The Day After Shutdown

America’s greatest challenge only comes to light now the shutdown is over.

The United States of America, considered by many to be one of the greatest examples of Western democracy, has been in shutdown for over two weeks. In this time, America’s global standing has certainly been undermined each day with its allies, whilst its enemies have looked on in a mocking triumph, as if this is the proof of everything wrong with the American way of life.

Dysfunction within a nation considered a bastion of power and democracy is always going to challenge international relations, but, more so than ever before, this government shutdown has reeked of ego massaging, in a scenario akin to a child walking away from his team because they’re losing a game. Reopening the house is now a mammoth and multifaceted problem.

Paralysis in the US means that other nations have learnt their own power. State Department deputy spokeswoman, Marie Harf, blasted what she called a “damaging” shutdown that “negatively impacts [US] standing abroad.”

Council on Foreign Relations president, Richard Haass, mimicked the sentiment, expanding that “This sends a message to allies that they're somewhat on their own.”

Indeed, you would be forgiven for forgetting the trouble across the pond. Following the initial week of turbulence, the shutdown seems largely disappeared from our news channels. With little action for negotiation on either side, the rest of the world could hardly wait around for America to splutter and kick start its way back to life.

In 1995, the last government shutdown, the economy was better equipped to deal with this sort of mass reduction in activity. Now, the economy is volatile.

Consequently, resolve within the American government, however, ushers in a new series of crises waiting to befall what appears an ailing regime of democracy.

Cancelling his important trip to Asia, with the intent of fostering better Chinese-American relations, Obama has allowed China to expand its global influence. The long planned trip was cut immediately to attend to the American crisis; a crisis fuelled and fired from the inside, on an issue triply settled in Congress, the courts and ballot.

The budget battle seriously risked sending the world into another recession, should the US default on its debts. This would provide China with grounds to claim that the US Dollar is not a secure currency, and to switch internationally to the Yuan, creating inflation in the US and leaving China able to manipulate exchange rates. China has a heaven sent opportunity to portray itself as the image of stability once peddled by US citizens.

Reopening government will be haunted by questions not only of reliability, but efficiency and how effective America is as a world power.

Not too long ago, America was the flexing power by which Syria was a crisis that would soon be resolved. Instead, the state now appears hypocritical at best for not even being able to hold control of its own house. Iran’s nuclear programme, one of the most controversial aspects of news, is legitimised by the US shutdown: how can one country in a turbulent period comment on another’s right for nuclear power?

The ramifications are more than economic and political then: they shake the very foundations of opinion on Western democracy and its impact. Russian President Vladimir Putin has expressed his disappointment at not being able to meet with Obama over these key international issues that have been played out on a world stage for the past year. His spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, said, “There is a great need in our bilateral relations for a dialogue at the highest level.” Yet the only dialogue is that of the Russians.

Ironically, not only does this strengthen the Russian position, but seriously gives credence to those who believe the Russian President is a viable candidate to receive the Nobel Peace Prize. This nomination the result of what is now viewed the most effective plan to initiate peace in Syria, spearheaded by Russia alone during shutdown.

Uncle Sam awakes to find a nation not only questioning its own importance, but one that has shot itself, and is now bleeding internally. It will be a slow and painful process to recover, but never heal fully. Being held to ransom by its own government, the US continues to lose money every day with hundreds of thousands of people out of work, tourism and national monument sites closed, and Head State funded programmes cancelled without notice, as it slowly hits restart. Not only will this be an international debacle, but a case of national humiliation. Americans will need to learn to have faith and trust in their own system again. When controversial popstar Miley Cyrus manages to mock the shutdown with panache, one wonders whether the people responsible realise the true extent of the extravagant spectacle.

What ‘Obamacare’ is highlighting is a chronic condition: an illness with little chance of treatment. Raising the debt ceiling and reopening the government isn’t the last of the turbulent American issues: it just kicks a proverbial can of worms a few months further down the line. This is a disease that has become malignant.

The latest poll suggests that almost three quarters of American’s leave the blame with the Republican Party. Essentially, the minority are trying to gain the upperhand through a form of extortion, and Obama is not willing to give into that. So, as government is reopened, the logical solution would be to pass an amendment to stop such petty squabbles crippling the US in future.

