A Continental Disgrace: The EU's Foreign Policy Neglect

Angus McNeill Peel

The European Union was created with the primary aim of maintaining peace in the continent and protecting its citizens from German revanchism and Soviet Communist expansion. While Europe’s economies continue to flounder and Greece heads for impending financial disaster, the EU also faces imminent and severe geopolitical threats that are not being dealt with.

The war in Ukraine continues with dysfunctional ceasefires doing little to prevent a region of 2 million people in the Donbas being steadily ruined by shelling and poverty. Meanwhile Putin is able to visit his new province Crimea to review the navy that was stolen from the Ukrainians. Further west, the Russian occupation of Transniestria in Moldova heightens the challenges faced by Europe’s least developed country in its bid to become an EU accession candidate. Across the Black Sea and beyond the Eastern Anatolian mountains, ethnic and religious cleansing continues as depraved ISIS militants ravage Mesopotamia. Meanwhile, stories of migrant drownings in the Mediterranean reach British shores everyday; The Economist has rightly called this a ‘moral and political disgrace.’

Europe’s security is threatened on all sides and the lack of political action is appalling. The sanctions against Russia were a first step, but there is still very little support for the embattled Ukrainian military that faces advanced tanks and weaponry such as the Buk Missile launcher that all but certainly shot down flight MH17. Many of the European countries have not even bothered to properly help in the fight against ISIS, leaving the fight instead to surrounding poorer and less well-equipped Middle Eastern neighbours. Scandalously, pitiful numbers of refugees have been accepted from Syria or Iraq, with millions living in dire and unsanitary conditions in the region. Small countries like Lebanon are being left to deal with perhaps the greatest humanitarian crisis the Middle East has ever seen; indeed a full quarter of people living in Lebanon are now Syrian. At home, young people are being recruited by ISIS and only the British government has announced an effective broad strategy to prevent domestic terrorism.

The migrant boat crossings are the ultimate evidence of Europe’s disunity and negligence. Having done almost nothing to solve the refugee crisis in the Middle East, Europe cannot provide sufficient boat patrols or rescue missions in the Mediterranean. Italy’s small navy - arguably especially small because of shortsighted defence cuts - can barely deal with the scale of migration to Lampedusa. Did Europe not see this crisis coming? Cast your mind back to 2011 when Eurofighters soared over the Libyan skies before the triumphant announcement that Gaddafi was defeated by a liberal revolution with Europe’s help. Learning nothing from Iraq, a country was once again left without power structures and allowed to descend into sectarian chaos.

There are great economic problems that limit defence and security spending, and indeed it can be difficult to find a unifying foreign policy for 27 very different countries. However, Europe faces grave threats on large flanks and the EU is not performing its requirements as a protector of the integrity and safety of its member states. If there is no effective strategy to distribute military and humanitarian resources not only will the EU be faced with greater problems in the future, the entire organisation deserves to be castigated by the history books and by its citizens. While Britain questions its place in the European Union, let us also question whether this organisation is even performing its most basic functions. If we are to stay in the EU, Britain should fight for a united European foreign policy that protects its member states and actively seeks security from the Donbass to Lampedusa.

Some argue that the EU should focus on social and economic projects, many of which have been left unrealisable by trans-European financial strains. NATO is weak, unable even to make its members promise 2% of GDP to defence spending. Indeed, only one Conservative MP, Rory Stewart, has left the party line to criticise Cameron for reneging on promises made on defence spending at the NATO summit in Wales last year. The EU has the ability to outdo NATO in coordinating defence and foreign policy. It is unrealistic that a NATO-member will be attacked, initiating the mutual defence clause, but it is likely that members will face consistent security threats due to ISIS, separatist movements in Eastern Europe and the Mediterranean migrant crisis in which NATO has no real role. EU member states should immediately begin organising their budgets around a mutually agreed foreign policy and defence strategy, redistributing resources to where they are needed most. For an arms exporter like Britain, with our greatest security threats on Europe’s vulnerable periphery, a united EU foreign and defence policy might even appease some of Eurosceptics.

