Sums Up Today's Generation

Written for The HuffPost UK

On paper, modern British society has never had it better. We all have the vote, we have (more or less) equal opportunities, we have freedom of movement, speech, action, choice, everything.

Socially, women are becoming more and more prominent within businesses, class is beginning to count less and less in most circles and, thanks to the process of globalisation, we have access to different cultures, attitudes and resources. Materially, we have every gadget under the sun. Indeed, iPads, iPhones, Androids and Blackberries are all at our disposal and offer us the latest in media updates, games, social media and so on. Looking back even to 1990, the progression in British society is evident and, yet, we as a generation seemed to have regressed.

Politically speaking, voter turnout continues to decrease, student apathy towards politics, the government and current affairs has seemingly increased and even politicians seem uninterested choosing to leave Westminster in favour of the jungles of Australia as has most recently been done by one Conservative MP.

But it's not just politics. Society as a whole seems to be increasingly disengaged and dissatisfied. Self-help books are now seemingly published monthly, diagnosis of depression, anxiety and similar disorders are on the up, indeed the World Health Organisation's World Mental Health Survey Initiative found that in high income countries one in six were likely to experience depression, and more and more individuals appear to lack any direction or drive.

Why?

One possible reason is opportunity overload; Society has never had so many choices yet it is this breadth of choice that leaves us cold. Women are offered the opportunity to return to work once having children and yet it is this choice that leaves many so undecided - Which decision is the right decision? Similarly, with so much opportunity out there many struggle to choose and end up floundering as a result. More and more students leave university with no clue as to what they want to achieve in life and student unemployment is depressingly high. Furthermore, between April and June this year, the Office for National Statistics recorded a whooping 3.68 million living in workless households.

Searching for the one job, decision, action or material object that will make us 'happy' is made harder with so much on offer. Society has become so accustomed to having multiple options that today's generation is constantly striving for the newest 'thing' to make us happy. It's no coincidence that one of the world's greatest recessions since the 1930's has hit today's generation; the constant striving for more inevitably leads to over-zealous borrowing, lending and spending and look where that has left us.

Ancient Greek philosopher Aristotle once argued that in order to achieve the scared goal of happiness, man must learn to accept balance. That is to say, it is only when we balance virtues and vices that are we truly content. Having too much of a good thing, then, is often not the answer. Written in the 1980's, Pink Floyd's hit 'Comfortably Numb' perfectly sums up our generation. With so much potential we should be striving ahead, actively participating and evolving yet having too much of a good thing has left us feeling alienated, unsatisfied, indecisive and numb.

Obama: The 'Audacity to Hope' Take Two?

Written for The HuffPost UK

Today President Obama in 2012 and James Bond have one thing in common; pressure to live up to the hype. 2012's Skyfall appears to have satisfied the critics but will Obama?

In 2008 Obama presented himself as the man to implement change. He declared that he would not use smear tactics to win the campaign against George W Bush, he declared he would end the War on Terror, he declared he would challenge the systems and he spoke of the American exceptionalism that sets the country apart from others. His inauguration speech was filled with determination and praise of America as a nation and his final words, "let it be said by our children's children that when we were tested we refused to let this journey end, that we did not turn back nor did we falter; and with eyes fixed on the horizon and God's grace upon us, we carried forth that great gift of freedom and delivered it safely to future generations" inspired many.

Look at 2012 and inspiration is low. America is facing challenges to it's supremacy from rising powers such as China, the War on Terror in the Middle East is still being fought - although Obama has since stopped calling it that, relations with countries such as Iran are tenser, the economy is still a problem and Obamacare is facing huge criticism and protest. The Presidential Election was deemed one of the most bitter in American history. As a result, Obama's campaign moved away from the positive and clean tactics of 2008 and shifted gear. The result was adverts raising questions about possible tax evasion, Romney's history and the 'dangerous' policies Romney would implement. It seems as if much of what Obama stood for four years ago has fizzled out.

