Ladies and Gentlemen,

I feel extraordinarily honored and touched to stand before you all today. It is always great to be in the company of the next generation of youth leaders.

I am deeply humbled and delighted to be receiving the 2017 Alumni Laureate Award from this distinguished University which has chosen to bestow this honor upon me.

I would like to express my heartfelt gratitude to my Professor Ms. Catherine Gegout for nominating me and for her encouragement and support. I profoundly thank all members of the board who selected me for this Award.

It is in this University that I learned the value of a solid education, the value of wisdom and knowledge, and it is in this University I spent one of the best years in my life. Therefore, I may say that this honor does not only belong to me but to all of you the graduates of the University of Nottingham.

I am reminded by two words that one of my Professors at this university told me when I asked him on the reason why I didn’t get a distinction on one of my essays in the module of counter-terrorism, which I worked hard on it, and thought that it met the criteria of an excellent essay that has good argument, structure and evidence.  “New Idea… You have not brought up any new idea in your essay”. New Idea…Two words that left a big impact on me and inspired me to always think of how to bring an innovative idea and make a difference.

It may not happen immediately because simply you may not find the right opportunity to translate what you have in mind into concrete actions. But eventually the opportunity will knock at your door and at that point you should be smart to seize it. Remember that efforts aren’t always rewarded right away and success is a journey that only becomes brighter when we have the determination and willingness to try and fail, and try again until we reach our goal.

It happened that in 2014 Jordan became a Non-Permanent Member of the Security Council for a two year term, and that was my opportunity to serve in my country’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations in New York; during which I contributed to introducing the first ever resolution in the Security Council on youth, which was named Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security. I am proud to have led the negotiations on this significant resolution.

Today’s world is facing political upheaval, the rise of violent extremism and terrorism, intolerance, and hatred toward those who are different than you. But We should not give in to fear and hatred, but to defeat the ideology of extremism and terrorism. But such growing threats cannot be confronted by any one country or any one leader, or by conventional ways and policies, or with marginalizing women or youth, the most important categories in any nation. This is why it was crucial to establish a new agenda on youth in the United Nations to enable young men and women play an active role in preventing and countering those threats, and building peace in their communities. You should not be endangered by non-state actors, extremists and terrorists. We should not accept a world in which youth are denied opportunity and a recognition of their positive role in peacebuilding.

If we are serious about building stronger and more resilient societies, we need to be serious about empowering youth and enhancing their positive role. Our countries can fulfill their potential only when they unlock the potential of every young man and woman, and give them the chance to be actively engaged in the development, peacebuilding and prosperity of their communities. Youth are not only the future but they are the present.

One last thought I would like to share with you today. As you go out into the world to seek the fulfillment of your dreams, I urge you all to free yourselves from any limits and use the creative power of your minds. Believe in your capabilities since they are limitless and can help you to transform your lives as well as others’ lives. Believe that you are valuable and deserving of every opportunity to pursue your dreams and aspirations. And only then your life will end up being a true success.

Therefore, I’m very proud to accept the Alumni Laureate Award, and while awards are always amazing to receive, just knowing that I contributed to making a positive difference in the lives of many generations of youth is truly rewarding enough.

Thank you very much.

The post Speech by Sonia Sughayar, First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Jordan to the United Nations, and Recipient of the Recent Alumni Laureate Award for the year 2017 appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Catherine Gegout.

Congratulations to one of our best MA students, Sonia Sughayar, who is now First Secretary at the Permanent Mission of Jordan to the United Nations. Sonia was the recipient of the Recent Alumni Laureate Award for the year 2017. She gave an inspiring speech (see here) at the Summer Graduation of the Faculty of Social Sciences in July 2017.

 It is impressive that someone who graduated only seven years ago with a postgraduate qualification in International Relations should now find herself as a Jordanian diplomat to the United Nations in New York.

It is even more impressive to know that, in her role, Sonia Sughayar has been able to make a contribution to a ground-breaking policy – what is widely believed to be the first ever resolution on youth to be adopted by the Security Council.

As a student, Sonia was attentive and engaged. After completing her MA, Sonia returned to her position as a diplomat, at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of Jordan. She chose to be posted to the UN so that she could translate the research and mediation skills, acquired through presentations and simulation games as part of her studies in Nottingham, into tangible results.

Sonia has been at the forefront of the empowerment of young people at the UN through the organisation’s adoption in 2015 of Resolution 2250 on Youth, Peace and Security. She led the negotiations on this resolution with the other 14 representatives of the Security Council Member States.

Changing the global rhetoric and the international community’s perception of the relationship between youth and conflict is very challenging. With the support of her Ambassador at the mission, and with hard work and determination, she developed a momentum on the importance to actively engage young people in keeping and building peace in their communities.

