EMMANUEL MACRON: A COURAGEOUS PRESIDENT OR COHABITING PARTNER?

Emmanuel Macron’s imminent French Presidential victory has resulted in a sigh of relief across Europe, and in fact globally, as the tide of nationalism is abating, at least for the foreseeable future. As the Awarelogue Editorial in March 2017 discussed Geert Wilders defeat in the Netherlands and questioned the ‘Patriotic Spring’ meeting its Waterloo, (https://awarelogue.blogspot.com/2017/03/wilders-patriotic-spring-meets-its.html) it is apparent that despite a significant rise in nationalism, the tide is not strong enough to overwhelm the political structure of Europe. For the moment. Yet in France, the actual strength of Macron and more importantly, En Marche, has not been put to the real test.

On the eve of the first round of voting, former US President Barack Obama tweeted ‘you never know, it might be that last day of campaigning that makes all the difference.’ As ominous as it may sound, his warning came just hours before a shooting on the Avenue des Champs-Élysées which, it was feared would scuttle floating votes and benefitting Le Pen. Yet the attack didn’t dissuade the French citizenry who gave former Economy Minister, Macron a decisive lead. Immigration and Europe have dominated matters on either side of the Channel, but the French have already learnt from the ‘mistakes’ of others. With a strong ally across the Atlantic reeling from divisive decisions and sporadic policies, and a neighbour undergoing the rigours of leaving the European Union, the French and Europe as a whole have understood the dangers of opting for brashness and instead sought to ensure stability.

Akin to Trump, Macron has managed to sideline veterans. Melenchon entered politics the year before Macron was born, Francois Fillon, served as Prime Minister under Sarkozy, and Marine Le Pen, the forthright leader of the far right, all presented stronger candidatures, yet the newcomer proved once more that the populace is willing to give change a chance. Macron served as Economy Minister under Hollande yet managed to shed all shadows of a period described as economically disastrous. The honeymoon is yet to begin but the questions and doubts will invariably arise. In 2012 the French wanted change. Electing Francois Hollande, the first leftwing leader in two decades, they expected wide ranging policy changes, but five years later he is set to leave the Élysées Palace with some of the lowest ratings of a French President. Sarkozy before him faced a similar fate.

2017 has seen the French opting for change again, but not willing to go to an extreme with Le Pen, instead trusting Macron to deliver on key promises and ensure a revival of the country and her economy. As more candidates and influential figures express their support for Macron, the unofficial coalition being built is more against Le Pen, than for Macron. Despite her stepping down from the leadership of the National Front seeking to be portrayed as a leader of the French, and not of a party, Le Pen, who has worked wonders for the far-right would see history repeat itself. In 2002, her father Jean-Marie Le Pen entered the second round of voting against President Jacques Chirac, only to have a grand coalition of opposition that ensured Chirac won a second term in the Élysées.

With legislative elections due in June 2017, and the need for his newly formed party to field candidates capable of winning, will Macron be able to deliver or will he suffer the same fate as his predecessors and be booted out in 2022? Minus a well-oiled mechanism across the country, he could well be forced to engage in a cohabitation arrangement, which would invariably derail his own plans and presidency. France is no stranger to such arrangements having seen President Francois Mitterrand cohabiting with Jacques Chirac as Prime Minister from 1986 to 1988 and thereafter with Édouard Balladur from 1993 to 1995; Chirac himself had to work with Prime Minister Lionel Jospin from 1997 to 2002.

Although a sigh of relief may have been exclaimed across Europe, En Marche needs to move forward, well and beyond May 2017, if that which was pledged is to be delivered and expectations lived up to. More than defeating the rise of nationalism or curtailing the far-right, the real test is for Macron to prove his potential and for En Marche to ride the victory wave in establishing a wide ranging support base, which although hopeful, appears illusive within such a short period. This is the real test.

• Awarelogue Editorial

TESTING BREXIT: THE GAMBLE OF THERESA MAY

A calculated, concerted move by Theresa May will see another European nation facing a critical election in 2017. The British Prime Minister’s disgruntled stance with Westminster, which she accused of not rallying behind her in the move to leave the European Union, stems from growing dissent across the political milieu, including within the Conservatives. While the June 08^th general election is projected to strengthen Britain’s exit strategy, it is a move to strengthen her own party and its position, yet the challenges will only mount in the weeks ahead as Brexit is put to a second vote.

