War...what is it good for? Making us a ton of money.

Special Report

From 2010 to 2015, Britain sold £7.9bn worth of arms (weapons) to 22 certain nations around the globe (among others).

Why are these 22 nations so important?

Because they make up 73% of the Government's ‘Human Rights Priority Countries’ - the list of regimes that oppress freedom and human rights (1).

The Government has decided to sell massive quantities of weaponry to nations like Saudi Arabia and Turkey, infamous for their oppression and crackdown on free speech, despite clear signals that they are using this equipment for immoral means - it's estimated that Turkey has 152 journalists in prison, with more being constantly assaulted.(2)

This is wrong. It is morally reprehensible, and a total violation of what the United Kingdom is meant to stand for: tolerance, respect, and protection of personal freedom. Yet the government insists that '[it] takes its arms export control responsibilities very seriously', and the foreign office website claims that 'British diplomats put human rights at the heart of everything they do...to promote safer, more inclusive, prosperous societies'.(3)

This is hard to believe, when Saudi Arabia - a main beneficiary - is using UK-made missiles and bombs to destroy civilian infrastructure in Yemen, possibly utilising the illegal ‘cluster bomb’*, as well as receiving advisory support and military training. They revived 83% of the UK's arms exports in 2015.


While Yemen slides into famine and disaster (4) and UN aid convoys are blocked by both sides, UK-manufactured planes are being used to destroy all opposition on the ground with Saudi Arabia’s usual regard for human life. (5)



Yemeni aid workers rescue wounded from Saudi-made rubble

Conversely, the UK also sells to Israel (5), supplying them with drone parts, and targeting equipment. This, combined with the vague political support that arms sales

come with, suggests that the Government is backing both long-term enemies Saudi Arabia and Israel, which is likely to cause chaos and confusion among governments if they ever come to a head in the future.

The UK refused export licenses to Egypt in 2015 for small-arm training ammunition and machine gun components, then promptly approved the sale of much heavier armaments such as snipers and assault rifles - complete with live ammunition. This is in a country where the police and the armed forces can detain and arrest a suspect with little reason, and have effectively ended the work of Non-Governmental Organisations (NGOs) such as Amnesty International.(6)

The countries on the Human Rights Watch-list -
two-thirds of them buy weapons from the UK (credit to BBC Newsbeat)

As well as this, the Government (or UK-based firms) have in the past supplied machine-guns to Bahrain, tanks to Indonesia and jets to India. A company called ‘Matrix Churchill’ tried to supply parts capable of making a ‘super-gun’ to former Iraqi dictator Saddam Hussein in the early 1990s. They breached an international arms embargo(*) and tried to disguise the parts as oil pipeline units. (7)

This blatant disregard of humanity - the gun could have targeted Israel, as well as help Hussein persecute minorities and dissidents in Iraq - is rather worrying, suggesting that profit is all that matters in an industry where human life is so central, and that the UK has abandoned its 'champion of human rights' title, preferring 'champion of human rights, when they don't conflict with our interests'.

*A cluster bomb is a projectile that releases multiple bombs on impact, spreading the devastation over a wider area. Hard to aim and control, it often causes large civilian casualties, and is outlawed by 108 countries, including the UK.

(*) An arms embargo is when a group of countries - often encouraged by the UN or the EU - refuse to sell weapons to certain countries because of crimes they've committed.

Why is politics today so different to years ago?

The political mixture of 2017 is unlike any before; what has brought this change on?

The world is always changing and reforming, as humanity tries new things and technology advances. 
But recently, this change has been focused on politics. 20 years ago, the idea of 'President' Trump would have been laughable; the Labour Party leader might not have survived this long, and the General Election results were far more predictable (10)
What has brought about this unreliability and development in the political world?

Google+, Facebook, Twitter, 
Instagram, Tumblr, and Whatsapp are the biggest social media sites in the Western World (3); almost 2.4 billion people are expected to use them in 2017 - mostly in democratic nations (except for China, which has its own social networking systems). 

This massive network of people allows ideas, opinions, facts, lies, and stories to be shared as quick as a mouse-click. Not even twenty years ago, politicians' main worry were the newspapers and TV News. They were slower and more manageable, which could be good, or bad.