Sonia is currently working on a follow up process to Resolution 2250 with the relevant UN departments. When completed by the end of 2017, the UN will generate awareness of youth issues and provide good practices and guidance for Member States to strengthen the design of more innovative policies. This will foster the positive impact of young people to resolve conflicts and sustain peace.

Sonia has worked with dedication and perseverance. She is already making a significant contribution to making not only a prosperous future for the next generations, but also a peaceful and forward looking present. Sonia Sughayar is a thoroughly deserving recipient of the Alumni Laureate Recent Graduate Award for 2017.

Catherine Gegout is an Associate Professor in International Relations at the School of Politics and International Relations (SPIR). Image credit: Author provided. 

The post Sonia Sughayar (MA in International Relations 2010) was the recipient of the Recent Alumni Laureate Award for the year 2017. appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Our partners, Prof. Pham Quang Minh, Rector of University of Social Sciences and Humanities, and Luong Ngoc Vinh, the Deputy Director of Cooperation and Development at VNU Hanoi, visited our campus in March 2017. They met Prof. Nick Miles, OBE, Pro-Vice Chancellor for Global Engagement at the University of Nottingham, and Prof. Michele Clarke, Associate Pro Vice Chancellor (Global Engagement) for Asia-Pacific. They also met Helen Foster, who is the Associate Director of the International Office, responsible for policy on teaching partnership development, and Professor Wyn Rees, the Head of the School of Politics and International Relations.

Our partners had a meeting with Prof. Katharine Adeney, Director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies, Prof. Neville Wylie, Associate Pro Vice Chancellor for Global Engagement (Americas), and Dr Catherine Gegout, the Principal Investigator of the project. Steve Vaccarini, the Senior Administrator for Placements, Partnerships and Mobility, was there to introduce the possibilities for student to do placements while they study at Nottingham.

Prof. Pham Quang Minh, Rector of University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Dr Catherine Gegout, Project Coordinator, and Prof. Wyn Rees – Director of the School of Politics and International Relations, University of Nottingham.

Both partners identified two possible dual degree programmes: 2+2 (two years in VNU, followed by two years at University of Nottingham); or 3+2 for Vietnamese students who need an extra year to enhance their English skills (three years in VNU, followed by two years at University of Nottingham). During their time at the University of Nottingham, VNU students will be given the opportunity to apply for the internship scheme of the School of Politics and International Relations. Vietnamese students will be able to attend the Centre for English Language Education (CELE) at the University of Nottingham to bring their IELTS scores from 5.5 to 6.5. In addition, members of staff from VNU are welcome to come and conduct research (with no fee) at the University of Nottingham for up to a period of six months.

Both partners also want to focus on future projects. The first project would relate to teaching, such as training PhD students, and enabling the exchange of students. The second project would relate to research.

Prof. Katharine Adeney – Director of the Institute for Asia Pacific Studies, Prof. Neville Wylie – Vice President in charge of cooperation with America, Prof. Pham Quang Minh, Rector of University of Social Sciences and Humanities, Vietnam National University, Hanoi, Dr Catherine Gegout- Principal Investigator, and Helen Foster, Deputy Director, International Cooperation, University of Nottingham.

The post Exciting new development for our Undergraduate Politics and IR programme: the Creation of a New Undergraduate Dual Degree with Vietnam National University in Hanoi appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Alex Forsyth.

With the West gripped by the outcome of the US presidential election, it is easy to be distracted from the emerging demagoguery much closer to our own shores. While the focus of debate on the EU has centred recently on the disastrous stumble towards Brexit and what it means for both the UK itself and the future of the European Union, other sinister things are happening in the centre of the continent.

The Visegrad group of countries – comprising Poland, the Czech Republic, Slovakia and Hungary – are all struggling to maintain the liberal democratic culture which had appeared to have successfully taken root since the early 1990s. The antipathy towards accepting migrants from war-torn and repressive countries in the Middle East and Africa is one of the symptoms which has been more noticed in Western media, but the interest this particular point attracts is partly because it affects EU efforts to deal with a problem which also impinges on Western European states.

In several other respects these countries appear determined to reverse many of the liberal gains made for their citizenry in recent years, and are in no way ashamed of using Trump-like ‘them and us’ rhetoric to achieve it. That is, when there is a convenient ‘them’ to point to.

In Poland, the right-wing PiS (‘Law and Justice’) party has been in power for a year, and has already faced criticism from the EU and groups such Reporters Without Borders for meddling with the Constitutional Court, the country’s highest legal body, and for appointing party cronies to run the national broadcaster TVP. I know from personal experience that many Poles now instead rely on private news networks, seeing TVP as having been compromised to the extent that it is little more than government propaganda.

The latest in Poland’s sad litany of moves towards a brave new brand of authoritarian paternalism was a proposed total ban on abortion. The country already has some of the most restrictive abortion laws in Europe, largely a result of the huge Catholic influence in the country. As it stands the law states that only in cases of rape or incest, severe foetal illness or abnormality, or the mother’s life being in danger can a legal abortion be procured. This already leads to thousands of Polish women seeking abortions abroad every year, estimates ranging as high as 150,000 according to some women’s rights groups.

