Theresa May is doubtless feeling very pleased with herself that she will be the first European political leader to meet US President Donald Trump. Ahead of this encounter officials have let it be known that one thing the two are keen to promote is a greater exchange of US and UK workers. Quite apart from the fact that it is hard to reconcile this with the Conservative government’s pledge to slash immigration, what might appear at first glance as a golden opportunity for Brits to go and work in the US could turn into a poisoned chalice. While Britain is still part of the EU British workers benefit from a whole raft of entitlements and protection, from paid holidays to health and safety at work, job security and comprehensive health care. Provisions in the United States are far weaker and if Donald Trump gets his way, they will become weaker still. Many UK workers voted Leave in last June’s referendum, for a variety of reasons, but I wager that most had no idea that by doing so they would undermine their own hard-won rights and entitlements. So while the US will be alluring for some, for most people remaining in the EU is better.
Posts Tagged ‘US’
Posted by jonathanfryer on Monday, 23rd January, 2017
Posted by jonathanfryer on Thursday, 15th December, 2016
Earlier this week I was one of the speakers at a Global Diplomatic Forum event in London on the foreign policy consequences of Donald Trump becoming US President. The other members of the panel were the new Latvian Amnassador to the Court of St James’s and the Conservative MP, Daniek Kawczynzki. By chance, the Ambassador and I were seated on a sofa on one side of the Chair, Andrew Wilson, while Dan Kawczynski was alone on another the other side, and that was exactly how our alignment went when it came to the discussion. Mr Kawczynski set the tone by focusing his opening remarks on why a Trump presidency is welcome and how we should engage more with Russia. It is disconcerting how pro Putin so many right wing Conservative as well as UKIP politicians are. The Ambassador countered with a resume of how Latvia suffered under Soviet Occupation and I spoke of what I had seen of Russian encroachment in Georgia this summer, as well as the assassination of journalists and liberal politicians in Moscow. But I also spoke of my wider concerns of what promises to be greater US isolationism under Trump, regarding international trade, climate change and so on. The appointment of Rex Tillerson as Secretary of State does not bode well, either. I would have liked to discuss things further with Daniel Kawczynski in the coffee break, but he shot out of the event like a bat out of hell.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Sunday, 31st January, 2016
I am not an American citizen and never will be, so I will never have the chance to vote in a US presidential election. But that does not stop me — like so much of the British political class — following US presidential contests with fascination. Or fascinated horror, might be more truthful. The horror is partly because of the obscene amount of money spent in these quadrennial campaigns; I see nothing to celebrate in the fact that 2016 will probably see the first US$2 billion dollar contest. Even worse is the quality of the rival candidates and their political discourse. Not surprisingly, I lean towards the Democrats rather than towards the Republicans (though northern liberal Democrats, rather than die-hard southern ones, I should stress). Nothing in the world would persuade me to back that chump Trump, or indeed any of his rivals for the Republican nomination. But the Democrats’ choice this year fails to inspire me. I was quite taken with Bernie Sanders and have loved the way that he has blown apart age-related prejudice. He’s radical on many issues and quite international in many ways. But he is so American, and so very, very wrong (in my view) when it comes to gun control, which he reportedly largely opposes. Poor President Obama has done his best to awaken the US public to the inherent dangers of adhering to the constitutional right to bear arms, but with as little success as a drugs counselor trying to get a heroin addict off his fixes. Sanders isn’t even trying. Which I suppose makes Hillary Clinton a preferable choice, though her pledge to be an even greater friend to the State of Israel, despite its egregious violation of human rights and international law in Occupied Palestine, makes her pretty hard to stomach, too. So, in short I probably couldn’t vote for either of them. And I’m just glad that as a European, I don’t need to. Some say that because of globalisation, everyone around the world is becoming the same. But I feel that on the contrary, the Atlantic divide between the United States and Europe is getting ever wider, and it’s probably best that it stays that way.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Wednesday, 23rd December, 2015
The Israeli Ambassadot to the United States, Ron Dermer, is sending out Christmas presents in his host country. Nothing unusual about that, one might think, given that the US has been Israel’s staunchest ally for decades and is the major impediment to the recognition of the State of Palestine. But these are not ordinary Christmas presents; they are all products deliberately sourced from illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied West Bank and Syria’s Golan Heights, which Israel seized in 1967. To add insult to injury Ambassador Dermer refers to the West Bank products as coming from Judeia and Samaria, which is how those supporting a Greater Israel incorporating the Palestinian West Bank designate the area. Mr Dermer says his gesture is in deliberate defiance of the international Boycott, Divestments and Sanctions (BDS) campaign organised by some in the Palestinian solidarity movement. The EU, to its credit, recently insisted that all products from illegal Jewish settlements in the occupied territories must be labelled as such, so consumers could make their own mind up whether they wish to buy them.