“There is nothing to fear voting for love and equality”

Ireland votes Yes to same sex marriage

Natan Bram

On May 20th, two days before Ireland’s historic vote on gay marriage, the Irish Taoiseach (Prime Minister) Enda Kenny urged the Irish public to vote Yes to equal marriage arguing “there is nothing to fear voting for love and equality.”

62.1% of Irish who turned out on May 22nd agreed with him as Ireland became the first country in the world to legislate for same sex marriage through a nationwide referendum, and the nineteenth country in the world to legislate for marriage equality. The speed with which Irish public and political opinion has changed is remarkable. It was only in 1993 that homosexual activity was legalised after a ruling by the European Court of Human Rights deeming Ireland’s laws on homosexual activity in breach of the European Convention on Human Rights. In 2010 civil partnerships for same sex couples were introduced and now marriage has been made gender blind in the Irish Republic. 

Many have pointed to the declining influence of the Catholic Church as a key reason for this change in attitudes. Ireland has become a more secular society and the moral standing of the Church has been greatly diminished by revelations of child sex-abuse scandals involving Catholic clergymen which have come to light in recent years.   These changes in public attitudes are made more explicit in Ireland than in many other democracies because of the need for national referendums to amend the constitution. This month’s vote on equal marriage contrasts starkly with referendums held in the late 20th century on other divisive issues of public morality and personal freedoms, such as the 1983 referendum which introduced a constitutional amendment effectively banning abortion.

Ireland’s move to same-sex marriage is part of a wider global trend. Every few months seems to bring another step forward for same sex marriage rights with another country legalising same sex marriage or civil partnerships. Early in 2015 Finland signed into law equal marriage and a case currently before the United States Supreme Court, Obergefell v Hodges, could see same-sex marriage legalized across the United States. There seems an inevitable global trend of progression towards LGBT rights as the grip of traditional religion weakens and a younger generation, for whom homosexuality and fluid gender identity are the norm, become politically powerful.

However the global picture is not as rosy as it seems. In seven countries in the world homosexuality is punishable by death and in a further 70 homosexuality is a crime. Whilst laws in many countries are liberalising and the number of countries where homosexuality is legal has increased in the last decade, others countries are growing harsher. The passage of a law in Russia imposing fines on those that provide information on homosexuality to children was well publicised and laws against homosexuals and LGBT groups have been strengthened in recent years in places like Nigeria and Gambia.

Ireland’s referendum shows that social attitudes and political realities can change remarkably quickly offering hope for LGBT activists across the world. However the experience of places like Nigeria and Russia shows progress is not inevitable.

The Curious Case of the Umbrella Revolution

HUBERT CRUZ

Hong Kong’s Umbrella Revolution was a strange display of people power. The 79-day resistance started with a series of student strikes in protest of Beijing's decision to, in practice, pre-screen candidates running for Hong Kong’s first direct Chief Executive Election. The student movement quickly expanded beyond police control after they fired tear gas against unarmed protestors, and triggered the dispersed protestors to occupy various parts of Hong Kong.

An unprecedented level of international media gathered in Hong Kong to cover the resistance, and called it the “Umbrella Revolution” after protestors used umbrellas to defend themselves against pepper spray. Many observers likened the Umbrella Revolution to Taiwan’s Sunflower Movement earlier in March, where students occupied the legislature and successfully forced the government to halt further trade liberalisation with China.

Nevertheless, in less than three months, the momentum of the Umbrella Revolution all but dissipated. Protestors retreated from their barricades without a single concession from the government beyond vague promises to discuss the matter. Chun-Ying Leung, the unpopular Chief Executive who approved the use of tear gas, has remained in office, and waves of arrests took place after the Umbrella Revolution ended.

While Taiwan’s students could resist Chinese encroachment, Hong Kong has been unable to sustain long-term protests in support of democracy. The failure of the Umbrella Revolution reveals a deeper contradiction in the minds of the Hong Kong people – as much as they wish for democratisation, they accept that Beijing has a say in the matter.

The root of such conflicting sentiments can be traced back to the Tiananmen Movement more than two decades ago. In the late 1980s, Hong Kong was set to return from British colonial rule to the hands of China within a decade. Despite many people started emigrating overseas in fear of Communist rule, leaders of pro-democratic parties continued to place high hopes in the reform and opening up of China, and believed political reforms would take place soon after economic liberalisation.  There was broad consensus among the leaders that Hong Kong should strive for a “democratic handover”.

