Protests planned for Donald Trump’s visit to the UK

Embed from Getty Images

A march and the flying of a giant balloon are two types of protests that have been planned for the visit

A giant balloon very funnily caricaturing Donald Trump as a big baby wearing diapers is supposed to fly close to the British parliament in London on the day of his visit to the United Kingdom. The big balloon aims to act as a form of protest against the American President, who has been labeled as a racist and a hazard to vulnerable groups, such as members of the weaker sex, by the organizers of the event.

President Trump is scheduled to visit the United Kingdom on the 13th of July and the floating balloon is not the only type of planned protest against the visit – another protest in the form of a march, called Stop Trump, is also going to take place in London, with thousands marching against an unprogressive President. It does not appear as if the protests are going to cause an impact on the President at all but what these protests certainly do, in my outlook, is highlight that Trump is shockingly a deeply unpopular visiting President to the United Kingdom.

Advertisements

Who are Rohingyas?

Embed from Getty Images

Rohingyas are refugees getting away from Myanmar to seek shelter in Bangladesh

In Bangladesh, thousands of refugees have been arriving from Myanmar to save their lives from the nation’s military. They are called Rohingyas and this mass exodus is a result of targeted violence in Myanmar in the form of burning down of villages and the planting of land mines at the border between the two neighboring nations. However, running away from the discrimination in Myanmar has not culminated in a favorable outcome for the refugees. Inside Bangladesh, these refugees live in camps that they have propped up themselves and they cannot always obtain food and other such basic amenities.

The underlying problem here is perhaps that there is a dispute over the origin of these refugees: Rohingyas claim to be successors of Muslim merchants but the Burmese government classifies them as unofficial migrants from Bangladesh; also, to exacerbate the problem here, consecutive Burmese governments have never considered Rohingyas to be a part of the ethnic minority in Myanmar and these people do not hold Burmese citizenship. The only constructive progress that has happened so far is a quite recent agreement between Bangladesh and Myanmar which aims to send Rohingyas back to where they ran away from; the agreement maintains that this plan should be complete by 2020 but many Rohingyas don’t have the citizenship to comply with this plan.

What Myanmar needs to do is completely change its position over Rohingyas and count them as part of the state’s responsibility to appropriately care take. Myanmar cannot simply dump this responsibility through its actions on Bangladesh because the burden to take care of Rohingyas cannot be borne by Bangladesh alone. Furthermore, they should also drop their present biased approach (such as over marriage and education) towards the Rohingyas who will be returning to Myanmar.

A Party For The Rich

Embed from Getty Images

In the United Kingdom, is it necessary for the aristocracy to have a party focus on their own class?

The Labour Party can be summarized as a political party which tends to gravitate towards the working class a tad too much, whilst the Conservative Party is quite all over the place and without gearing towards any specific class really. A scenario of this type makes me wonder over whether a political party should have been in existence purely for the aristocracy or the upper class in the United Kingdom. And close to having that thought, I realize that the answer to that would be no.

Indeed, there shouldn’t be any such party because that would mean a big party choosing too much exclusivity for a really narrow group of people in society. A decision like that wouldn’t also seek to serve all classes properly. This is because even though a group of that type is rather small in size, the idea of putting the rich first and the poor later, is not a great idea; in this world, help for the poor should not be compromised for the rich when the rich never need it. And that is why, warring over the idea of which party best serves the rich is the best that that particular class can do; this warring characteristic, in my outlook, is reflective of the United Kingdom’s nature in a time when the country still ruled over its many colonies.

What The Hungarian Elections Portray

Embed from Getty Images

Extremism is on the rise and it aims to hurt Hungary’s image in the world, rather than solve all of its problems

In Hungary, national elections were conducted recently and tragically a far-right extremist party called Fidesz came to power, demonstrating the general characteristics of extremism in the country. Although, Hungarians had expressed an interest to do away with Fidesz‘s leader: Viktor Orban, who has been in power since 2010, his third consecutive victory actually highlights the pressing need to engage in a more open-minded outlook with the subject of immigrants in both Hungary and across Europe.

The consequences of the elections (conducted this April) are severe because Viktor has an extremely narrow-minded approach to the migrant problem and it is definitely not amusing. Viktor is very strongly against immigration coming into the country from Africa and the Middle East; he has even shockingly justified his racist ideology by stating that those people from Africa and the Middle East will be responsible for terror episodes in Hungary.