The new proposal managed to be even more draconian, forcing women who had been raped to give birth, regardless of their age, and increasing the prison sentence for both women seeking abortions and doctors providing them to 5 years. The response by Polish women, and their male allies, was immediate and effective; huge protests occurred in Poland, across all the country’s major cities as well as in other European capitals. The apogee of the resistance to this move – one which began life as a citizen’s initiative backed by conservative Catholic groups before gaining the politically-motivated support of PiS – was a general strike of Polish women on 3 October. After this incredible show of dissent by Poland’s women (and, again, many men) the government quickly backpedalled. The hashtag #czarnyprotest and its English equivalent #blackprotest have been trending, used by opponents of the law to signify their support for the protest movement. Poland may be slipping towards paternalistic authoritarianism, but it is not going down without a fight.

Less obvious but equally disturbing trends are afoot in the country as well. One only needs to walk in a Polish city for an afternoon to be guaranteed to see at least a few people, mainly youths, wearing t shirts and hoodies bearing stylized Polish flag emblems or a peculiar character known as a kotwica, the symbol of the Second World War Polish resistance. Sellers and manufacturers of these clothes have been booming, for one simple reason – they are extremely popular with nationalists, the same skinheads and thugs who use national pride, always a strong source of emotion in the country given its turbulent past, to justify violence and hatred towards anyone not seen as intrinsically Polish. Racism is one thing, and not one of which I would accuse Poles on the whole of being guilty, but co-opting symbols for which their elders fought and died is particularly sickening. It has not gone unnoticed – a group of Polish Second World War veterans is now suing the manufacturer of these items.

The other item of Polish news less reported in the English-speaking press is the government’s obsession with Russia. The Smolensk plane crash of 2010, in which many members of the Polish government were killed, along with relatives of victims of the Katyn massacre in the Second World War, is being reinvestigated. The reason is simple – Jarosław Kaczyński. He is the twin brother of Lech Kaczyński, the President of Poland who died in the crash, and he is now the leader of PiS, the power behind both Prime Minister Beata Szydło and President Andrzej Duda. Kaczyński is apparently obsessed with the idea that Russia was behind the crash. He will spare no expense to prove his conspiracy theory true, and a huge exhumation of the victims is now underway, at the expense of Polish taxpayers.

A movie dramatizing the event has also been released in Polish cinemas apparently supporting the government’s conspiracy theories regarding the Kremlin, the West and Polish liberals being behind the whole thing. Kaczyński as well as both the President and Prime Minister of Poland attended its premiere. Perhaps the most ridiculous element of Kaczyński’s puppeteering is his obsessive animosity towards Donald Tusk, the current European Council president, and former two-term Polish Prime Minister, whom Kaczyński accuses of being complicit in the Smolensk crash. He is now attempting to torpedo Tusk’s transition to a second term as EU Council president, as well as ‘warning’ Brussels that he is a problem.

Poland, sadly, is not alone in its slide towards intolerance and authoritarianism. Hungary has long been on the radar of commentators, analysts and the EU itself for the many extremist positions of Victor Orbán’s Fidesz party, in power since 2010. While some analysts have baulked at the direct comparison of Poland and Hungary in this debate the broad parallel remains. Hungary is anti-immigrant, vehemently so, and has been criticized by figures and agencies ranging from the Luxembourg Foreign Minister to Human Rights Watch for its documented abuse against migrants who have reached the country. A referendum held on 2 October, in the shadow of a huge government propaganda campaign to urge Hungarians to reject EU migrant quotas, gave a result of 98% opposed to the quotas but with only a 40% turnout, a confusing outcome leading to both sides claiming victory. Orbán himself hails the idea of the fall of liberal Europe to a more authoritarian system – he made this particular declaration at a joint press conference with Jarosław Kaczyński.

The Czechs and Slovaks too are seeing a sad slide towards xenophobic authoritarianism. The Czech president, Miloš Zeman, has shared platforms with a far-right party in his own country, and advocated the refusal to accept any Muslim refugees. Meanwhile Robert Fico, the Slovak Prime Minister, has argued that Islam has no place in ‘his country’ and that ‘multiculturalism is a fiction’. Previously in August 2015 the Slovak government had agreed to accept 200 Syrian refugees, but with the proviso that they were Christian. Apparently Muslim refugees don’t even have to set foot in parts of Central Europe to be confronted with discrimination.

The trend of populism across the democratic world, whether the odious Nigel Farage trumpeting victory for Brexit or the disturbing reality that Donald Trump will be the 45^th President of the United States, has brought about startling changes. In Central Europe the lack of a unified liberal political presence, and the fact that anything left of centre-right politics is tainted by the legacy of communism, has forged this trend into a particular character, one which does not believe in integration of minorities, does not want any responsibility for handling the migration crisis and still sees Russia as the primary threat to security in Europe, to the exclusion of all else.