With the Tories having won the general election of 2015, May inherited a party which had governed for one fifth of its term, and could continue till 2020 with the current majority in Parliament. Yet latest popularity polls have indicated the Conservatives enjoy 44% as opposed to 23% for Labour. Thirty years ago, the Thatcher-led Conservatives were at 41% of the popular vote whilst Labour under Neil Kinnock stood at 30%. Prime Minister Thatcher had a year left in her second term when she chose to test the waters and seek a third term. While the ‘winter of discontent’ propelled her first victory in 1979, her second term was boosted by Falklands. By 1987, Margaret Thatcher had a booming economy and her gamble ended in a decisive victory which she said was because the Conservatives ‘knew what we stood for, we said what we stood for. And we stuck by what we stood for.’

Twenty years later, Theresa May faces myriad battles, owing mostly to Brexit. Her claim that ‘Brexit means Brexit and we are going to make a success of it’ as she occupied Downing Street, has seen her invoking Article 50 in the last few weeks, and her pushing for a unique deal for Britain as she leaves the regional grouping. Wanting a special trade deal guaranteeing access to the single market, smooth trade across borders and the ability to control immigration, May might be asking for too much, too soon. As European nations face one election after another, the actual discussions are not likely to make much progress until at least the German’s have had their say in their federal elections in September 2017, losing a quarter of the two-year negotiating time frame.  

In the face of opposition from Labour, the Liberal Democrats, the Scottish National Party (SNP) and the House of Lords, May believes strengthening the position of the party and herself would ensure enhanced prospects for the Tories, given their current ratings, and more leveraging power at the European negotiating table. Yet the Prime Minister has chosen to ignore a vital statistic - the people. In June 2016, 71.8% of eligible British voters exercised their franchise giving the Brexit camp 53.4% of the vote. In terms of numbers it is credible, yet the growing concern which started on the morning after the referendum has seen deep divisions getting deeper as people begin to understand the ramifications of pulling out of the EU. With threats to sovereignty emanating chiefly from Scotland and Northern Ireland, an upsetting of regionalism in the best known model, and countless trade concerns and the potentially debilitating loss of markets, questions continue to rise over the possibility of securing the ‘best deal for Britain.’ Such an eventuality would only lead to other European nations wanting similar ‘deals,’ worrying European leaders further.

Although May and the Tories command a lead in the polls, the potential for the Lib Dems and the Scottish National Party remain boundless. Having chosen to enter a cohabitation agreement with the Conservatives in 2010, when they won 57 seats, the Lib Dems learnt a bitter lesson in the ensuing term, as David Cameron cashed in on all gains of the coalition, and Nick Clegg was left to pick up the pieces, with a massive electoral defeat resulting in a mere 8 seats being secured. Today Tim Farron has been afforded an opportunity few would miss. Having consistently opposed Brexit, the Lib Dem leader has hailed the call for the general election as a ‘chance to change the direction’ of Britain. Coupled with the dissatisfied Nicola Sturgeon, elements of the Conservatives, and those in Labour, Farron could become king-maker or even king in June 2017.

In 1997, Tony Blair and Labour swept to power, yet twenty years on, the party he revitalized remains in disarray. Blair has spoken openly against Brexit, and has gone further to criticize, noting that ‘the debilitation of the Labour party is the facilitator of Brexit.’ Whilst claiming that people had a right to change their mind, the former Prime Minister is expected to be the key campaigner against Prime Minister May, with Jeremy Corbyn relegated to second place or possibly no place at all. Divisions within the party have heightened over Scotland too, as the floating of the idea of a second Scottish referendum has seen Corbyn ‘absolutely fine’ with it but Scottish Labour party leader Kezia Dugdale rejecting the call.

