International politics is facing a tumultuous time. Across the West, governments are polarizing, as centre-moderates lose their seats to more radical candidates on both the left and right. It’s clear that we are living in an uncertain time, and the public vote is reflecting that anxiety. Threats from terrorism, the teetering economy, and environmental changes all play a role. However, by far the greatest offender is the universal lack of government transparency. The people know they’re being lied to, and they’re sick of it!
Exaggeration and falsehood have long been tolerated in the world of politics. This culture is so ingrained that removing it from the system is no straightforward task. On the other hand, the internet has provided the world with an invaluable tool; information is no longer a privilege of the rich, and political claims can be corroborated or refuted in mere seconds.
These two factors both act as fuel to the Grassroots movement. In numerous countries, people are disregarding the political class and, instead, looking to each other for the truth. Social media, blogs and an increased number of camera phones all allow the everyday person to be part of the political discussion unlike ever before. The question now is whether that conversation can translate into systematic change.
Most government systems are set up so no one person can truly affect change. In the US, this can be seen in the division of power between the Executive Office, Congress and the Supreme Court. While this is essential to ensure true democracy is never overthrown, it also has an adverse effect. If a Government official is faced with controversy, he merely disappears from the cabinet and out of public vision. Take, for example, the UK Parliament expenses scandal of 2009, which saw Conservative MP, Lord Hannington, quietly reinstated to the House of Lords, 12 months after he was convicted of false accounting. This glaring systemic flaw is only magnified by the ruling elites’ tendency to look after their own.
Scott Bloch was a controversial member of the Bush Administration who was accused of manipulating the system many times before he was finally charged with contempt of Congress in 2013. Alongside allegations that he wiped incriminating information from his computer, his sexist newsletter content and claims that he threw away legitimate whistle-blower cases also surfaced. Initially, Bloch faced voluntary resignation and 30-day prison time but was allowed to withdraw his guilty plea when he discovered this fact. Instead, Bloch received probation and, after complaints from watchdog groups, spent one day in jail, received a $5,000 fine and 200 hours community service.
Bloch’s case is not a rarity. The legal repercussions for misuse of power are hardly ever severe. This lack of accountability has created a culture in which lies and deceit are often overlooked. As average citizens have watched the incarceration rate grow by 20 percent worldwide since 2000, this inconsistency of justice has not gone unnoticed.
The last few years have seen this rise of political parties and candidates whose extreme views and controversial beliefs would not have been tolerated a decade ago. The far right has restarted a conversation about race, which harks back to eras long passed. However, with increasing lives lost to terrorists performing acts in the name of Islam, it’s understandable that many feel this dialogue is necessary.
In the UK, the effects of the migrant crisis saw citizens of port towns struggle to get their children into schools and doctor’s practices. It was this strain that resulted in places like Margate, Nigel Farage’s constituency, vote for UKIP MP’s in the 2015 general election.
Similarly, following an increasing number of devastating ISIS attacks in France, the support for National Front leader, Marine La Pen, grew significantly. Nowhere is this mounting feeling clearer than in the US, where Donald Trump and his controversial ‘Muslim ban’ secured one of the most surprising political victories in recent years. While accusations of racism surround all of these politicians, it’s clear that the majority of their followings are not voting on pure prejudice. In reality, this increasing support is an expression of fear, and a call for the political class to pay attention to these issues.
On the other side of the fence, many countries are seeing a rise in far-left candidates as a protest against the continual austerity. The international economy has been under strain since the banking crash of 2008. While many countries have seen ongoing cuts to public services, many people don’t feel any richer. Simultaneously, they can’t help but note the luxurious lifestyle many politicians lead, complete with tax cuts, expense accounts, and hefty bonuses. In the UK, the public sector has seen pay stall, while MP’s continue to enjoy an exponential increase.
Unsurprisingly, this has inspired significant support for socialist Labour leader, Jeremy Corbyn, who has called for an end to offshore accounts and tax breaks. It was similar crippling financial conditions that prompted Greece to vote in the radical-left party, Syriza. This lean towards socialism/marxism is a clear protest vote; a cry of disgust at the fact that everyday people are the ones paying for the government and banker’s mishandling of the country’s financial affairs.
Another key issue for both sides of the fence has been Government snooping. Since the Snowden leaks showed the world the true extent of the violations of our online privacy, many have highlighted the hypocrisy. While politicians and secret services grossly abuse their online power, citizens in some part of the world are being arrested for using proxy services to protect their privacy. US nationals rated blocks on illegal wiretappings as one of the most important issues under the Obama administration, yet no changes in legislation have occurred.