Ambassador Dermer is no stranger to controversy. A close ally of Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu, he arranged for Netanyahu to speak to the US Congress behind the Obama administration’s back. He doubtless thinks he is being clever with his Christmas present gesture, whereas what in fact he has done has been to underline the arrogance of the Israeli occupation, with its constant use of brutality, intimidation and humiliation against the Palestinians. But the tide is not running in the direction Mr Dermer and similar Greater Israel fanatics want. Yesterday, Greece became the latest country to agree to recognise the State of Palestine, by a unanimous vote in the Greek parliament. Almost two-thirds of the member states of the United Nations have now done so. By continuing the occupation and building ever more illegal settlements Israel is losing the friends it once had in the international community. And with people like Ron Dermer in key diplomatic positions it will soon have no friends at all.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Wednesday, 17th December, 2014
Like many people I was caught unawares by the announcement today that the United States and Cuba are planning to normalise relations after half a century of the grotesque US trade and travel embargo. Apparently Pope Francis has been key to this rapprochement and several series of secret bilateral talks have been held, courtesy of the Vatican. These developments, providing they lead to fruition, should stimulate a rise in the standard of living of many Cubans, as well as giving a boost to tourism and trade. I hope this doesn’t lead to Cuba becoming just like Southern Florida; there is so much of value in Cuban society and culture, even if the Communist system has curtailed the development of free enterprise and civil liberties. I went to Cuba seven times in the 1990s, culminating in making a radio documentary for the BBC World Srrvice, to mark the 40th anniversary of the Cuban Revolution. So I saw it at the very worst period when subsidised oil from the former Soviet Union dried up and people were on a subsistence diet through to the blossoming of tourism from Europe and Canada. Most of the friends I met on the island were desperate to leave, but I hope that the US-Cuba diplomatic thaw will lead to liberalisation in Cuba and the prospect of a future in which young Cubans can see themselves wanting to stay.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Tuesday, 20th May, 2014
Last night, at Friends House in Euston, the North East London branch of the World Development Movement (WDM) organised a Euro-election hustings focussing on the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), which the Green Party and several NGOs involved in overseas development issues have been campaigning against. The timing was well-chosen, not just because of the elections on Thursday but also because yesterday the fifth round in bilateral negotiations began in Arlington, West Virginia. Proponents of TTIP claim that it will create millions of jobs, as well as adding significantly to the GDP of both the US and the EU, as well as third countries, though opponents see it as a means by which US corporations will be able to get easier access to wield their power in Europe. There are two issues relating to TTIP which do concern me, namely the provision that would allow companies to sue governments (at an independent tribunal) if they believed they had suffered financially by being excluded from a lucrative contract. And secondly, I believe the NHS should be ringfenced, so that it is not opened up to competitive tendering from US companies. There is currently a consultation going on in which the European Commission in Brussels is soliciting comments from the public, and it is unlikely that any TTIP agreement could be finalised before the end of 2015. I would only support it if the two points I raised above are met, and if the guarantees that the current EU Trade Commissioner, Karel de Gucht, has made that Europe would not be forced to lower food safety standards, for example allowing in chlorine-washed US chicken or GM foods. So a lot of hard negotiation needs to happn. I hope the outcome is successful, as I believe it could lead to greater prosperity and employment, but that must not be at any price.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Tuesday, 27th August, 2013