In April 1989, thousands of students gathered in Tiananmen Square of Beijing to demand the Communist government to address corruption and implement democratic reforms. The Movement inspired the hopes of many Hong Kong people that China will become democratic and approve of Hong Kong’s democratisation after the Handover. The enthusiasm surrounding the Movement in Hong Kong quickly turned into disillusionment after the massacre.

The massacre, and the response to it, exemplifies the conflicted identity of the Hong Kong people. On the one hand, Hong Kong people no longer hold any hopes of a democratic Chinese government; on the other, their earnest involvement in the Movement has innately connected Hong Kong’s democratisation to the eventual democratisation of the Mainland.

In spite of their objections to Beijing’s conduct, Hong Kong people’s emotional attachment to the mainland led them to never question the legitimacy of the Handover which they never consented to, and often succumb to Beijing’s influence in Hong Kong politics. The legitimacy of the Basic Law, a mini-constitution that was not ratified by the people, was taken for granted. Beijing’s imposition of political authority over the rulings of the Hong Kong’s judiciary was protested, but eventually acknowledged by courts. While mass political protests and parliamentary objections have scuttled larger policy changes, they have been less effective in resisting more subtle erosion of Hong Kong’s authority—and they have yet to have any effect on the timetable for universal suffrage.

As leaders of pro-democratic parties position themselves as loyal opposition against a ruthless regime instead of a vanguard party mobilising the oppressed people for broad revolutionary struggle; it is not surprising that even supposedly radical protestors initially conceived the Umbrella Revolution as an occupation movement with “Love and Peace”. The ultimate objective was not to undermine Beijing’s dominance in Hong Kong, but hopefully to bargain for some political concessions. Benny Tai, the proposer of the movement, advised protestors to tie their hands to show that they have no intention to usurp political authorities, and left the occupation after the government offered to send a report detailing the events that happened in the movement to Beijing.

Counter-intuitive moves by leaders of the movement included showing an openness to negotiation by removing barricades. Most leaders quit the occupation by November as they disagreed with the student’s insistence for solid reforms. As the leaders chose to take a backseat instead of staying in the frontlines, the support for the Umbrella Revolution inevitably dwindled and ultimate failure was foreseeable since the students were not able to sustain the movement on their own.

The conflicting identity of Hong Kong people not only serves to explain the unwillingness of the movement to challenge Beijing authority through the Umbrella Revolution, but also highlights the unviability of such a weak stance in defending local interest as tensions between Hong Kong and China intensify over recent years.

Since 2003, Hong Kong has witnessed a massive surge of mainland tourists under the Individual Visit Scheme, where the Chinese government allowed citizens from major cities to travel to Hong Kong on individual basis, instead of through group tours or business visas. Many mainlanders took advantage of the scheme to crash the hospitals of Hong Kong in order to let their new-borns gain the right of abode. Others flocked to scoop up items ranging from powdered milk and diapers for babies to golden bracelets and residential flats for speculation.

The small capacity of Hong Kong was soon overwhelmed by an annual influx of 40 million mainland tourists. As the Hong Kong people struggled to cope with rising prices and shortages of goods blamed on excess demand from China, the unruly behaviours of mainland tourists further fuelled the tensions between Hong Kong and China.

Despite the locals’ intensifying grievances, the Hong Kong government has only taken marginal action to resolve them, and even then only reluctantly. In line with their long-held belief that Hong Kong’s future is inseparable from China’s, leaders of the pro-democratic parties have done little to halt Beijing from tightening its grip over the lives of the Hong Kong people, rather they perceived any political actions against mainland tourists as discriminatory, and called for the people “tolerate” uncivilised behaviour of tourists.

The inability of the leaders to transform the Umbrella Revolution into a struggle against Chinese domination stands in stark contrast with the successful Sunflower Movement in Taiwan. The Movement’s opposition to trade liberalisation with the mainland received territory-wide support as citizens united to defend Taiwan’s identity against Chinese capital and political takeover.  The murky position of Hong Kong’s movement in terms of local and mainland interest not only failed to establish the authority of student leaders among protestors, but also missed the opportunity to launch a broader appeal by connecting with disgruntled citizens to strengthen the base of support and momentum of the movement.