All of these situations paint the same picture: the people are trying to hold the government accountable on certain issues, but their only forum is to vote for radical candidates. The grassroots conversation is an essential voice to have in international politics, and appropriately cultivating it has already significantly affected the government front line. Perhaps the best example of this is in the recent UK general election. Jeremy Corbyn began the race as a laughing stock but ended up prompting the biggest Labour swing seen since 1945. The election also saw record numbers of voters, including an incredible 72 percent of young people.
This incredible surge by the youth vote was largely a result of Corbyn utilizing the full force of grassroots. After speaking with many underground musicians and counter-culture artists the #Grime4Corbyn campaign saw rappers and other street icons break through apathy in some of the most politically disenchanted parts of society. Bernie Sanders made a similar attempt during his race to be the US Democrat candidate. Although he could not ensure the same hold on power, his use of volunteers and financial contributors saw a campaign that was grassroots to its very core.
Both of these examples demonstrate the increasing need for more grassroots opportunity. As citizens continue to be turned off by the status quo, more and more and willing to put their money and their time into their political beliefs. This voice is one that politicians can no longer ignore; if that can’t properly cultivate its power, it could mean the end of their reign.
The End Of Political Apathy
It’s clear we live in a time where conventional politics is no longer tolerated. After decades of most Western governments hovering around the center, voters and politicians are demanding a change. Whether this has been a direct result of the current world problems – or a repercussion of the internet age and its ability to spread information and ideas – our political future has never looked so unsure.
However, for the ordinary voter, this time of uncertainty is a valuable opportunity to make your voice heard. You can opt to join local groups and parties, get involved with your preferred candidate or even just continue the political dialogue on social media. Each of these tactics has already proved successful for many groups and ideologies, and our culture of connectivity suggests that many future campaigns will also look to harness the power of grassroots. We have entered an era having your say has never been so important, and the chances of actually being heard have increased significantly.
The time for bottom-up politics is approaching, and expressing your beliefs is only going to become increasingly important as we continue to face a world of evolving threat and instability. Political decision-making is no longer isolated to the four walls of government; distrust of the system is starting to facilitate change on an international level.
Biden’s Dilemma: Caught Between Israel and Iran
By all indication, the latest sabotage at Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz aimed at more than just disabling thousands of Iran’s centrifuges and thus cause another setback for Iran’s nuclear program, it was also meant as an indirect diplomatic sabotage vis-a-vis the on-going nuclear talks in Vienna; the latter had shown real signs of progress before the April 10th incident at the Natanz facility, blamed on Israel by the Iranian officials, who have vowed to get revenge — an attack on an Israeli cargo ship off the coast of Oman as well as an attack on an Israeli post in Iraq’s Kurdistan may indeed be the acts of Iranian retaliation.
But, from Iran’s vantage, the biggest response was the decision to upgrade the enrichment level from 20% to 60% percent, thus bringing Iran closer to the weapons grade enrichment, bound to raise the ire of Tel Aviv, which is intent on dispossessing Iran of nuclear weapons capability. Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Khamenei, has followed suit by stating that Iran will not be dragged into a “protracted negotiation” with the US and that US’ removal of sanctions needs to be the first step in a future US return to the 2015 nuclear deal, known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). In turn, this raises the question of how will the Biden administration respond, and adjust to, the latest developments?
On the one hand, the Iranian setback in Natanz, widely interpreted inside Iran as a major “embarrassment,” as it is the second time in 9 months that Israel has successfully inflicted serious damage on the facility, weakens Iran’s hand at the table in Vienna, no matter how the Iran negotiators seek to spin the issue. With Iran’s vulnerability to “nuclear sabotage” irrefutably established, Tehran’s ability to utilize its nuclear chips in the bargaining with US has been diminished, perhaps for the duration of the current year, thus leading some conservative politicians to urge the government to withdraw from the Vienna talks.