Britain’s armed forces are preparing themselves for an armed strike against Syria, following the recent use of chemical weapons inside the country, probably by the Assad regime’s forces. As I said in a live interview on the al-Etejah (Iraqi Arab) TV channel last night, the justification for the UK, US, France and maybe Germany taking such a step, along with sympathetic Middle Eastern countries including Turkey, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, without UN approval, would be the relatively new concept within International Law, the Responsibility to Protect (R2P), about which I have written extensively. This asserts that if a government is unable or unwilling to protect its own people, then the international community has a responsibility to intervene on humanitarian grounds, providing there are reasonable prospects of success. Of course it would be preferable if the UN Security Council backed such a move, but that is currently impossible given the fact that Russia and to a lesser extent China are standing behind Bashar al-Assad — though in China’s case this is mainly because of its strong belief in the principle of non-interference in the internal affairs of a sovereign state. The humanitarian need in Syria is self-evident. More than 110,000 Syrians have been killed, a high proportion of them civilians. There are now between four and five million Syrian refugees and whole swaths of cities such as Aleppo and Homs are a wasteland. Yet still Assad and his thugs continue to try to pound the people into submission. The situation is complicated by the fact that this is not a fight between good and evil, however. Evil the Assad regime certainly is — and has been for over 40 years — but the disparate rebel forces contain some pretty unpleasant characters and radical groups that seek to impose an alien, fundamentalist creed that is alien to the modern Syrian secular society. But things have now reached a stage at which the world cannot just sit by and watch a people and a country be annihilated. The problem is what exactly should be done, now that what President Obama described as the “red line” of chemical weapon use has been crossed? The imposition of a no fly zone is one obvious option, or carefully targeted use of cruise missiles against the regime’s military installations. But there is no guarantee of effectiveness. What certainly needs to be avoided is sending foreign — and especially Western — troops on the ground, which would not only lead to heavy casualties but also risks turning some of the anti-Assad population against the intervention. Russia meanwhile has warned the West against intervention. But I think the momentum now is unstoppable. Unless the Assad clique stands aside — which it has shown no willingness to do — Syria is going to be the latest in a string of Middle Eastern/North African Wars. And the poor United Nations will look even more impotent and marginalised than ever.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Bashar Al-Assad, France, Germany, President Obama, Qatar, R2P, Responsibility to Protect, Saudi Arabia, Syria, Turkey, UK, United Nations, United Nations Security Council, US | 6 Comments »
Posted by jonathanfryer on Wednesday, 21st August, 2013
As a child of the 1950s and 1960s, I was raised on The Lone Ranger (black and white TV version) and other Westerns, in which the noble white cowboys and sheriffs fought against the dastardly redskins, as the wagon trains carried settlers across the Mid-West, in the name of civilization and Christianity. One just took it for granted that this crucial period in US history was an enterprise to be admired, and it was only much later, when I had acquired an educated, critical mind, that I realized that Justice had been stood on its head. The Indians were desperately trying to halt their dispossession, in the face of brute force and more advanced firepower, and it was the settlers and those who protected them who were the real baddies. I’m reminded of this by what is happening in Occupied Palestine today. Again, as a child, I grew up in an environment in which the creation of the new state of Israel was seen as a heroic endeavour, in which the young labourers on the kibbutzim were involved in a noble purpose, the Jewish people risen like a phoenix from the ashes of the Holocaust. And had Israel remained within the boundaries drawn up by the United Nations that argument might have continued to hold water, even though the approximately 700,000 Palestinians who were made refugees by the Nakba or catastrophe of 1948 would see things otherwise. But Israel did not remain within those boundaries, and many within Likud and some even more extreme political groups in Israel persist in their expansionist aims and colonising Occupied East Jerusalem and the West Bank, in defiance of International Law, and the feeble protests of the West. Once more, the narrative enunciated by Israel, AIPAC and other pro-Zionist groups is that the “settlers” in what was formerly Jordanian territory and is meant to be the basis for a putative Palestinian state are engaged in a noble enterprise, like the colonisation by white immigrants of the American West. And once again, Justice has been stood on its head. It is the Palestinians, whose land is being appropriated, olive trees cut down and children intimidated, who are the victims and the Israeli settlers and the IDF army that protects them that are the villains. The ultimate irony, of course, is that while in the short term the Palestinians will be the losers, in the long term, if this occupation and absorption by Israel of Palestinian territories persists, demographic trends will mean the Jewish state will de facto cease to exist. I think that’s called “shooting yourself in the foot”, as cowboys might say.