It all sounds bleak, but for one thing – as with almost anywhere, the demagogues and proto-dictators are not the only people in play. Central European countries have a long history of strong civil society movements, which in the case of all four of the Visegrad countries (or three, as they were at the time) played a huge role in the downfall of communism and the fostering of democracy. The #czarnyprotest movement against the anti-abortion proposals in Poland led to repeated waves of protests and an eventual government climb down, and writers and commentators of all Central European states have been vocal in their opposition to the watering down of democracy and the populist rhetoric and fearmongering of their own governments. The onus falls on everyone, citizens of these countries, citizens of fellow European states and the organs of the EU itself, to see to it that this is a blip in the development of democracy in Central Europe, not its premature demise.

Alex Forsyth is a recent MA graduate from the School of Politics and International Relations. Image credit: CC by Kancelaria Premiera/Flickr.

The post The Rise and Rise of Central Europe’s Demagogues appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Gihan Elleray.

Nigel Farage’s admiration for Enoch Powell is no secret.  He is on record as naming the controversial former Conservative politician as one of his greatest political heroes.

However, research into Enoch Powell’s Archives housed at Churchill College, Cambridge and an interview with UKIP’s former leader, Alan Sked, reveal the details of the day that Farage once acted as Powell’s chauffeur.

In the run up to the Newbury by-election which took place on 6 May 1993, Powell had agreed to attend a town hall event where he spoke on behalf of Alan Sked, who was the leader of the Anti-Federalist League, which he later renamed the United Kingdom Independence Party.  Powell’s diary entry read for the date of the event – 4 May 1993 – read: ‘Collected by car – (driv. N. Farage)’.

When Alan Sked was interviewed on this point, he commented that Farage relished the opportunity to meet Powell, but was unable to strike up any meaningful conversation with him because the latter was saving his voice for the speech that he would give later that night.  The transcript of this speech has been unearthed in Powell’s Archives through the discovery of previously unrequested audio tapes.  Powell’s speech did not mention UKIP once and revolved around tracing the process of European integration from 1970 onwards, culminating in his strong opposition to the ratification of the Maastricht Treaty. For Powell, this town hall event was greater than any one individual or party.

A year later, Farage, now the UKIP candidate in the Eastleigh by-election, wrote to Powell, asking him if he would similarly come to speak in his support.  In the letter, Farage said that he had ‘everything in place to fight a good, aggressive campaign but a voice from you could transform things…please give us the help that you can’, adding that publicity was the ‘essential ingredient’ that UKIP needed to enhance its prospects as a political party, before concluding by offering Powell ‘transport, dinner and whatever you need’.

Powell replied, five days later, and in a two line letter, told Farage that he had given ‘very serious consideration to the request’ but had ultimately decided that ‘I do not feel I can contribute further to the campaign by speaking on your behalf’.

Farage should not take it too personally, however. In 1994, Powell was 82 years old, and in ill health, suffering from Parkinson’s disease. During this period the archive reveals that he declined many similar public speaking requests. Powell’s response to one UKIP member who asked him to appear at a party event was that only ‘a party likely to win a majority at a general election’ could facilitate the cause of leaving the EU.  Nonetheless, this did not prevent him from endorsing two UKIP candidates – Alan Sked, as detailed above, but also Malcolm Floyd – the UKIP candidate for the Dudley West by-election that took place on 15 December 1994.  The latter received a written endorsement from Powell in November 1994.

Farage may have chauffeured his hero, but his hero did not reciprocate with help.

Gihan Elleray is a third year undergraduate student in the School of Politics and International Relations at the University of Nottingham. Image credit: Screencap/Youtube 

The post Driving Mr Powell: When Nigel Farage met Enoch Powell. appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Amy Longland.

With the referendum fast approaching, the Leave and Remain camps are preparing to ramp up their campaign efforts. Both campaigns are hoping to engage all sectors of society in order to swing the vote in their favour. Public debate so far has failed to adequately address the direct repercussions that a Brexit would have on current and future students. By doing so, both campaigns risk shutting out around 2 million student voters who are currently on the fence and, could be decisive in the referendum. This is a far cry from the Scottish Independence Referendum which directly engaged with younger voters and saw, in response, an unprecedented turnout. Now, It’s our turn.

We need students to register and cast their vote and to motivate them we must highlight those issues they would find most relevant. In our current, disengaged climate most students fail to realise that the decision we make on June the 23rd will have a fundamental affect on their future. There will be significant consequences following a British exit from the European Union and young people will, as is so often the case, carry the heaviest burden. It’s for this reason that making sure they’re engaged and helping make that decision has become so important.