Good:

• There was time for celebrities/authority figures/leaders to react to problems and leaks, because it would be hours, or even days, before news got out
• Information was generally more trustworthy, as the sources were easier to monitor and there was more time to verify facts

Bad:

• The news sources were controlled by a few select people (5) who could turn (almost) the entire industry against the Government, or the Opposition, or whoever they didn't like
• Governing bodies were more distant and harder to reach; Twitter now allows us to abuse them in a short sentence

But the rapid onset of the internet caught everyone - especially the politicians - by surprise, and over 2007 (seen as the dawn of social media) a new system of sharing information developed. For several years Governments and political groups fell behind as social media permanently transformed how news is reported, and how we view it. These websites means that organisations such as the BBC can display breaking news instantly (11), being shared and re-shared by hundreds of people a minute, perhaps millions over a day. 

This can be great news! Bad Government policies that might have gone unnoticed - such as the Tax Credits cuts in 2015 - can be withdrawn after intense social media pressure (6). 

George Osborne (who introduced the cuts) in 2015

This makes politicians far more vulnerable. This could lead to a greater need by governments to appeal to the people, possibly changing how they do things for the better. It will also encourage more of us - especially youth - to take an interest in politics, which might gradually form a more diverse government, fresher and better connected, with real passion and ideas.

It can be bad news though. We spend a huge amount of time on social media (7), which means that we're still easily influenced by it; 'it's' just online instead. There's a strong chance that Russia meddled in the US elections by having certain people on social media spread false stories about Clinton (8). The stories then spread extremely quickly, and probably changed enough minds to impact the vote. 

As Winston Churchill said: 'A lie can go halfway round the world while the truth is putting its shoes on'. Social media is the worst of this phrase, with exciting legend taking first place to boring truth. 

Trump's controversial comments during campaigning - whilst often immoral - got constant coverage online, and meant that people kept seeing him far more than Clinton, even in memes (above). This free awareness almost certainly encouraged enough people to cast their ballot for him, having the (potentially worrying) effect of making him President.

The connectivity of social media means that we have far more freedom and power, but we're also more visible. We can challenge governments, but then be targeted by them. Facebook has come under a lot of flak recently; they can monitor your political beliefs, and then sell this information to whomever wants it (9). The resulting adverts and posts specifically geared towards us could convince people to support ideas that they may never have held, and thus change the way we vote, and who you are.


Social media has given us the power to change politics beyond reckoning, but we must be careful - politics is beginning to fight back.

Thank you for reading! I wasn't able to cover things like Corbyn, the EU referendum, and the General Elections, but I'm more than happy to talk about them or answer questions in the comments. Do you disagree with what I've said? Let me know and we can discuss! 

Theo 

China and the USA - A new World Order?

The world power/economic*order is always changing at some level. Whilst it's mostly just smaller countries insignificantly jostling for position, every so often there's a shift in power and influence near the top of the rankings. This is always a major occurrence, that has huge implications around the globe.

Move over USA; there's a new kid on the block.

The Past

In terms of influence and leadership the World powers remained in relatively constant positions for fifty years after World War Two: the USA always at 'Number One'; Russia/USSR at 'Number Two', then various Western European nations and Japan made up the next five or so. China was rarely regarded as a major diplomatic or militaristic power throughout.

The USA's global power is put down to its exploding economy at the turn of the 1900s which made it a large contributor to both World Wars - often by giving loans to its allies that made it lots of money later on. But it was untouched by actual war in either, which meant that (unlike its European allies) it had a complete infrastructure network post-war, as well as millions of unharmed civilians who could work at full capacity in the economic booms that followed. This created a very strong economy and military that no other country on Earth had the resources or the living standards to match until very recently. 

China's more recent economic development

China, on the other hand, spent the first half of the 21st century in almost constant fighting, lurching from conflict to conflict. There was a saying that 'conscription comes to the Chinese peasant like famine or flood, only more frequently.' The government corruption, low living standards, and national instability meant that China had very little power globally; and a relatively poor economy. 

It was only in the 1970s, during communist rule, that they first began to invest into the economy and stimulate growth, allowing an increase in living standards and encouraging an industrial revolution. Their economy kept growing, embarking on a rapid increase in the 2000s, becoming the Earth's second-largest in 2011. Their economic influence - most of the world depends on it for trade and manufacturing - as well as their militaristic growth, helped turn it into a diplomatic heavyweight, rivaling Russia and just a little way behind the USA.

