Our 36th year
of publishing The International Observer
Noticed and Noted
The Future of the West: Downfall or Comeback?
Munich Security Conference 2017
“What would [the conference’s founder’s]
generation say if they saw our world today? I fear that much about it would be all-too-familiar to them, and they would be alarmed by it.
They would be alarmed by an increasing turn
away from universal values and toward old ties of blood, and race, and sectarianism.
They would be alarmed by the hardening
resentment we see toward immigrants, and refugees, and minority groups, especially Muslims.
They would be alarmed by the growing
inability, and even unwillingness, to separate truth from lies.
They would be alarmed that more and more of
our fellow citizens seem to be flirting with authoritarianism and romanticizing it as our moral equivalent.
But what would alarm them most, I think, is
a sense that many of our peoples, including in my own country, are giving up on the West ... that they see it as a bad deal that we may be better off without
... and that while Western nations still have the power to maintain our world order, it is unclear whether we have the will. “
US Senator John S. McCain III at the
2017 Munich Security Conference (MSC), 17 February 2017.
Obstacle noted on Moldova’s path to Europe
A situation of concern may be developing next to Romania and Ukraine. On 13
November, Igor Dodon, a pro-Russian president was elected. The country, a former republic of the Soviet Union, is
already split when in August 1991 the eastern, predominantly Russian part declared its independence as the
Transdniestrian Moldovan Republic (TMR), backed up by Russian military forces that had never left. The majority of the
inhabitants are Moldovans who speak Romanian and recognize their cultural identity but so far have decided to remain
separate. Nevertheless, past governments have pursued an opening to the European Union (EU) and have entered into an association agreement. Now the move into
the union is stagnating and the new president is not only opposing partnership but wants to restore close relations with Russia while weakening any links to the
EU and the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
Watching the US
There is growing cause for concern about its future course. Not only domestically after the “Election exposed the dark presence,
misogyny and anti-immigrant appeals,” as a major US labor leader noted but also abroad. Disregarding what the new president has uttered before but just the
proposed selection of key personnel and their known attitudes, the heavy presence of generals — there are already
references to the ‘American junta — their views, goals, associations are reinforcing unease. Uncertainty is caused
in part by utterances overblown in press reports during the election campaign and later denied, changed and often just forgotten as well as the continuing flow
of random twitter tweets. The inexperience of the incoming president in diplomatic and government affairs has added anxiety whether or how the US role and its
policies will shift. Of critical importance could be steps to boost nuclear arms to the detriment of moving toward further limiting their spread. Part of the
same threat to humanity could be deliberate damaging of efforts to delay or turn around the change of climate.
“The electorate has, in its plurality, decided to live in Trump’s world.
In the election of Donald Trump to the Presidency is nothing less than a tragedy for the
American Republic, a tragedy for the Constitution, and a triumph for the forces, at home and abroad, of nativism, authoritarianism, misogyny, and racism.
Trump’s shocking victory, his ascension to the Presidency, is a sickening event in the history of the United States and liberal democracy. On January 20, 2017,
we will bid farewell to the first African-American President – a man of integrity, dignity, and generous spirit – and witness the inauguration of a con who did
little to spurn endorsement by forces of xenophobia and white supremacy. It is impossible to react to this moment with anything less than repulsion and profound
Selected from The New Yorker newsletter, by David Remnick,
9 November 2016, 02:40 AM
China has no historic rights in the South China Sea. In a long expected finding on China’s claims, released on 12 July, the panel of five judges of the Court for Arbitration at
The Hague found the Chinese position without legal basis and contrary to United Nations convention, reported Reuters. Specifically, the tribunal rejected claims to economic rights within the ‘nine-dash line’ and found that Chinese
law enforcement patrols had risked colliding with Philippine fishing vessels in parts of the sea and caused irreparable damage to coral reefs with construction
work. The Chinese Foreign Ministry said it neither accepts nor recognizes the award which is null and void and has no binding force, noted
Xinhua. Cambodia and a number of African states over which China has some economic leverage also supported China’s
position that any resolution of claims in the South China Sea should be settled bilaterally without the interference of outsiders, such as the United States of
, prosecution of critics, and creeping religious influence by the governing party in a secular state were among reasons
for part of the Turkey’s military to launch an unsuccessful coup d’état on 15 July. Most of the action centered on capital and Istanbul but failed when the
president was able to convince a television station that he was alive and to gain public support and because only some of the military leaders supported the
Efforts by the Turkish president to gain total control of government and nation
No. 553, July 2016
European Union (EU)
United Kingdom votes to leave the Union
The United Kingdom conducted a popular referendum on the European
Union (EU) and the UK on 23 June in which 71.8 percent of eligible voters took part. BBC called it the highest
turnout in a UK-wide vote since the 1992 general election between Conservative John Mayor and Neil Kinnock of the Labour party.
The referendum of “Should the
United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?” resulted in support of leaving by 17.4 million or 51.9 percent of
votes cast against staying in the EU by 16.1 million or 48.1 percent. In England and Wales, support for leaving
was highest while Northern Ireland Scotland voted for staying:
England: 53.4 percent for leaving, 46.6 percent for staying;
Wales: 52.5 percent for leaving, 47.5 percent for staying;
Northern Ireland: 55.8 percent for staying, 44.2 percent for
Scotland: 62 percent for staying, 38 percent for leaving.
The referendum was vigorously pushed by Prime Minister David Cameron and approved by the
House of Commons on 28 May 2015 and the House of Lords on 14 December 2015 under the European Union Referendum
Act 2015. After referendum results were announced, the prime minister announced his resignation.
The European Union is reacting by favoring a quick separation. In
Scotland, support for independence and hope of staying in the EU is growing, and even in England a drive for petitioning Parliament to reconsider leaving
quickly gathered strength within a few days of the referendum. To be formally enacted, the UK must invoke Article 50 of the EU Lisbon Treaty of 2009. Since
the referendum was advisory and not mandatory, it is not legally binding. If early elections should be called, a different government could take the
unlikely decision not to pursue the course approved by a majority of voters.
(C) Copyright 2017 by
The International Observer
P.O. Box 5624, Washington DC 20016 USA
No part of this
publication may be reproduced in any form and by any means without
permission. All rights reserved.