Fortunately, the Hong Kong people are starting to realise that tying their fates with China will only sink any hopes of them standing on their own feet. Many newly formed political groups call for the outright rejection of Beijing’s authority and campaign for the Hong Kong people’s self-determination. They have also taken the resistance to various retail hotspots to challenge the mainlanders who are overrunning Hong Kong, and put political pressure on the government to address the pressing interests of the local people.

Many commentators called the Umbrella Revolution a civic awakening of the Hong Kong people. While the people of Hong Kong step up their struggle for democracy, they also need to realise they are facing the domineering and intractable Beijing government. It is in remembrance of the spirit of the Tiananmen Movement that avoiding direct confrontation against Beijing’s hegemony is destined to fail.

Lubricating the Global Economy: The Impact of Collapsing Oil Prices

Jessica Rush

Arguably the biggest economic story this year  has been the fall in oil prices across the world. This one event has had an incalculable number of knock-on effects, illustrating just what an interconnected world we live in. This article briefly touches on the impact it has had in four different countries: Saudi Arabia, Russia, the USA and the UK. While the economic effect on each country requires in-depth analysis to fully appreciate its scope, this article argues that the prima facie diversity of consequence on key global players goes a long way to demonstrating their economic differences.

In basic terms, global  oil prices have fallen because supply has outstripped demand. The US has experience a boom in shale oil, due to an increase in hydraulic fracturing and directional drilling activity in Texas and North Dakota. This means that Americans are importing far less oil from other countries, leaving a surplus in their would-be suppliers.   Although in many other markets, powerful players will artificially reduce supply to prevent price deflation, the Organisation of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has made a deliberate decision not to do so.   Furthermore, the oil-rich countries of Iraq and Libya have not suffered the fall in oil production the market expected when they became conflict zones, and their output still continues. It is the combination of these factors that has led to a dramatic fall in price across international borders.

Saudia Arabia seems  to be at the epicentre of this  economic earthquake. An important member of OPEC, being the largest producer at around a third of the organisation’s total production, its opposition to a co-ordinated cut in the production of oil was decisive, despite  calls for such a move from Venezuela and Iran. It appears that the country was reluctant to risk losing its market share to non-OPEC suppliers, as happened when production was cut in the 1980s in response to a drop in demand, for which the country suffered financially. While Saudi Arabia will likely take a financial hit, the country has enough wealth to ‘wait it out’. This appears to be a calculated move, accepting losses in the short term in order to maintain market dominance in the long term. The very recent death of King Abdullah has prompted questions that a regime change might also trigger a turn-around in policy. However, reports have indicated the long standing oil minister Ali al-Naimi would continue in his current position. For the moment, at least, it appears the House of Saud is willing to endure temporary financial setbacks to ensure its country's long term future in the industry

These shifting economic  plates have destabilised an already fragile Russia. In Time’s nomination for person of the year, it was asserted that Putin was enjoying a jingoism-driven popularity surge reminiscent of that which followed his invasion of Chechnya in response to Russia’s involvement in Ukraine. This may well be short lived as the country enters recession. The BBC estimated in January that for every dollar the oil price falls  Russia loses two billion dollars  in revenue. Like its Gulf State competitor, Russia has refused to reduce production for fear of losing its market share, yet it is in a far more precarious financial position than the wealthy Saudis. Coupled with the sanctions facing the country from western powers in retaliation for its intervention in Ukraine, the fall in oil prices is doing significant damage to the Russian economy. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev has publicly admitted that the situation is difficult and that Russia will have to abandon some projects and programmes. Certainly, the country has seen a significant rise in interest rates, which is potentially bad news for  Russian businesses. The full impact of its financial constraints remains to be seen and western nations have indicated that sanctions are unlikely to be lifted in the absence of a substantial change in eastern Ukraine. 