Posted by jonathanfryer on Tuesday, 30th October, 2012
The US election is exactly one week away, but the two main candidates have not been out campaigning today because of the Frankenstorm Sandy. However, in the bowels of the National Liberal Club members of Liberal International British Group (LIBG) gathered this evening to hear a brilliant presentation by Karin Robinson, Vice-Chair of Democrats Abroad UK, on where she thinks the contest is at. Obviously she is rooting for Barack Obama’s re-election, but she acknowledges that there isn’t quite the same buzz as four years ago, when many new voters were encouraged to register and volunteers poured in to Democrat offices (especially after Sara Palin was chosen as the Republicans’ vice-presidential candidate). Nonetheless, early voting — which varies in type in different states — has been going well for the Democrats this year. For the British public, US politics is a bit of a mystery; why, as someone asked tonight, should Mitt Romney be against universal health care, especially when he introduced in Massachusetts a state-wide version of Obamacare? Karin agreed with the contention that the US public in general is rather insular and the country isolationist, but the main thrust of her remarks was how much the economy matters in this election, even more than usual. Social issues have rarely figured. She welcomed advances in US public opinion on LGBT rights, for example, but is alarmed by the retrogressive slant of many Republicans’ views on women’s rights. A recent opinion poll in Britain suggested that two thirds of Britons would vote for Obama, which makes it difficult to comprehend how someone like Romney can have traction in the US. But as Karin emphasized, the US electorate is essentially split 50:50 between Republicans and Democrats, so the actual outcome next Tuesday will probably depend on a small number of voters in swing states. In the meantime, the two main candidates and their supporters have reportedly spent more than $2 billion between them. Democracy in America does not come cheap, and it is very different to what we’re used to over here.
Posted in Uncategorized | Tagged: Barack Obama, Democrats, Democrats Abroad, Frankenstorm Sandy, Karin Robinson, LIBG, Mitt Romney, National Liberal Club, Obamacare, Republicans, Sara Palin, US | 3 Comments »
Posted by jonathanfryer on Friday, 4th November, 2011
The vote to accord Palestine member status at UNESCO means that the Palestinians now have their foot in the door of the United Nations and this must now make it easier for them to obtain membership of UN specialised agencies such as the WHO. Of course, the impasse regarding Palestinian membership of the United Nations itself remains. Though it would have litle difficulty in achieving a majority in the UN General Assembly, Palestine still faces the threat of a US veto if the matter comes to a difinitive vote in the Security Council, where the matter is still being considered. The United States (and Israel, predictably) voted against Palestine’s UNESCO membership and Washington then compounded its folly by withdrawing some of its funding for UNESCO as punishment. One would have hoped that such stupid tactics had ended with the Reagan presidency, but alas the Obama administration seems as keen as its prededcessors to swear its loyalty to the government and priorities of Israel, even though it is Israel that is in violation of so many UN resolutions and aspects of International Law. Thus Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have hammered another nail into the coffin of US credibility across the Arab and Islamic world, as well as among many of the other nations of Africa, Asia and Latin America. At least Britain did not vote against Palestine at UNESCO, though I am disappointed that it abstained. It is time for the UK to stop sitting on the fence and to actively back Palestine’s integration into the world community. London already has a full Palestinian Embassy, after all, so logically we should be recognising the territory as a state as well.