Or has it? Have the failures to implement radical change been the fault of Obama and has he given up on all that he stood for? It is foolish to rule him out. America is difficult to crack. It's sharp division of powers often means domestically policies are slow to implement and push through, it's vocal and impatient public are often quick to criticize and the America that Obama inherited was not in good health. Much of what Obama is trying to implement goes against deep-rooted discourse in America, combined with a divided Congress, House of Representatives and White House, Obama is severely constrained by America itself.

The next four years offer a distinct opportunity for Obama. The second administration of any President is always different to the first. This is due to the fact that the President no longer has to worry about maintaining voters to win the next election and can push forward implementing the key policies they introduced in the first administration. So far we have heard much political rhetoric from Obama but very little political action - is this set to change? Looking at the recent campaign and political rallies, Obama's resolve appears to have hardened and with four years experience of the in fighting on Capitol Hill one can assume the Obama of 2012 is yet more determined to fulfil his promises.

If you look at the administrations of George W Bush, the second administration was more moderate behind closed doors than during the first. This has been attributed to the fact that Bush recognized in his first administration that being tough on terror was a vote winner whilst in the second administration there was apparent recognition of the failures of U.S foreign policy.

Obama has the opportunity to push forward and push for change once more. What is needed is not the politely cool President from 2008 but a determined one. Bill Clinton has called Obama "cool on the outside but burning for America on the inside" but what we need to see now is that burning on the outside. The next four years could see this change. Indeed, the campaign was different so might we hope for a more active administration? America has voted, Obama's future has been decided, what America needs now is ,to quote an old American favourite, 'a little less conversation, a little more action please'

Students and Politics: Are We Bothered?

Written for The HuffPost UK

Last week Liberal Democrat MP for Bath, Don Foster, participated in a panel debate held by the University of Bath's Student Union to discuss issues that directly affected the student population yet students failed to show any interested in the debate or the issues. Cast your mind back to 2011 and the student protests that took place nationwide and it might seem odd. The question I want to ask is, are we students really that bothered about politics?

The main topic of discussion was the controversial 'Article 4' - a housing strategy that proposes limitations being placed on houses available to students in cities with large student populations. Following the rise in fees one would expect students to rally around the issue of policies centered on limiting house availability and as a result potentially hiking rent prices, yet few students that were asked had even heard of the proposal.

With the upcoming national demonstration against university fees coming up in November many expected the debate to stimulate impassioned cries from the student population. However, the Bath student community has yet to decide if the Union will join the November demonstrations on their behalf. With issues directly affecting students becoming increasingly prominent nationally the question we should all ask ourselves is, why are we failing to engage in politics?

Blame has been placed on the parties themselves. The Liberal Democrats have faced the brunt of criticism with calls for Nick Clegg to step down as leader of the Party in the next election. The common cry is that Clegg and the Lib Dems have betrayed us. What should be considered, however, is that since the 2011 protests there has been little political participation to suggest that the majority of students are actively engaged in politics and the issues that affect them regardless of what the parties do. Certainly in Bath there is very little political participation.

Looking at past protests, such as those that took place last year, many appeared unsure of the issues they were protesting against. Of course, as a politics student myself I am not condemning the whole of the student population. Nor am I tarring all with the same brush. In certain pockets there has been engagement and many that protested were there as a direct result of the disappointment they felt at the rising fees. I am simply posing the question - are the majority of students interested in politics and if not how can we change this?

The recent trend towards using political gimmicks is not, in my opinion, the route to go down if British politicians wish to be taken seriously but with such an unengaged student population politicians need to consider how they can reach out to young voters.

Don Foster spoke of lowering the voting age to 16 but would this have any affect? A lot suggests that it wouldn't. Students seem to be less and less engaged in politics but is this the fault of the political parties? Bath University offered students the opportunity to voice their disappointment in policies implemented by the Coalition government and very few turned up. Is the fault of Don Foster? I don't think so. Last month Nick Clegg issued a public statement apologizing to students for agreeing to an increase in fees. Yet I am unsure that students have disengaged due to errors made by a political party. Disappointingly I think the majority of students just aren't interested in political issues and this is something that needs to be addressed on both a local level in student communities and a national level.