Will Nigel Farage return to lead the campaigning? Will Ruth Davidson, the Tory Scottish leader be able to improve her party’s position in Scotland or will Nicola Sturgeon boost the SNP’s seats in Westminster? Will Tony Blair remerge despite his Iraqi controversy? Will Theresa May be Prime Minister in two months time? Will an Alliance be formed with likeminded persons leading the halting of Brexit? The next seven weeks and events therein, bear the potential of altering the course of the British, and what appears to be a single-issue election will be overshadowed by Scotland.  

Irrespective of the outcome of the June 08th election, the Bremain campaigners claim the first victory. Theresa May has effectively acceded to a second referendum on Britain’s position on its membership in the European Union, and has put her party at stake. This could be the worst gamble of the Conservatives, or the last chance for the British.

- Awarelogue Editorial

CRAVING ATTENTION OR CARVING AFGHANISTAN?

Exactly a week after strikes on the Shayrat Airbase in Syria, US forces detonated the ‘mother of all bombs’ in Nangarhar Province in eastern Afghanistan. The attack, which came on the eve of the anniversary of strikes against Libya in 1986, is said to have involved the largest non-nuclear bomb ever designed, with the potential to wreck large scale damage. Aimed at denying ISIS operatives space, the strike on a cave network, the 21, 600-pound, GPS guided ammunition has repercussions which extended far beyond Afghanistan.

On April 14, 1986, the Libyan towns of Tripoli and Benghazi were struck by naval attack jets in the Mediterranean and by bombers based in the UK, while France had refused permission for the use of their air space, increasing the distance of air travel. Several military targets were engaged, the main being the Headquarters of Colonel Muammar al-Qaddafi. Killing Qaddafi’s 15-month-old adopted daughter, who was at his residence, the attack also injured two of his sons. Ronald Reagan addressing the nation reiterated that ‘when our citizens are abused or attacked anywhere in the world, we will respond in self-defense.’ Acknowledging that they did what they had to do, Reagan was keen to stress that ‘if necessary, we shall do it again.’

America kept to that promise. Successive US Presidents have carried out varied attacks, covert and otherwise, in different parts of the world. From January to March 2017, an estimated 235 air and drone strikes had been carried out in Afghanistan alone. Thus the point of reasoning is the effectiveness of such strikes, and their ability to crush rebellious forces. While it took another quarter of a century to get rid of Qaddafi, Benghazi entered the annals of US history following the death of Ambassador Christopher Stevens on September 11^th, 2012. Why then have American Presidents been determined to grab international attention and fulfill the aspirations of Machiavelli.   

Clinton’s much repeated election mantra, ‘it’s the economy, stupid,’ calling for inward looking policies to bring about change in America, may have worked in putting him into the Oval Office. Yet he went on to advocate a ‘doctrine of enlargement’ and faced massive challenges over Somalia, Rwanda and Haiti. He realized the potential of the post-Cold War era and didn’t want to lose the opportunity provided. George W. Bush, having encountered the impact of September 11^th, launched America into battle with guns blazing. Barack Obama despite pledging to end the wars of his predecessor went on to keep America at war for the totality of his presidency, ironically even after being awarded the Noble Peace Prize, rather prematurely in his first term. Attention and the modus operandi by which leaders have striven to attract and/or divert it, remains at the crux of international affairs. From George Washington onwards, the slogan to ‘make America great’ has been in practice, though perhaps not voiced all too often. Trump’s cry to do so ‘again’ is widely in keeping with his numerous predecessors, most of whom perfected the art of attracting and diverting attention as and when required. Emboldened by the response received after the 59 cruise missiles struck targets in Syria, Donald Trump has chosen to display the potential of America in a bid to intimidate more than destroy. The GBU-43, designed in the Bush-junior era was ready for use in 2003 but neither Bush nor Obama chose to use it. The deployment of the bomb comes in the wake of Chinese President Xi’s visit to America and Secretary Tillerson’s visit to Russia. Xi’s visit, vastly seen as an opportunity for the two leaders to ‘get to know each other,’ was overshadowed by the missile strike on Syria. Geared towards adding military muscle to the Trump administration, it vulgarly displayed its hard power potential, against a smaller and weaker state. Yet for China, which opposes intervention of any form, the attack guarantees America’s continued involvement in the region, and the opportunity for China to continue with her steady rise, bereft of such international concerns.