As a student myself, I am fully aware that the real world is a constantly shifting minefield that I must face upon graduating. It is a fact well known that a student must do everything they can to succeed and compete in an ever-decreasing job market. It’s also increasingly obvious that our careers may transcend traditional state borders and become fully encompassed by the modern, globalised world. In such a world it would be incredibly reckless to attempt to seal ourselves off and attempt to deny the modern reality for a vague promise of the past.

133 University Vice-Chancellors have now warned that leaving the European Union would damage graduate’s job prospects.Thousands of jobs for British nationals involve working within the EU institutions that, for them at least, would no longer exist. Beyond these direct results, jobs within the UK would be greatly threatened. Around 3.5 million British jobs, thats 1 in 10, are linked to British membership of the European Union’s single market. This includes over 300,000 British companies and the 74% of British exporters operating in other EU markets. Added to this, bosses at more than a third of the companies in the FTSE 100, including Vodafone, GlaxoSmithKline, easyjet, Barclays, BT and Shell – some of the biggest and most important providers of graduate schemes – have warned about the damaging effects of Brexit on investment and jobs. In a further blow for the leave campaign these warnings were reinforced by the Bank of England’s Mark Carney who acknowledged that the Bank may need to make Billions available to make up for lost investment.

The Vice-Chancellors, along with Universities UK, Scientists for EU and Universities for EU, have also warned about the disastrous consequences of Brexit on research and teaching. Mr. Chuka Umunna, the shadow Business Secretary, has said: ‘Britain is a world leader in higher education. Through our EU membership, we punch above our weight in winning funding for research from the EU, while also benefitting from greater collaboration across borders.’ (www.independent.co.uk). He’s correct – the UK is the second largest beneficiary of EU research funds which ensures that Universities such as the University of Nottingham can remain cutting edge and research-led. Thich is further strengthened by our membership of the ‘biggest block of knowledge in the world’ (www.universitiesuk.ac.uk). Whilst funding will still be available, can we really be sure that investment in education will continue in a meaningful and sustainable way? The EU provides a crucial financial safety net and a vital framework for research at UK universities, as well as encouraging and facilitating the cooperation of top researchers and academics – something that cannot be guaranteed if the UK leaves the EU.

The Erasmus programme, which is the opportunity to travel to another European country as part of the degree course – has benefitted more than 200,000 British students to date. Outward student mobility is essential in preparing students for an ever-expanding global workplace. Going on a year abroad enables students to experience an educational journey, meeting people from all corners of the globe, expanding their cultural and social knowledge and understanding. It also gives students a chance to contribute to further academic opportunities and help grow the knowledge economy whilst creating a network of global citizens. In 2013/24, over 10,000 UK students were studying in continental Europe, helped by the cheap nature of travel and low tuition fees. If the UK left the EU, students wishing to live, work and study in Europe might have to pay the same fees as non-EU/EEA residents which would be in the tens of thousands. This, coupled with the possibility of having to obtain a visa, would create barriers for students and young people that want to travel. This is something we can cannot afford since the UK already has the second lowest level of outward student mobility in Europe. For Beth Button, NUS Wales President, this is characteristic of an already insular society, and  whilst a Brexit wouldn’t instantly shut off this channel, it’s the symbolic act of insularity and the message that sends to the rest of the world that will truly inhibit the future prospects of students.

Perhaps most importantly students will be amongst those most affected by the loss of opportunities for cheap travel and free movement that we currently enjoy as part of the European Union. We are ‘generation easyjet’: fully capitalising on cheap flights, cheap coaches and cheap interrailing across Europe. In the event of a Brexit, flight prices will sky-rocket as low-price airlines are forced to comply with stricter tariffs and regulations. It will not be as simple as hopping on the Eurostar or Ryanair with the possibility of stricter and more expensive visa regulations if the UK leaves the EU.

There is everything to lose and nothing to gain for students if the UK leaves the EU. Students are arguably the a vital part of this debate because, if they engage and register to vote, they could change the outcome. There can be no denying that students benefit from Europe and we must fight hard to keep the UK within it. We cannot allow the prejudices of older generations to inhibit our future prospects and opportunities; prospects for which membership of the EU is essential. Let this be where we take a stand!

Amy Longland is a masters student of International Relations and Global Issues. She spent a year abroad studying in Toulouse and is also part of Franco-British Connections. She currently co-heads the pro-EU student campaign group Nottingham Students for Europe. You can contact Amy via nottingham@one-europe.info. Image credit: Wikipedia Commons.

Join the campaign: www.facebook.com/NottsSFE nottingham@one-europe.info

The post Why remaining in the EU is so important for students appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Martin Brezovan.

In the last couple of years, Europe has witnessed a dramatic rise in popularity of new, alternative political parties. In many cases, their electoral successes did not translate into adequate representation in national bodies. However, I believe it would be very unwise to approach the results of the elections that have taken place from the view of the seats won, rather than the votes won, by the different parties. In three of the EU’s most powerful countries, France, the UK and Spain, radical parties have recently received millions of votes and a failure to address their voters’ reasons for supporting those parties could be fatal for the EU.