It a gross misrepresentation of what people from those countries can generally be like: there is no denying that Hungary is a developed country but not all nations in Africa and the Middle East are poor; both the regions are very vast areas too, so it is wrong to look at people coming to Hungary from those nations with such narrow-mindedness. It is important to add that many African and Middle Eastern nations might have practices such as conservatism based on religion but something like that does not primarily exist to potentially harm Hungarians.

It is true that matters such as the recent burst of immigration and the global refugee problem, are really worrying situations. But because of all that, immigration from outside of the West should not be looked at in a polarizing (and racist) manner; what Orban really does is tragically always risk Hungary’s image in the world.

Why Strong Democratic Relations Should Not Be Overdramatized

Embed from Getty Images

Narendra Modi takes the relationship between India and Bangladesh to uncomfortable new heights

Bangladesh’s strong ties with India should not always be stressed because they are still two separate nations, with great ties, but it doesn’t always seem as if it can be so. Recently, the Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi remarked at the unveiling of ‘Bangladesh Bhaban’ at a higher educational institution in Santiniketan that an aspect of the disposition of Rabindranath Tagore (India’s national poet) had struck a chord with Sheikh Mujibur Rahman (the founding father of Bangladesh)

In my outlook, that is one of the many reasons which makes Rahman great. Tagore has another relationship with Bangladesh already: Rabindranath had penned the lyrics to what was Bangladesh’s first national anthem after the British left the country (and India). But was it really necessary to place Rahman and Tagore in the same frame in a locality that is so cultural in mood to further emphasize on the strong ties between Bangladesh and India? I think it would have been better if it was some core point that did it instead: for example, the language that Tagore’s creative work is composed in – Bengali, which is a shared language between West Bengal and Bangladesh also demonstrates that the cultural ties between the two countries are strong and should indeed always continue to be so.

Is Dictatorship Good?

Embed from Getty Images

A dictatorship is a vivid portrayal of bad leadership and countries on the change for it

A dictatorship varies greatly in style of governance from a democracy, which is what most countries in the world like to practice as a form of government. A dictatorship, in my point of view, is a deeply flawed style of governance and not good. It might be colorful with its display of an entirely singular edition of patriotism but that patriotism still runs through a very narrow channel and citizens of a country don’t really have options of exercising many freedoms when a dictator runs their country. Also, the rule of prominent dictators such as Kim Jong-il, Bashar al-Assad, Adolf Hitler and Juvenal Habyarimana demonstrated devastating changes for their nations. So, to want a dictatorship instead of a democracy makes not much sense; in fact, countries are better without it and when a civilized style of governance is in place, which can also both do equal justice to colorful patriotism and create strong leaders.

The Big Problem In Syria

Embed from Getty Images

When is the fighting in Syria going to come to an end?

Donald Trump’s latest decision to strike Syria for its use of chemical weapons against the nation’s own people, seems to be rapidly turning the tide against Assad and his government. It has always been sad that the rebel fighters, despite prolonged fighting, makes it possible for the world to sight in Syria, a President who likes to kill his own people to maintain his grip on power.

Maybe Trump’s decision will do the trick or maybe it will not, but for a government backed by an aggressive Russia and a quite unstable – not least, for its nuclear weapons arsenal – North Korea, maybe it is time to reflect on what is happening to Syria because of all this constant fighting. On the surface, Syria might just look like any other country in the world: it has problems of poverty and food, which for it has been because of an extremely lengthy civil war. But it’s also a nation on the brink of devastation.

It is about time that Assad quits his rule. It’s also important to note that the Syrian civil war also increased the number of refugees – the onset of which has created friction with countries geographically close to Syria, such as Iraq, Egypt and Turkey. In retrospect, the war in Syria has caused more harm, than created good, and it seriously is about time that the fighting should be drawn to a close; negotiations and correct diplomacy should be the way to do that actually, not even more fighting to propel a bad government out of power.

Why Patriotism Is Important

Embed from Getty Images

Patriotism is important because it reflects one of the best qualities in a human being. It demonstrates a sense of pride in your country, which I have observed is a rather rare sight to behold sometimes, in all corners of the world.