Across the Pacific Ocean, it appears the fall in oil price is leading the USA into fertile economic ground. In January it was reported that US oil production was at a 30 year high. The fall in prices has directly affected the American consumer, the dollar-per-gallon price plummeting in a way not seen in countries that maintain a more artificial price. To some degree, there is arguably a general feeling that decreased imports of oil are releasing the US from dependence on the Middle-Eastern states of which it has traditionally been wary  That said it isn’t all good news for America. This drop in profits, as a result of the plummeting oli price, has coincided with the biggest strike in oil refineries since the 1980s, putting a fair amount of pressure on the boards America's oil companies, as the unions negotiate three-year employment contracts. More local impacts can be seen as well. In 2013, the National Geographic ran an in-depth article on the effect of companies moving to take advantage of the North Dakota's oil fields. Quiet, rural communities have strained under the weight of a large influx of new workers and significant environmental damage. The rest of the country may benefit, but the areas where the Shale boom is originating are reeling from the intrusion on a personal level.

The shockwaves can be felt here in the UK too with George Osborne proclaiming that the inflation rate is the lowest seen in modern times, there is certainly something to be said for lower oil prices (and its repercussions for travel, household energy bills and grocery shopping), giving UK consumers an extra boost as we slowly emerge from a period of economic hardship. However, the fall of prices at the petrol pump  just isn’t at the same level here as it is  in the US. Many travel and utility companies are locked into  contracts to buy at a certain price for a fixed period of time, so it will take a while for the cheaper wholesale prices to filter through. In turn, this depends on the prices staying low, which at the time of writing seems unlikely in the long term. The advantage of this is that there is little risk of major deflation that would do significant damage to the economy. A downward spiral of prices can stall an economy as consumers wait to buy and investors hold back, which was a major issue for Japan (for whom the falling oil prices present a major economic danger that must be managed). At the same time, the UK’s North Sea oil companies will struggle to make a profit at  current prices., Although certain areas such as Aberdeen, “the Oil Capital of Europe”, have been adversely effected, the UK as a whole does not have as large a portion of the economy relying on the oil market, so the lack of profits and investment is unlikely to seriously damage  our economy. However, for this reason the UK does not have the leverage to manipulate the market.  We cannot match the might of OPEC, and this jeopardises hundreds of thousands of jobs in particular in many northern communities if the domestic industry cannot stay afloat.

The four countries have showcased four very different relationships to this economic phenomenon. A close look at this shift in the business world illustrates two things.  The first is the depth and complexity of our world’s economic connections. There is not a global player that has been unaffected by this. Secondly, we can see the differences in individual economies. They may be interdependent, but they are not identical. The rumbles of an earthquake may be absorbed by a robust economy like Saudi Arabia, rattling the reserves but not the foundations.  Yet it can topple a shaky superpower like Russia. Western countries like the UK and USA may be able to take advantage of a shift in the markets without being destabilised, but we must be wary lest the ground move under our feet. Commentators have suggested this event is nearing its end, the oil price gradually returning to its previous level through a cyclical process. But there are no guarantees. The oil which transports us, warms us, feeds us and moves our economies has also exposed a diverse and complex economic world. 

Papua New Guinea: Balancing Beijing’s Economy and Washington’s Security

Willem van den Berg

When most Westerners think of Papua New Guinea (PNG) what comes to mind is often a combination of exotic photos from National Geographic, passages from Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel, and something resembling the image Boris Johnson created when he likened the Tory party to “Papua New Guinea-style orgies of cannibalism and chief-killing.” Not many see this Pacific island nation playing a role in the machinations of the great powers. However, that is exactly what PNG has done throughout the 20th century and is increasingly doing again in the twenty-first.

During the twentieth century the island of New Guinea saw wars involving Australia, Britain, the Netherlands, Germany, Indonesia, Japan, and the United States, including significant campaigns by the Allies against the Japanese during the Second World War. Independence in 1975 led to a period of little foreign interest in the now sovereign state of Papua New Guinea; in the twenty-first century, it seems that the great powers are again turning their eyes to this Pacific island. Despite only having a population of seven million and a slightly smaller territory than Spain, PNG is home to some of the world’s most valuable natural resources. This year the Economist predicts PNG to have the world’s fastest growing economy.