In France, the Front National, active since the 1970s, has reached the heights of popular support in the last few years. Although it only translated into 2 seats in the National Assembly (due to the electoral system), the Front received over 13 per cent of popular vote in the first round of the 2012 election. More importantly, the party is now the strongest representative of France in the European Parliament, having won almost 25% of the vote in the 2014 EP elections. Furthermore, in autumn 2015 the Front National received over 6 million votes in the regional elections (amounting to some 27%). Still, the French electoral system caused that this translated into just 356 seats out of 1880 in the regional councils. Nevertheless, and actually therefore, the mainstream parties (the conservatives and the socialists) will have to address the Front voters’ concerns if they want to prevent further rising of support for the Front, or even a possible revolution (which would be nothing uncommon in France). The Republicans are ideologically fitter for this task, and one can already see that they are getting an upper hand over the more pro- EU Socialists.

In Great Britain, the Eurosceptic United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) has been growing ever stronger since its foundation in 1993. After the European Parliament elections in 2014, it too is the UK’s largest party in the European Parliament, having achieved a vote share of 27.5 per cent. To put this in perspective, in 2009 and 2004 UKIP got some 16%; in 1999 6.7%, and in 1994 only 1 per cent. In the UK parliamentary elections, UKIP has also been showing growing strength, achieving its best ever result in 2015 and soaring to 12.6% of popular vote, compared to 3.1% in 2010. Thanks to the British electoral system, however, the party still only won 1 seat out of 650 in the Commons. Considering that UKIP received the 3^rd largest amount of votes (almost 4 million) of all parties, urges to modify the electoral system seem absolutely justified. Like in France, the traditional parties (Conservatives, Labour) will now have to basically act as if UKIP representatives were in Parliament if they don’t want to lose support or risk public unrest. Accordingly, it can hardly be a coincidence that David Cameron has pursued some rhetoric and even policies reminiscent of UKIP, for instance in the area of immigration.

In Spain, the radical leftist Podemos party was founded as late as 2014. Nevertheless, it has managed to grow into one of the strongest parties in the country, building its support around similar topics as the Greek Syriza- criticism of austerity measures and the EU, appealing to young people and generally those hit by the bad economic situation. On facebook, Podemos is by far the most ‘liked’ Spanish party, reflecting the predominance of younger population among its supporters. What’s more important, in the recent parliamentary elections Podemos won 20.7% of popular vote, becoming the third strongest faction in Spain. Not only is it likely that putting together a government will be difficult in this country, it will hardly be possible to ignore the voice of the 5 million people that voted Podemos, be it with or without Podemos itself in government.

Thus the situation is similar in all these major EU countries. There is a Eurosceptic party in each of them that attracts millions of people who don’t trust the mainstream politicians anymore. This creates a situation in which, even if the parties themselves don’t win many seats (often due to fallible electoral systems), the voice of their voters must be echoed by the state leaders. And although populism is not the key, it is up to the traditional politics to convince people that no radical alternative is needed. If they fail to do this, Europe may soon find itself in a mess.

Martin Brevozan is a third year student studying a BA in History and Politics.His research interests include IR theory, political theory and language in politics. Image credit: CC by Wikipedia Commons.

The post Front National, UKIP and Podemos: A warning to Europe appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Samuel Jaffe.

Human Rights Watch‘s (HRW) 2016 Report on Turkey isn’t the first to criticize policies undertaken by Ankara, but its damning indictment of Turkey’s new politics of fear requires further attention. Attention that is slowly being drawn that way by Johannes Hahn, the EU’s enlargement commissioner and Angela Merkel as she cuts a lone figure in dealing with the refugee crisis. They regard Turkey as part of the solution to Europe’s most pressing concern.

Despite Recep Tayyip Erdoğan combative nature and Turkey’s repressive government, foreign leaders are looking at Turkey as a solution and not the problem. There is a belief among leaders that if Turkey can be tempted and tamed then not only will Ankara provide the solution for the refugee crisis but also serve as an example for other reform-minded Middle Eastern states. The EU has already offered an “action plan” which promised money and firmer talks of Turkey’s accession into the E.U in return for greater cooperation with other powers in weakening Daesh and stemming the flow of refugees.

It would seem obvious for Turkey to close the 566 mile border it shares with Syria, the incentives are clear. Firstly, it can prevent the empowerment of Daesh, thus helping stabilize the region. Second, screening refugees would relieve the short-term threat of Daesh militants entering Turkey, preventing a repeat of the bombings seen in Ankara and Istanbul. Thirdly, the costs would be subsidized by the E.U and the benefits to its security and relations to European states would take it a step closer to EU membership.

Turkey under Erdogan however remains a truculent partner with the West, whose intentions in Syria have proven it is willing to chart a different course in Syria to that advocated by the EU.