Well, this is where America comes to its ultimate Catch 22. This is the nation that declares itself the land of the free. This is the nation of modern democracy. To change the freedom enjoyed by Americans in the House is to admit that the system was wrong. It is unlikely that the government will risk this ultimate humiliation. Ideologically and, more importantly, in all practicality, this is a battle for freedom of speech that neither side can win.

Where In The World Is Timbuktu?

Last week, I wrote in some detail about the need for Western democracy to take decisive action in its stance towards the Israel Palestine question. I argued that it had fallen under the radar.

Yet this appears more and more a most prevalent issue in news reporting. Whilst the world has been engrossed in the likes of Lance Armstrong’s admission on Oprah, or whether or not Beyoncé actually sung live at the President inauguration (because such matters are of vital importance to the quotidian lives of the developed democracies), there have been further instances of warfare erupting across the globe: namely, in Mali.

Mali, a small land-locked country in Africa, is probably unknown to most, excepting its most famous of cities, Timbuktu. And even then, a majority couldn’t actually say that Timbuktu was in Mali if they were faced with a pin-the-tail-on-the-country scenario. I’ll admit myself that I know relatively little of this African country, but what has become increasingly apparent in my observations is that the information I have of the conflict is increasingly due to my French friends.

Hell, I only know the war in Mali is ongoing because of my French friends. That is not to say I’m self-absorbed: it’s just that we are gradually having our news dictated to us from Facebook instead of actual news channels. But then, the news channels and papers have proffered little in the way of coverage here.

In fact, the Mali crisis has been a recurring blight on the African continent since the middle of 2011, and its absence from our TV screens, laptops and tablet papers is something that should speak volumes of our preoccupations. The war here was a direct reaction to the situation in Libya that same year. For all the media circus on Gaddafi, this too was a seeming charade: few had real ideas of the problems in the African country before the British response.

This is where we expected our public conscious and journalistic preferences to take a turn: to focus on the global and its relation to us. Yet, we have failed to follow the sparks ignited by the Gaddafi revolution. Despite being amongst the poorest nations in the world, Mali was considered a beacon of African democracy; a self-sustaining country that had a recognisable and functioning government so sought after in other trouble states. This makes it all the more concerning that the media did not showcase the issue sooner. Essentially, the military seized power in March 2012. Tuareg rebels declared the independence of 'Azawad state' in the north, which was quickly taken over by al-Qaeda allies, effectively splitting the country in two and ensuring a continued battleground of hostility for the past 12 months.

Of course, no one ever expected the troubles in Libya to remain isolated events. In this light, we have become desensitised, almost to the point of morose boredom. The words of certain 20^th century Prime Minister ring true in our apathy: “A war in a distant nation that we know nothing about.” But surely, just as in the 1930s, we should still be concerned?

While the Malian government had been busy claiming the situation in the north was under control, rank-and-file soldiers felt humiliated and abandoned in combat with not enough military resources and food. “The Libyan crisis didn't cause this coup but certainly revealed the malaise felt within the army,” says Malian newspaper columnist Adam Thiam. “President Amadou Toumani Toure hasn't been active in tackling drug trafficking and al-Qaeda fighters, and the emergence of new rebel movements only added to the soldiers' frustration.”

The undercurrent of tension here is just a microcosm of the situation in many of Africa’s poorest nations. With recent rebel activity in Algeria, the continued threat is something that has become at least visible, if not palpable on the whole.

However, the difficulties in resolving the Libyan crisis are still bearing consequences. A strong leader (especially in the apparent absence of President Amadou Toumani Toure) that can unite a reluctant Malian army could spell the beginning of further African conflict, and a number of bordering states are set to follow in a cataclysmic domino effect.

The rebel group, MNLA, believe the only thing that can halt their advance into southern Mali is in fact a European intervention, so confident they are in their support, abilities and weaponry. “Western powers have underestimated that getting rid of Gaddafi would have severe repercussions in the Sahel region,” says Mr Kebe, a professor in Arab-African relations.