On the other hand, it is by no means clear that the Biden administration favors Israel’s spoiler role, which might lead to an escalation of tensions in the region to the detriment of Biden’s determination to re-embrace the JCPOA as part and parcel of an Iran “re-thinking” policy at odds with his predecessor’s maximum pressure strategy. Chances are that, much like the Obama administration, the Biden administration will need to defy Israel’s will on Iran and push ahead for a new understanding with Tehran at a time Israel’s hawkish Prime Minister, Benjamin Netanyahu and, to a lesser extent the Saudi rulers, are wary of Biden’s resurrection of Obama’s (perceived) conciliatory approach toward Iran. The big question is if President Biden is willing to act independently of Israel’s hawkish recipe for Iran and make meaningful concessions, above all in the area of post-2015 sanctions on Iran, in order to achieve its key demand of bringing Iran in compliance with its JCPOA obligations? Lest we forget, Obama’s defiance of Israel on the JCPOA caused a major rift benefiting the Republican Party opponents of the deal, such as Donald Trump, and so far there is little evidence that Biden is unmindful of that prior experience. In turn, this may explain the timing of US Defense Secretary Austin’s Israel visit coinciding with the Natanz sabotage, which may not have been coincidental as Israel most likely had informed Washington of the coming attack on Natanz beforehand.
Naturally, Tehran is irritated at Austin’s presence in Israel at that particular time and his expression of “ironclad support” for Israel instead of raising any criticism of nuclear terrorism against Iran, just as China and Russia have done. In fact, none of the Western governments, as well as the EU, partaking in the Vienna talks, have bothered to condemn the attack on Natanz, thus adding salt to Iran’s injury. Instead, the German foreign minister, Heiko Maas, dispensed with any criticism of Israel and confined himself to questioning Iran’s post-attack decision to increase the enrichment level, which he called “irresponsible.” But, is it really responsible for the US and European powers to refrain from condemning an act of sabotage with respect to a facility that, under the terms of JCPOA, is recognized to be the hub of Iran’s nuclear fuel cycle? Germany, France, and England, as well as the European Union, ought to act in unison denouncing the acts of nuclear sabotage in Iran, irrespective of Israel’s prerogative. Their failure to do so simply adds another layer of distrust between Iran and these powers, to the detriment of any prospect for tangible progress in the Vienna talks.
As for Biden’s foreign team, which has reported of its “serious proposal” on the table, it must recognize that unless there is some pressure applied on Israel to stop its spoiler role, US’s national interests maybe harmed and even sacrificed by a hawkish Middle East ally that behaves according to its own calculation of risks to its interests. In a word, an Obamaian rift with Israel may indeed be both inescapable and inevitable for the Biden administration.
Roads and Rails for the U.S.
For those who expect the newly announced $2 trillion Biden infrastructure program to be a goodbye to potholes and hello to smooth-as-glass expressways, a disappointment is in store. The largest expenditure by far ($400 billion) is on home/community care, impacting the elderly or disabled. The $115 billion apportioned to roads and bridges is #4 on the list.
The American Society of Civil Engineers (ASCE) keeps tabs on our infrastructure and their latest report (2020) gave it an overall grade of C-. Although bridges worsened, this is a modest improvement on the previous report (2017) when the overall grade was D+. If $115 billion in spending sounds adequate, one has to remember it costs $27 billion annually for upkeep.
Astounding it might be the backlog in spending for roads and bridges runs at $12 billion annually. Go back 20 years and we have a quarter trillion shortfall. Add all the other areas of infrastructure and the ASCE comes up with a $5 trillion total. It is the gap between what we have been spending and what we need to. Also one has to bear in mind that neglect worsens condition and increases repair costs.
One notable example of maintenance is the Forth rail bridge in Scotland. A crisscross of beams forming three superstructures linked together, it was a sensation when opened in 1890 and now is a UN World Heritage Site. Spanning 1.5 miles, its upkeep requires a regular coat of paint. And that it gets. Rumor has it that when the unobtrusive painters reach the end of their task, it is time to start painting again the end where they began — a permanent job to be sure though new paints might have diminished such prospects.
Biden also proposes $80 billion for railways. Anyone who has travelled or lived in Europe knows the stark contrast between railroads there and in the U.S. European high-speed rail networks are growing from the established TGV in France to the new Spanish trains. Run by RENFE, the national railway, Alta Velocidad Española (AVE) trains run at speeds up to 310 km/h (193 mph) — a speed that amounts to a convenient overnight trip between Los Angeles and Chicago.
The hugely expensive new tracks needed can be considered a long-term investment in our children’s future. But it will take courage to contest the well-heeled lobbies of the airplane manufacturers, the airlines and big oil.
If Spain can have high-speed rail and if China already has some 24,000 miles of such track, surely the US too can opt for a system that is convenient for its lack of airport hassle and the hour wasted each way in the journey to or from the city center. Rail travel not only avoids both but is significantly less polluting.
Particularly bad, airplane pollution high above (26 to 43 thousand feet) results in greater ozone formation in the troposphere. In fact airplanes are the principal human cause of ozone formation.