The key question to ask is why is Turkey acting against its own interests ? Turkey’s President Recep Erdoğan is increasingly being driven by paranoia and ideology, threatened by a repeat of the 2013 Gezi Park protests that threatened to unseat him, themselves inspired by the Arab Spring. Likewise he fears the possibility of a popular pro-Kurdish political opposition that denied him a majority government in June 2015. His belief in Turkish nationalism, tinged with political Islam and fears of a Kurdish resistance taints every area of domestic and foreign policy. Domestically his grip on power relies on the media supporting him and suppressing any information about the repression of large parts of South-East Turkey in the three-decade long conflict between the Turkish government and the Kurdistan Worker’s Party (PKK). A ceasefire lasted from 2013 and broke-down last summer, in tandem with the rise of Daesh and the prominent role taken by Iraqi and Syrian Kurds in fighting the groups expansion.

This is no coincidence. Erdogan is vindictive towards the Kurds in his inaction against Daesh in Syria. He is unwilling to provide military support or engage in military negotiations because it considers the Kurdish groups fighting against Daesh to be an offshoot of the outlawed PKK. It has backed-out of any talks involving this key regional force, one of the few successful, moderate forces to resist Daesh. Furthermore, it turns a blind-eye to those who cross its border, allowing the free-movement of refugees to Europe. Turkey under Erdogan has also been accused of allowing Daesh militants, supplies and even oil-based cash to flow through the border via it’s trade links with Russia, Israel and Greece.

Although Erdogan may believe he has been handed an opportunity by Daesh to further suppress Kurdish resistance, his actions are naïve. His unwillingness to join talks in Geneva and its callous border control has frustrated allies in the E.U and NATO, its combative position and desire to oust Assad puts it in direct opposition to Russia, sparking increased tensions between two historic foes.

Erdogan will soon realize that he has overplayed his hand however. He simply can’t wield terrorism as a weapon against the Kurds because Daesh is not a rational actor. In doing this he has already isolated Turkey from allies in the region and from abroad by being passive to Daesh’s actions whilst pursing a brutal bombing campaign against the Kurds.

Europe now must do the following, work with Recep Tayyip Erdoğan to stem the flow of refugees in Europe but confront his inaction against Daesh and end his war with the Kurds. Erdogan must be convinced that whilst Europe needs Turkey, Turkey also needs Europe.

Samuel Jaffe is a first year student at the School of Politics and International Relations. Image credit: CC by faruk/Flickr.

The post Turkey’s war with the Kurds threatens ties with Europe appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Martin Brezovan.

For months we have heard prominent European politicians led by Angela Merkel, speak about the need for solidarity and open arms toward the migrants pouring into Europe from the Near and Middle East. Today, some 6 months into what definitely can be called an migration crisis, these representatives of goodwill are finally realizing that nice words cannot solve real world problems and they are joining the previously demonized Hungary in an effort to stop the crisis. An effort which may violate liberal sensibilities, but which is in line with common sense.

In June 2015, Hungary announced that it would build a fence along its border with Serbia to regulate the influx of migrants. Hungary argued, quite correctly, that it could not let the migrants cross the Serbian- Hungarian border wherever they wanted, as it was an illegal crossing. As a country bordering a non Schengen state, specifically Serbia, Hungary bears a special responsibility when it comes to who is allowed to enter because once there, people are able to travel freely within the Schengen area. Something that has always been a benefit for those who live in or enter the Schengen area legally.

EU leaders decided to disregard all that as they were quick to adopt a rhetoric of values and condemned the Hungarian fence. The French Foreign Minister described the fence as ‘not respecting Europe’s common values’. German Chancellor Angela Merkel, President of the European Parliament Martin Schulz, and others expressed similar condemnations of Hungary’s actions with Merkel even suggesting parallels between the actions of Hungary and the division of Europe in the Cold War. Moreover, Germany proclaimed that it would accept all migrants from Syria. Indeed, the Upper Bavaria Prime Minister Christoph Hillenbrand’s words sum up well the German immigration policy up until recently: ‘Legal issues right now are not so important to me.’

Of the major European leaders, only British Prime Minister David Cameron seems to have maintained a reserved stance in the migrant question. This may have been a result of wisdom or simply a well calculated move (considering the growth in popularity of UKIP and other similar groupings). Either way, it was a rational decision.

Since October, the countries that proclaimed themselves as champions of tolerance, solidarity, and hospitality, have begun changing course. They have apparently come to realize the limits of the pursuit of a Utopian policy based on ideals of perfect justice and unlimited generosity.  The changing facts on the ground, combined with the growing dissatisfaction of an ‘open- door policy’ among people and government representatives prompted a change in policy. In the space of several weeks, EU countries have started doing exactly what Hungary had done and for which it was so harshly criticized namely, enforce the EU laws.