Rex Tillerson, a 2013 recipient of the Russian Order of Friendship, only just wrapped up his visit to Moscow, when news of the Afghan strike was released. Tillerson’s remarks in the wake of the Syrian attack that ‘either Russia has been complicit or Russia has simply been incompetent in its ability to deliver on its end of that agreement,’ referring to the agreement to remove chemical weapons from Syria, did not sit well with the Russians, who have insisted on an ‘objective investigation.’ Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was quick to highlight Milosevic, Saddam, Qaddafi and Bashir as examples of acting in haste, thereby questioning the motive of removing Assad.

Yes, the attack along the border with Pakistan will focus tremendous attention on Trump, the US and its military prowess. It will boost his ratings as witnessed even after the Syrian strikes, and it will send a strong message to foes, that America is not recoiling into an isolationist quagmire to wallow and watch the world go by. Yet alarmingly the attack will also be known for its hyped rhetoric rather than actual impact, making it another in a string of strikes. It will boost rebel recruitment; keep Afghanistan in a constant state of emergency; and perpetuate America’s involvement in the region.

Once again a small state falls victim to the machinations of large powers. Afghanistan, having endured the rigours of war for decades, continues to linger on the tables in many capitals. Rebel groups and their operatives, having found safe havens within its borders, have taken over control of parts of the country, rendering it inaccessible to the general citizenry. Voluntarily or otherwise, Afghanistan remains divided. As the devastation persists it remains to be seen if Afghanistan will be Trump’s Benghazi, or whether Afghans will find themselves in a divided state.

FALKLANDS vs. SCOTLAND: PRESERVING NATIONAL INTEREST

Thirty five years ago Argentina opted to invade the Falkland Islands, located in close proximity to South America. Bringing to a climax years of disputed claim to the archipelago of more than 700 islands, the invasion couldn’t have come at a worse time for the Conservative government in the United Kingdom. The invasion on April 02, 1982 earned the wrath of the establishment as Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher declared that the Argentine action had ‘not a shred of justification, nor a scrap of legality.’ Her unrelenting stance of freeing the islands of Argentine occupation was fueled on several levels. From her disbelief that Argentina would actually resort to a military seizure and outrage that British territory was forcibly occupied, Thatcher entered the fray quoting Queen Victoria that for failure, ‘the possibilities do not exist.’

National interest and Britain’s standing in the world were at stake and Thatcher was determined to ensure that the invading forces would be thwarted. From assembling the South Atlantic sub-committee of the Overseas and Defence Committee, which functioned as the small War Cabinet, to dispatching a naval task force, dealing with rising casualties and choreographing the passing of Resolution 502 at the United Nations, the responsibility of action was borne by the Prime Minister. The victory she sought and achieved in June 1982 resonated at Downing Street as well as in many corridors of power around the world. Britain had won, her reputation was intact, and her national interest had been preserved.

The battle had been for islands, named after Antony Carr, fifth Viscount of Falklands, and former Treasurer of the Navy who funded the expedition of John Strong in 1690. The Viscount himself took his name from a small Scottish village in Fife. Buried at Westminster Abbey in May 1694, he had been committed a few months earlier to the Tower of London for peculation. Falklands, therefore embraced a strange sense of irony, yet the deed of military seizure was what came in for outright condemnation by states across the world.

The anniversary of the invasion last week passed minus attention. What did achieve headlines was the Scottish First Minister and her visit to the United States. Aimed at shoring up US-Scottish relations it was chiefly directed towards heightening the independence campaign amid growing strains between Scotland and Westminster. The five-day visit took Nicola Sturgeon to the UN, Stanford university and included a meeting with the Governor of California. Addressing the UN, in its basement, the First Minister laid out her views on Scotland amidst rumblings on the effects of Brexit. Wanting ‘Scotland to be independent not from any insular or separatist motivation, but because (she) believes that countries should govern themselves,’ Sturgeon went global, just days after parliamentarians voted 69-59 in favour of seeking a second referendum on Scottish independence.