Imagine a comfortable train with space to walk around, a dining car serving freshly cooked food, a lounge car and other conveniences, including a bed for overnight travel; all for a significantly less environmental cost. When we begin to ask why we in the US do not have the public services taken for granted in other developed countries, perhaps then the politicians might take note.
Congress and the Biden administration should end FBI immunity overseas
The FBI notably has an extended international presence running 63 offices in select countries overseas. The offices are called “legats” and are situated at the US Embassy in the host country. One of the major reasons for FBI’s international presence is fighting international terrorism.
The FBI legat personnel at the US embassies are fully accredited diplomats enjoying full diplomatic immunity but that poses several questions that are worth asking, such as: how is it possible for law enforcement to be diplomats and is that a good idea, legally speaking?
Police work should not enjoy diplomatic immunity because that opens the door to abuse. Does the FBI’s immunity overseas mean that the FBI attaches can do no wrong in the host country? How do we tackle potential rights infringements and instances of abuse of power by the FBI towards locals in the host country? The DOJ Inspector General and the State Department Inspector General would not accept complaints by foreigners directed at the FBI, so what recourse then could a local citizen have vis-a-vis the FBI legat if local courts are not an option and the Inspector Generals would not look into those cases?
This presents a real legal lacuna and a glitch in US diplomatic immunity that should not exist and should be addressed by Congress and the new Biden administration.
While FBI offices overseas conduct some far from controversial activities, such as training and educational exchanges with local law enforcement, which generally no one would object to, the real question as usual is about surveillance: who calls the shots and who assumes responsibility for potentially abusive surveillance of locals that may infringe upon their rights. It’s an issue that most people in countries with FBI presence around the world are not aware of. The FBI could be running “counter-terrorism” surveillance on you in your own country instead of the local police. And that’s not nothing.
When we hear “cooperation in the area of counter-terrorism”, as recent decades show, there is a great likelihood that the US government is abusing powers and rights, without batting an eyelash. That exposes local citizens around the world to unlawful surveillance without legal recourse. Most people are not even aware that the FBI holds local offices. Why would the FBI be operating instead of the local law enforcement on another country’s territory? That’s not a good look on the whole for the US government.
The legal lacuna is by design. This brings us to the nuts and bolts of the FBI legats’ diplomatic immunity.
Diplomatic immunity is governed by the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations of 1961, under Chapter III on privileges and immunities. The US is also a state party to the Convention, along with most states around the world. While there could be some variations and disagreements on bilateral basis (including on weather for example one state could be hosted and represented through the embassy of another state in a third state), on the whole there is a universal consensus that the Vienna Convention sets the rules establishing diplomatic immunities and privileges.
Under the Vienna Convention, only top diplomats are given the highest degree of immunity from the law. This means they cannot be handcuffed, arrested, detained, or prosecuted by law enforcement officials of the country in which they’re stationed. Diplomatic immunities and privileges also include things like diplomatic “bags” (with very peculiar cases of what that could entail) and notably, protection and diplomatic immunity for the family of diplomats.
It is a universal consensus that not everyone who works at an Embassy has or should have diplomatic immunity. Immunity is saved for diplomats whose role has to be protected from the local jurisdiction of the country for a reason. Not all embassy staff should enjoy diplomatic immunity. Granting law enforcement such as the FBI full legal immunity for their actions is bad news.
Only the top officials at an embassy are diplomats with an actual full immunity — and that’s for a reason.
It makes sense why a diplomat negotiating an agreement should not be subjected to local courts’ jurisdiction. But the same doesn’t go for a law enforcement official who acts as a law enforcement official by, for example, requesting unlawful surveillance on a local citizen, in his law enforcement capacity, while thinking of himself as a diplomat and being recognized as such by the law.
Law enforcement personnel are not diplomats. Dealing with extraterritorial jurisdiction cases or international cases is not the same thing as the need for diplomatic immunity. If that was the case, everyone at the export division at the Department if Commerce would have diplomatic immunity for protection from foreign courts, just in case. Some inherent risk in dealing with international cases does not merit diplomatic immunity – otherwise, this would lead to absurdities such as any government official of any country being granted diplomatic immunity for anything internationally related.