Both Austria and Germany have introduced border controls. A few weeks later Austria decided to build a fence, calling it Baumaßnahmen (translatable as ‘building arrangements’) in the gentle official language of ‘the tolerant’. Furthermore, Slovenia eventually started to build a fence on its border with Croatia, in November. While these measures may seem against the ‘spirit’ of a free and open Europe, they have turned out to be necessary to ensure that the Schengen borders don’t become a void concept that needs not to be respected.

The sobering of the European leaders and a transition to a pragmatic approach has also been reflected by the direction in which the EU is pushing its relations with Turkey. Not a long time ago, Erdogan was regularly described as a semi- dictator, and his rule in Turkey, including in questions of human rights, was being questioned. Suddenly, however, the EU has decided to strengthen its relationship with Turkey, even renewing accession talks. A package of 3 billion euros for Turkey to deal with the migration crisis has also been announced by the EU. The overall ‘deal’ with Turkey appears to be that Turkey gets money and EU membership talks in exchange for halting the migrants that would otherwise flow into Europe.

In sum, the EU is facing a difficult trade off between keeping its values and approaching the crisis pragmatically. While the former may look good on the outside, following the latter strategy within limits of EU laws may prevent greater troubles, including those emerging on the far- right end of the political spectrum. And it seems that more and more EU members are starting to realize this.

Martin Brevozan is a third year student studying a BA in History and Politics.His research interests include IR theory, political theory and language in politics. Image credit: CC by Freedom House/Flickr.

The post Realities versus ideals in the European migration crisis appeared first on Thinking Politics.

Written by Martin Brezovan.

Donald Trump’s statements have stirred public discussion and prompted a wide spectrum condemnation since he decided to run for president of the United States some six months ago. In his candidacy announcement, he described  American politicians as ‘stupid’, but that was just the start. He would go on to pursue a hateful rhetoric directed against whole swathe of minorities within the US, initially Mexicans and then followed by Muslims. And yet- Trump still leads in the polls. Why?

First, Trump is a strong individual. Whatever one may accuse him of, one certainly cannot accuse him of a lack of resolve and firmness in both talk and actions. After all, as he himself likes to say, he has built a great company and made billions of dollars. As Trump indeed does have a successful record in the business world, his boastful behavior therefore arguably appears acceptable or even justified to many. Americans love successful people.

Second, Trump is coming to politics from outside of the ‘profession’. In fact, it seems it has become a trend that people are getting fed up with ’traditional’ politicians and look for alternative, non- standard solutions. In Europe, for instance, this has been visible in light of the Eurozone and migration crises in the form of growing support for parties and individuals considered not a part of the ‘mainstream politics’. In the US, Donald Trump skilfully uses such rhetoric, pointing out his (quite unique) non- dependency on donors and his success in the business world, as contrasted by what he criticizes as corruptness and incompetence of the establishment politicians.

Linked to this and to his loud mouthed style is the factor of authenticity. Like it or not, when there is ten people saying the same thing and one saying something different, the one will be the least doubted to be speaking frankly. Moreover, data shows that the majority of Americans see political correctness as a problem, which implies a high likelihood that many people actually do think what of all the candidates just Donald Trump dares to say- precisely because of the prevalent atmosphere of political correctness. Thus the authentic, even if controversial Trump surely wins a lot of votes thanks to his bold approach.

Thirdly, Trump’s popularity may also stem from his relationship with the media. Namely, this relationship has been rather negative. The media (particularly those considered to be pro- Democrat) seem to consistently focus on Trump’s controversial statements, seeking to discredit him. Trump, on the other hand, blames the media for being biased and unprofessional, positioning himself into the role of a victim in this relationship. Importantly, the numbers seem to be on Trump’s side here once again, with some 70 per cent of Americans claiming they don’t trust the mainstream media. As a result, a tougher media will probably not, and actually have not, hurt Trump’s poll numbers.

Finally, given that Donald Trump’s support has not decreased at all despite his highly controversial remarks, one might say that he is still winning simply because he is a populist and attracts the ‘stupid masses’. Well, there might be something into such a statement. The internet is full of articles on Trump’s populism. Populism, in turn, means appealing to the broad masses; and the broad masses are, broadly speaking, the lower/working classes. In any case, it has been showed that Trump’s supporters are predominantly those less educated i.e. without a college degree.

There may be other reasons, but Trump’s unceasing support is surely to a large degree the result of a combination of the above factors. A successful business story; complete self- confidence; authenticity and openness against the backdrop of an unpopular political correctness paradigm and untrusted media; and a populist swing. With that kind of combo, the Americans are absolutely unsurprisingly flocking toward this self- proclaimed ‘saviour’ of their country.

Martin Brevozan is a third year student studying a BA in History and Politics.His research interests include IR theory, political theory and language in politics. Image credit: CC by Gage Skidmore/Flickr.

The post Trump: why is he still winning? appeared first on Thinking Politics.