With Autumn 2018 and Spring 2019 set as the desired period for such an eventuality, the First Minister wasted no time. Having written to Prime Minister May, she left for America to drum up public support in a country whose President welcomed Brexit. Against all odds, her taking on issues of climate change, women and Syria, is an attempt to position herself as a stateswoman rather than mere liberation seeker, who argues the Scottish model is exceptional.   

David Cameron held the referendum. Theresa May invoked Article 50. Both actions deemed necessary by Brexit campaigners to preserve British sovereignty, uphold national interest and ensure the preservation of all things British. Cameron and May believed they were acting in the best interests of the British. Yet the extent of coverage of such action remains questionable. Sturgeon, too, is resolute in her stance and has set out to preserve ‘Scotland’s place in the world.’ Thus Sturgeon, more than May, appears capable of filling The Iron Lady’s shoes.

While Falklands and Scotland are devoid of similarity and circumstance, the uniting factor remains national interest. Whether defeating an outside force, as with Argentina, or grappling with developments within the Union, as evidenced in the aftermath of the 2016 referendum, Britain has embarked on a journey of proving once again her forthright nature, stoic ability and single-handed determination. Over Falklands, the British rallied round the Union Jack. Over Scotland, St Andrew’s Cross appears to fly higher.    

- Awarelogue Editorial 

BREXIT AND SOVEREIGNTY: THE DILEMMA OF PROTECTION

Brexit

Invoking Article 50 has commenced the process by which the United Kingdom will achieve once again, that which the majority sought. The degree of involvement, proportion of trade and final details of removing themselves from the European Union will take years to finalize yet the act is now final. Drafted to make the EU ‘more democratic, more transparent and more efficient,’ the Lisbon Treaty of 2007, which came into effect in 2009, made it possible for member states to opt out when so desired. The vision with which the Union was carefully crafted, the process of integration and the effort exerted in bringing it to its current state, stand questionable today. While regionalism bears a direct impact on sovereignty, European states themselves chose, voluntarily, to deepen their partnership over the decades.   

Sovereignty, its protection and preservation, remains at the core of national interest. Westphalia has been credited often with having spurred the identification of sovereignty and ensured the state became the political institution embodying it. Articles 73 and 76 of the Treaty which refer to ‘Lordship and Sovereignty’ and ‘Jurisdiction and Sovereignty’ respectively, detail the term in connection with governance and justice, and this it is presupposed is what forms the basis of equating the term to 1648. Yet it has been argued by J. R. Strayer that sovereignty as a practice, though not a term was in use centuries before in the 1300s between France and England. Daniel Philcott accepting this claim highlights that ‘two centuries of civil war delayed sovereignty’s lasting consolidation’ and argues that ‘Westphalia indeed made sovereign statehood a norm.’

Thus preservation of sovereignty is the raison d’être of states. Thomas J. Biersteker and Cynthia Weber observe that ‘throughout the course of history, the meaning of sovereignty has undergone important change and transformation – from the location of the source of legitimacy (in God, in the monarch or in the people) – to the scope of activities under its protection.’ While Stephen D. Krasner believes that sovereignty relates to ‘a system of political authority based on territory, mutual recognition, autonomy and control,’ Peter Hägel is of the view that ‘the concept of sovereignty designates a form of rule that is intrinsically entwined with the emergence and existence of the modern states system.’

The march of the Europeans towards consolidation into one region, dates back centuries as attempts had been at varying times and for differing periods to amalgamate the region. Carried out more by force than choice in the past, the mood post-Second World War favored the option of integration to avoid the ravages of war, which Europe had endured too frequently and for too long. States understood the implications of integration which would come at a cost to sovereignty, yet they chose the former for the greater good of the region. British leaders too comprehended the ramifications when attempting to enter and finally secured a berth for Britain in an integrated Europe.