Once more it is an example of the Western endemic of half-heartedness in their resolve to find a permanent solution to a potentially volatile situation across much of Northern Africa. But, did Beyoncé actually sing the inauguration song live? I guess we’ll all be avidly tuning into the Superbowl next week. 

Promised Land of Change: Israel's Elections and Peace

"If you're in Israel today, vote as if your life depends on it. It does."

Scrolling my Twitter feed, I find these rather haunting words from the Hareetz newspaper, half a world away. As far as tactics go for convincing people to vote, perhaps a tad extreme. Such headlines would certainly not work in a UK election. Yet is it an over-reaction of the Israeli state, or a reaffirmation that the Middle East is still a cause for tension, when media attention is attracted to the US and Obama’s inauguration?

So renowned are the disputes between Israel and neighbour Palestine that Western media appears to have all but forsaken any coverage of the issue. Last year when a period of peace was ended, images of rockets, interceptors, collapsing buildings and wounded infants once more flooded the screens of the UK. But the focus was short lived and prompted little in the way of assistance to the two countries.

Last week, as part of his second inauguration, Obama spoke candidly of freedom and warfare in relation to the US. As the leading force in intervention, the American president voiced his opinion that "We do not believe that in this country, freedom is reserved for the lucky, or happiness for the few." Of course, this first and foremost is a sentiment of American equality: a modern revival of a president advocating the American Dream. Yet, it suggests a pragmatic belief in the need for a practical approach in aiding other countries, whose desolate and poor do not have the right to freedom or happiness from constant threat and terror.

The election results in Israeli may in fact go some way to inducing Western aid once more. The mood of the electorate has certainly swung, and in the process of forming a coalition government, the fine balance of parties views will need to be negotiated and compromises and truces reached. Whilst the American politician Tip O'Neill once famously observed “that all politics is local.”, here in Israel, politics is more enmeshed in social-cultural-international relations than in any other region on the globe.

Naturally, it appears that some have heeded the warning to vote in accordance to live. Whilst the incumbent president won the most votes, he does not have a majority. In fact, the real victor may be Mr Lapid’s party, Yesh Atid (There is a Future), running for the first time. He earned 19 seats in the 120-seat parliament, against 31 for the Likud-Beitenu party, led by Binyamin Netanyahu, who is still expected to retain his post. But the centralist party now hold a powerful position in the next term of office.

If the party comes together with Netanyahu, there is prospect for a more proactive approach to peace in the region. In previous elections, the extremist parties had received significant votes. But with Yesh Atid and the Labour party now performing well and instigating a new approach to peace and politics in the region, a lot more has to be done to appease the emerging young middle classes that have temperaments and logical approaches that mirror more closely Western ideals.

Netanyahu told weary but elated supporters early Wednesday he plans to form a government "as broad as possible" and pursue his goals with "many partners."

"I believe the results of the election represent an opportunity to make changes that the people of Israel want to see and that will serve all citizens of the state of Israel," he said. "I plan to lead those changes and to that end we must establish a government that is as broad as possible, and I've already started out on that task."

Should the Prime Minister prove true in his word, this may change the attitude of Western democracies that had written off the Israel question as a futile area of irresolvable conflict. Of course, none of this precludes the antagonism of Palestine and whether they too are ready to engage in a new series of discussions to resolve the theological problems that have blighted two nations for generations.

Of course, the leaders of the EU and the US will remember that it was the Palestinian leadership, under Yasser Arafat, that rejected the generous offer of peace talks and improved relationships by Prime Minister Ehud Barak and President Bill Clinton in 2000-2001, and similar proposals were again rejected just a few years ago. Should the Palestinian leadership refuse to host any talks in the light of this new national outpouring of feeling in Israel, both countries will have failed to capitalise on a potentially pivotal moment in the debate.

Progress has been galvanised in Israel, and now the leaders of Western democracy need respond positively. Media should showcase more closely the development of the Middle East crisis to add to pressure for a resolve. In an age of integrated social media, internet and 24 hour news, the Israel-Palestine conflict is still a black hole of non-information. If only we were as determined to vote as though our lives depended on it, maybe we would have more empathy with the citizens of Israel.