The Present

Donald Trump's election as President of 

the USA has had a quick effect on the country's reputation. The graph on the right shows the percentage of people who felt confident of America's global position under Obama (light red) and Trump (dark red). Most of these countries are strong allies of the USA - with the exception of Russia. 

This general loss of confidence - notwithstanding Israel and Russia -  reflects an increasing desperation at America's changing world attitude. Trump tried to block Muslims from certain countries from entering the US, has withdrawn from the historic Paris Agreement on combating global warming and has insulted almost every industrialised nation at one time or another in his infamous tweets. They also suffered badly in the 2008 recession, with the government spending billions on bailouts and investments, with jobs being lost nationally and American banks imploding. The Western world demands a more trustworthy and stronger leader.

President Xi Jinping of China

By contrast, China's economy is forecast to overtake the USA's within a decade; most likely around the 2025 mark. It's now cheaper to pick cotton in the USA; send it all the way to Asia for manufacturing into T-shirts, then bring it back again and sell in the US, rather than do it all in America. Such is the dependency on the region because of the cheapness of labour. This makes America very dependent on China to create finished goods, showing China's ever-growing position of strength over the biggest democracy in the world.

Also, China made re-commitments to the Paris Agreement, giving hope that the world's largest carbon producer is determined to make an effort to change its ways. This contrasts with the previously pro-Agreement US's backtrack, and could be an early signal that China aims to replace America as the world leader on certain issues. However it isn't all good; the growing population needs constant job creation and employment, which depends on free trade and strong diplomatic links: things that Trump's America rejects. This means that China desperately needs new markets to sell to, which points it towards the other Western nations.

The Future?

It seems to be that China will replace the USA as world leader on certain issues, like climate change; trade, and diplomatic unity, but there won't be total switch; the USA will still retain influence for a long time, due to its possessing the largest military in the world and a consumer base that supports whole markets by itself. 

Furthermore, China's 'one-party' system and human rights abuses means that it will struggle to establish a personal relationship with European nations. It's yet to take proper action on North Korea, it's causing unrest in the South China Sea, and it's not got a strong reputation for peace-making and brokering deals. Whilst China is certainly on the rise, I doubt that it will truly depose the USA from Number One. It may just be that we will reach a point where there becomes a balance of world power with China dominating trade, and the US championing personal freedom. 

Thanks for reading, more than happy to take questions, advice etc. in comments! 

*When I mention 'economy/economic', I'm referring the total amount of money made by a country per year, also known as the GDP (Gross Domestic Product).

Update

Very sorry that I've not posted for a while; exams sucked away all my free time, but there should be some more posts coming your way, albeit sporadically until autumn.

The next post will be discussing the global role reversal of the US and China; how they are beginning to change in a post-Trump world, as well as the decline of the 'Special Relationship' between the USA and the UK.

I also want to analyse the possible outcomes of the 'supply and confidence' agreement by the Conservatives and the DUP over the next term.

Lastly, we need to properly address the surge in popularity for Labour and whether it will translate into votes at the next election or whether it's just a fad.

See you all soon!

Theo

British Politics - Pt.3

Everything I've forgotten, plus a few other bits.

As I'm sure you're aware, our Prime Minister, or PM, is the Conservative, Theresa May.
She got the top job after David Cameron stepped down, following the public's decision to 'leave' in the EU referendum. Normally, to find a new party leader/PM, there is a formal election process; the candidates campaign across the party, then all members are allowed to vote for their choice.

Crabb (top left), Gove (bottom left) May (bottom middle),
Fox (bottom right), and Leadsom (top right). Lovely door for sale (top middle).

However, in the running for the PM everyone just sort of dropped out, or was eliminated, way before the elctions. Boris Johnson (a favoured candidate) withdrew before it even started; his political ally Michael Gove declared his intention to compete against him. Liam Fox was eliminated as he didn't have enough support, then Stephen Crabb withdrew. Gove was eliminated in the second round- he didn't have enough supporters either - leaving just Andrea Leadsom and Theresa May. The media put a lot of pressure on Leadsom after she made some controversial remarks, and she pulled out too. This led to May, the only competitor left, being chosen as PM. All this happened in the space of 17 days.

The 2015 election results. The conservatives have
a slim majority.

Normally, however, a Prime Minister becomes a Prime Minister through a General Election - when every registered voter has one vote to choose the person that they want to represent their area and become an MP (although most voters just vote for an MP depending on which party they're part of).