PNG, like most Pacific island nations, has traditionally had a much closer relationship with Australia and the US than with China. Australia is the region’s largest bilateral trading partner as well as the largest aid donor. Australia and the US spend vastly more on defense cooperation in the region than any other nation and the US continues to be the leading military power in the Pacific, with military bases stationed throughout the Pacific islands and an unparalleled navy at standby. However, as China’s economic rise continues unabated and the world edges away from unipolarity, PNG’s close relationship with the West will come under increasing strain.

China’s rising interest in PNG is motivated by the island’s vast supplies of raw materials and mineral products, including natural gas, copper, and gold. Chinese trade with PNG increased more than tenfold between 2001 and 2011 to more than US$1.2 billion, and it continues to rise each year. A prominent example of China’s economic involvement in PNG is the Ramu Nickel Project, a US$1.4 billion investment by China’s Metallurgical Group Corporation, which was begun in 2008 and is expected to produce 31,000 tons of nickel and 3,200 tons of cobalt per year for the coming forty years. Thousands of Chinese now work in PNG, primarily in resource extracting industries. In addition, China has ramped up its foreign aid to PNG and since 2008 has begun giving military training and assistance to the PNG Defense Force, traditionally only given by Australia, the US, and New Zeeland. In 2013 China offered the PNG Defense Force a US$2 million grant, and PNG is preparing to open a second diplomatic mission in China—which is significant, since PNG has fewer than twenty diplomatic missions around the entire world.

Western states have not been blind to these developments. In 2011, then Secretary of State Hilary Clinton told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee that “We are in a competition with China. Take Papua New Guinea - huge energy find. Exxon Mobil is producing it. China is in there every day in every way trying to figure out how it's going to come in behind us, come in under us.” Though Clinton later downplayed these comments, they are emblematic of what many in Washington see as a zero-sum game between the US and China in the region. China’s involvement in PNG security matters has particularly raised alarm bells: both Australia and the US quickly promised increased levels of military training and naval support for the country.

Chinese investment in PNG has not been particularly smooth. Chinese companies have been accused of discriminating against Papua New Guineans by illegally bringing in thousands of Chinese workers, engaging in large scale corruption, and destroying the environment. Anti-Chinese sentiment is widespread throughout the country, erupting in numerous anti-Chinese riots over the past decade. In one such riot in 2009, sparked by a fight at a Ramu Nickel refinery, tens of thousands of rioters burned Chinese stores to the ground in several of the major cities and four Chinese were stabbed to death.

PNG’s government has a very amicable relationship with China though. Former Prime Minister Michael Somare encouraged Chinese companies to invest in PNG and welcomed military cooperation between the two countries. As a result, during anti-Chinese riots text messages circulated among the rioters declaring “The Somare regime existed through Asian mafia’s funding.”  Current Prime Minister Peter O’Neill has taken a less overtly pro-China stance, inviting more Australian troops to the island and declaring that PNG’s vital strategic and security relationships remained with Australia and the United States, though the country would continue to develop closer economic ties to Asian countries.

The trends observable in PNG-Chinese relations are present throughout the Pacific island region. Trade and aid have dramatically increased over the past decade and Chinese diplomatic engagement is beginning to reflect that. Chinese officials are now warmly welcomed and China has begun to formalize its relationship to the region, for example by hosting the China-Pacific Island Countries Development Cooperation Forum, where China promised US$1 billion in loans and 2,000 student scholarships to the islands in the coming years. After the 2006 coup in Fiji the West reduced aid and imposed sanctions on the country, while China actually increased its aid in accordance with its policy of non-interference, providing more than half of all foreign aid to Fiji for several years. Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa stated “China is a better friend to Pacific Island countries than the United States.” PNG, along with several other Pacific island nations, are awakening to the prospect that their future may include a mismatch between their security ties to the US and their economic ties to China.

Rather than flashpoints like Taiwan and the Senkaku/Diaoyu islands, it is in countries like PNG where China, underreported in the West, is successfully gaining geopolitical ground and starting to challenge American hegemony. China’s economic involvement in the region has ballooned, and it is being followed by diplomatic and military clout. Although PNG will remain in an American and Australian-dominated Pacific island security system for the foreseeable future, the gravitational pull of the Sino-sphere is steadily increasing. PNG is slowly being tugged out of its Western orbit and is increasingly experiencing the tension between Washington’s powerful security ties and Beijing’s lucrative economic ties.