The definition of patriotism can never vary, no matter where in the world patriotism is displayed. The principles which define countries might differ and countries might have disagreements over it, and they might even display rivalry based on it, but at the end of the day patriotism should strictly always be about loving your country – nothing else.

Politicians (in the West, particularly) almost always display a total disregard for it at some point or the other during the course of their political leadership, which is tragic, sometimes so for certain countries too, not just the people who demonstrate such political leadership. Countries, which are strong in character can never be affected by it. This is because no matter what a politician’s thinking involves over patriotism (in the negative), and whatever promises that he or she made to come to power, that they have long left at the door, their ill-intentions can never cause a country harm, which is already strong enough to defend itself from constant negligence, and not to mention a love for regular display of unpatriotic behavior by (leading) politicians.

Being unpatriotic is also not a behavior to be proud of. Being patriotic – that is always something to be proud of. I can’t even understand, on most days, how many things in life could be more important, than loving one’s own country – I actually like to hold this thought that there isn’t a lot there that could be.

Abuse Of Women At The House Of Commons

Embed from Getty Images

John Bercow, the Speaker for the past nine years, is amongst the MPs who have had allegations made against them of ill-treating women at the House of Commons

Recently, an investigation carried out by Newsnight (a current affairs programme on the BBC) revealed that numerous MPs had made women, who worked at the House of Commons feel frightened + harassed them too. The acts reported of harassment were particularly shocking – women had, reportedly, been kissed under protest and fondled.

Although, these griveances were made known, they were never really cared for: apparently, one Labour MP had taken great pleasure in making Emily Commander cry in a companionless-destructive manner and had also regularly rubbished and disempowered her. Then there was another allegation made against a Conservative MP, who had apparently built a reputation for regularly screaming at workers – he has since stated that he has never been made aware by the House of any grievances made against him, and if it were to happen then he would come to know that, and also he knows that this often happens with MPs.

The most important accusation to come out of this episode, however, is the one made against the Speaker at the House of Commons, John Bercow. Bercow had apparently screamed at his secretary, who already had post-traumatic stress disorder and then because of John’s behaviour she was soon transferred to elsewhere inside the Parliament. An investigation has since been launched into the claims and it looks as if Bercow is listed to suffer the most from the allegations made so far against the MPs.

Several Labour MPs, including Valerie Vaz, have spoken out in favour of Bercow but the matter seems too sensitive to be taken lightly – clearly, the persistence of the allegations isn’t sufficient to formulate opinions regarding Bercow. But what this matter certainly does is that it puts a new spotlight on the probable maltreatment of women in the workplace and it remains to be seen how this episode materializes in the end; Bercow had previously mentioned that both sexual harassment and bullying should never be put up with, and he has since stated that the accusations made against him are all false.

China’s Trade Hegemony

Embed from Getty Images

China dominates in the world as a trading country – can that actually be something good?

China, in recent years, has emerged as an important player in the world economy. But that new reality, owing to rapid industrialization efforts, is not a welcome thought for many countries around the world. There is a looming sense of danger that is not entirely confounded that China’s rising economy may, in the end, hurt America’s economy: China’s advances with technology-building is hurting Japan, which is known to be a giant in that particular industry, and the Communist state’s odd penchant for acquisitions in the EU now sees foreign investment over there greeted with stern procedures.

China has come a long way from meager manufacturing outputs of zips and cigarette lighters, to a time when the state supplies cheaper products for good value. All this comes at the heels of China’s export percentages chalking in at a staggering 14percent, and this is the first time that a country has gone so high with export rates, since America in the late sixties, which really challenges competition so much because these cheap products also come with a good reputation in the market. The only way to combat China’s might here is to be innovative with what markets around the world can provide that is a better alternative to what China already offers – this is easier said than done.

So far, the only way to curb China’s growing hegemony over trade is to force it to innovate, with a collective mind – one that is more concerned about sharing trade dominance (China became the top trading country in the world in 2013), with other trade giants, such as European countries, as well. There is no need to build enemies: China is a mammoth developing country and it could use common goodwill over trade dominance with developed countries.

As Xi Jinping, stated at Davos earlier this year – a trade war will declare no winners whatsoever, and it’s very true: China should not be looked upon as a a browbeating state, over the matter of trade. China should really avoid going down the same old path as previous trade giants who dominated on such a massive scale, like the United States, and focus more on being the new and fairer face of globalization.