The process, although taking several decades to realize a functional model of regionalism, was unique, from formation and implementation to deep integration across a variety of sectors. It reached another milestone as the Cold War ended, membership expanded and integration grew strong. Yet Daniel Philcott notes that ‘among the hallowed things that fell with the Berlin Wall was the sanctity of absolute sovereignty in international relations, the principle that within their borders, state institutions are untouchable, inviolable and supreme.’ Hinsley’s ‘absolute sovereignty’, which Philcott alludes to, and which was subsequently developed by Hobbes, Bodin and Rousseau, entails the ‘idea that there is a final and absolute political authority in the political community... and no final and absolute authority exists elsewhere.’

Thus sacrificing absolute control, power and supremacy was part of the price that states paid for integration and a price, it may be argued, that is worth paying given that which accrues to a single state through membership in a regional body, especially the EU. Philcott notes that ‘this (began) a generation earlier when European states pooled their sovereignty over trade, commerce, and other affairs into the institution of the European Community.’

The demand for preservation of sovereignty, which dominated the debate, raises several causes for concern. While England voted to leave with 53.2% opting out as opposed to 46.8 who preferred to stay in, Wales saw 51.7% deciding it was best to exit and 48.3% chose to remain. The irony of arguing on the basis of sovereignty as a pillar upon which the Brexit camp chose to campaign was severely questioned when considering the results of Scotland and Northern Ireland. Whilst a massive 62% of Scottish voters chose to remain as opposed to 38% opting to leave the EU, Northern Ireland saw 55.7% supporting the Bremain camp and 44.3% not.

The result could have been considered rational had it been spread evenly across the nation, yet the state realized the danger lurking in the result when Scottish First Minister, Nicola Sturgeon announced on the morning after that she would ‘take all possible steps and explore all possible options to give effect to how people in Scotland voted - in other words to secure our continuing place in the EU, and in the single market in particular.’ Given that this referendum came two years after a vote in Scotland which explored the possibility of independence, her view that ‘an independence referendum is now highly likely but I also think it is important that we take time to consider all steps and have the discussions, not least to assess the response of the European Union to the vote that Scotland expressed,’ was met in all seriousness when Prime Minister Theresa May opted to fly first to Scotland the day after she was sworn in, to reassure the Scottish First Minister and people of her ‘commitment to preserving this special union that has endured for centuries.’ The last few weeks have seen Sturgeon stoking the fires of independence once again, drawing attention to the subject.

Gerry Adams, the Sinn Fein President has noted that ‘the British government should respect the popular vote in the North for European Union membership by bringing forward a referendum on Irish unity. The Irish government, too, should act on this,’ indicated the fragility of Britain’s unity casting doubts over the effectiveness of the Brexit camp’s main slogan. Adams’ apprehension over the Good Friday Agreement and its buried divisions, the North-South border and its near-vanished nature, the economy and trade, and chiefly over democracy, creates concern in London. His acclamation that Irish Prime Minister Enda Kenny supported his ‘proposal for an All-Ireland forum of political parties and civic partners to deal with the consequences of Brexit,’ would augur well for Irish unity and strengthen sovereignty therein yet erode that which was hitherto sought and enjoyed by Britain.

Peter J. Katzenstein’s view that ‘it is the convoluted interconnections of countries and regions that define the current global order’ would resonate in the corridors of Europe, as it makes a choice of ascending that order, precariously hanging on or be forced to commence descending, thereby sacrificing all that it has come to represent. President Hollande lamenting the vote last year, was quick to note that ‘it's a decision that was taken by the British people...it is the British who will have to bear the consequences,’ thus indicating where the onus lay.

For sovereignty and its campaigners, questions arise as to whether it has been preserved in the spirit in which it was intended, or has it faced its most trying moment and projected what is to come, with the statistics and sentiments emanating from Scotland and Northern Ireland.  

Churchill’s warning that the best argument against democracy was a five minute conversation with the average voter, has been ignored by his own country and party, who chose instead to follow his paradoxically-opposed argument that democracy is the worst form of government, except all the others. Irrespective of whether democracy is the preferred choice or not, the British people have spoken and their leaders have pledged to carry forward their decision. Britain has been able to hold sway over global politics once more.

S.Saraswathi’s contention that ‘Brexit is an outcome of the inevitable conflict between the requirements of State sovereignty and the terms governing regional integration (and that) it is a democratic decision,’ denotes the nature of democracy itself.