The country is split into 650 zones, called constituencies, and each one is represented by an MP. If the UKIP candidate wanted to become Prime Minister (you see the joke I made there?), they would have to have the majority of constituencies (326) so that they can vote new laws through Parliament.

In the 2015 General Election, the Conservatives won outright, but with a slender majority. This means that if some Conservative MPs oppose a bill, it only takes a few of them voting with opposition MPs to stop it being passed. (Remember, everyone in Parliament can vote on a law, and Labour and Conservatives normally vote against each other).

But...and here's the clincher...what if you don't win a majority?

He (on the right) is Nick Clegg, the former leader of the Liberal Democrats. On the left, as I hope you'd know, is David Cameron; the former Conservative leader and ex-PM.

The problem?

In the 2010 election, there was a 'Hung Parliament'. This is when no party has a clear majority because the votes are so widely distributed. No-one could legally form a government, and if a solution wasn't found then there would be repeated elections until a majority was reached.

The solution?

The Conservatives had the most votes, (307)  and if they could ally with another smaller party - say, the Liberal Democrats - they'd have a majority. This is known as a 'Coalition' and it last happened in WWII. The Lib Dems had 57 seats; it could work. But Labour were sniffing around, and were open to allying with SNP (Scottish National Party) and the Lib Dems - this would've given them a majority too.

And?

It took just four days to thrash out a deal with the Tories; Labour's leader, Gordon Brown, wasn't desirable for the Lib Dems.  A few minor pledges had to be dropped, but negotiations were largely peaceful and set the tone for the five years to come, and I can now stop writing.


And that brings us full circle! Kind of. Hopefully. Potentially.

Ideally, you now know Britain's main political parties, how Parliament functions, and the way elections work. You can talk at length about UKIP's shortcomings *cough* of which there are many *cough*, discuss the intricacies of passing law, and question Theresa May's legitimacy as Prime Minister.


As always, give improvements, suggestions, or ideas in the comments below. After Christmas, we'll be looking at war in Yemen. Not strictly political, but then again, neither is Donald Trump.

Merry Christmas!

British Politics - Pt.2

We more or less covered the parties last time, so let's see where and how they actually operate.

British Parliament for dummies.



The Houses of Parliament on the banks of the Thames

This (on the right) is the Houses of Parliament, also known as the Palace of Westminster. It's a set of buildings on the North Bank of the River Thames, in the centre of London.

The Houses of Parliament is where the Government (the political party with the most MPs*) and the 'opposition' operates. Parliament itself is the various groups and bodies that try to pass laws, or oppose them, and create a democratic way of running a country. Basically, the Government is within Parliament. It's where new proposals are debated, laws are passed, and the Government's actions are challenged. War is declared within those chambers. So how does it all work?



An empty House of Commons - there's more seats upstairs.

First, we have the House of Commons, which is where MPs meet and discuss laws, as well as vote on them or challenge them. Each MP has one vote, and they generally vote depending on what their party believes, i.e. Conservative leaders might ask their MPs to vote in favour of raising the minimum wage (although they are allowed to refuse and vote differently). If a law is passed through here, it then goes to the House of Lords.




The House of Lords is the second chamber, and its main task is examining laws passed by the Commons. It contains around 800 members, who are mostly hand-picked for their knowledge of law, business, society etc. It also contains Bishops and hereditary peers (their parents were Lords and passed the title down to them) They are required to examine the law in physical form and check for errors and loopholes, as well as challenging the government about anything questionable.

A law can be stopped and returned to the House of Commons, if the members feel that it needs improvement.


House of Lords on a quiet day

The third stage of Parliament is the Monarch (i.e. the Queen). She mainly has a ceremonial role, meeting the Prime Minister once a week to discuss various affairs, and officially approving laws - which she must do. (Although if she feels that a law will cause harm to Britain, or isn't justified, she may object). Once she approves a law, it becomes legally binding, and the government can begin to implement it.

There we go, the British Parliament in a nutshell! I know there's probably still some gaps, but hopefully we'll cover those off in the third and last post of this series - coming soon (hopefully before Christmas). 

Also, check out Joel's film blog, I don't have the link, but it's on some of my other posts at the bottom. He's started a sweet little 'Thursday rant' section, where he discusses all sorts of things. It's actually rather good.


*MPs: the person, often from a certain party, that an area chooses to represent their people's interests in Parliament. All of the 650 MPs can vote once on each law, often voting how their party wants them to vote.