The bar for diplomatic immunity is very high and that’s by design based on an international consensus resting upon international law. Simply dealing with international cases does not make a policeman at a foreign embassy a diplomat. If that was the case every policeman investigating an international case would have to become a diplomat, just in case, for protection from the jurisdiction of the involved country in order to avoid legal push-back. That’s clearly unnecessary and legally illogical. Being a staff member at an embassy in a foreign country does not in and of itself necessitate diplomatic immunity, as many embassy staff do not enjoy diplomatic protection. It is neither legally justified nor necessary for the FBI abroad to enjoy diplomatic immunity; this could only open up the function to potential abuse. The FBI’s arbitrary surveillance on locals can have a very real potential for violating the rights of local people. This is a difference in comparison to actual diplomats. Diplomats do not investigate or run surveillance on locals; they can’t threaten or abuse the rights of local citizens directly, the way that law enforcement can. Lack of legal recourse is a really bad look for the Biden administration and for the US government.
The rationale for diplomatic immunity is that it should not be permitted to arrest top diplomats, who by definition have to be good at representing their own country’s interests in relation to the host state, for being too good at their job once the host state is unhappy with a push back, for example. The Ambassador should not be exposed to or threatened by the risk of an arrest and trial for being in contradiction with the interests of the host state under some local law on treason, for example, because Ambassadors could be running against the interests of the host state, by definition. And that’s contained within the rules of diplomatic relations. It’s contained in the nature of diplomatic work that such contradictions may arise, as each side represents their own country’s interests. Diplomats should not be punished for doing their job. The same doesn’t apply to the FBI legats. Issuing surveillance on local citizens is not the same as representing the US in negotiations. The FBI legats’ functions don’t merit diplomatic immunity and their actions have to be open to challenge in the host country’s jurisdiction.
The FBI immunity legal lacunae is in some ways reminiscent of similar historic parallels, such as the George W. Bush executive order that US military contractors in Iraq would enjoy full legal immunity from Iraqi courts’ jurisdiction, when they shouldn’t have. At the time, Iraq was a war-torn country without a functioning government, legal system or police forces. But the same principle of unreasonable legal immunity that runs counter international laws is seen even today, across European Union countries hosting legally immune FBI attaches.
Congress and the Biden administration should end FBI immunity overseas. It can be argued that for any local rights infringements, it is the local law enforcement cooperating with the US Embassy that should be held accountable – but that would ignore that the actual request for unlawful surveillance on locals could be coming from the FBI at the Embassy. The crime has to be tackled at the source of request.
When I reached out to the US Embassy in Bulgaria they did not respond to a request to clarify the justification for the FBI diplomatic immunity in EU countries.
To prevent abuse, Congress and the Biden Administration should remove the diplomatic immunity of the FBI serving overseas.
Covid 19 and Human Security in Anthropocene era
Since the end of second World the focus on international security has grown, not only state threats but also threats...
Athletes knock the legs from under global sports governance
Sports governance worldwide has had the legs knocked out from under it. Yet, national and international sports administrators are slow...
Biden’s Dilemma: Caught Between Israel and Iran
By all indication, the latest sabotage at Iran’s uranium enrichment facility in Natanz aimed at more than just disabling thousands...
Pakistan and Germany are keen to Sustain Multifaceted and Mutually beneficial Cooperation
Pakistan has varied history of relationship and cooperation with other countries in international arena. Despite of proactive foreign policy Pakistan...
Disability policies must be based on what the disabled need
Diversity policies, especially when it comes to disabled people, are often created and implemented by decision makers with very different...
Preparing (Mega)Cities for the 2020s: An Innovative Image and Investment Diplomacy
Globalized megacities will definitely dominate the future, in the same way as colonial empires dominated the 19th century and nation-states...
The Galwan Conflict: Beginning of a new Relationship Dynamics
The 15th June, 2020 may very well mark a new chapter in the Indo-Chinese relationship and pave the way for...
Southeast Asia3 days ago
New Leadership Takes Charge in Vietnam: Challenges and Prospects
East Asia3 days ago
Sino-US rivalry and the myth of Thucydides Trap
Europe2 days ago
Sino-Serbian relations under the “microscope”: China’s footprint In Serbia
Europe2 days ago
Ммm is a new trend in the interaction between the EU and Turkey:”Silence is golden” or Musical chair?
South Asia2 days ago
Modi’s Illiberal Majoritarian Democracy: a Question Mark on the Future of Indian Minorities
Reports2 days ago
Aviation Sector Calls for Unified Cybersecurity Practices to Mitigate Growing Risks
Europe2 days ago
The Man Who Warned Us First About Climate Change
Tech News2 days ago
7 Driving Habits That Are Secretly Damaging Your Diesel Engine