Connect with us

Politics

Exclusive: ‘I was there. You weren’t’ Metropolitan Police Officer speaks out about Sarah Everard Vigil

There have been calls for the Commissioner of the Met Police to resign and for the police to be “defunded”. However, as always, there are two sides to every story…

Published

on

On Saturday 13th March 2021, people across the world watched on in horror and shock as police officers manhandled and detained female protestors at the vigil to remember Sarah Everard at Clapham Common. Politicians, celebrities as well as millions of people on social media, have been quick to condemn the actions of the London Metropolitan Police Service. There have been calls for the Commissioner of the Met Police to resign and for the police to be “defunded”. However, as always, there are two sides to every story… 

I am serving as a police officer in the London Metropolitan Police. I wish to share with you some things from the events of Saturday evening that the media and social media very conveniently forgot to share with you. 

Rewind the clock to midday on the 13th March and the scenes at Clapham Common were very peaceful. Members of the public were coming to the common, laying flowers and candles, whilst taking a few minutes to reflect on the life of an innocent woman who was murdered by an evil man. Sarah Everard was amongst thousands of women who have been the victim of male violence. Many female officers from the Met asked to be assigned to the common so that they could also pay their respects, and provide support to any members of the public who wished to talk about their personal experiences of abuse by men. At that point there were no concerns over social distancing rules, as members of the public co-ordinated with the officers on duty. It was the sort of planned scenario that could show the best of humanity.

At approximately 6pm, the crowd had become much larger. More police officers had been brought in to try and engage with the crowd and ensure that social distancing and Covid rules were adhered to. The Met Police’s policy of the “4 E’s” has been vital in helping police officers maintain order throughout the pandemic. At first police officers will ‘Engage’ with the public and ‘Explain’ to them what Covid rules are being broken by them. This is followed by ‘Encouraging’ them to change their behaviour to reduce the risk to public safety and health. And, as a last resort if people still do not wish to comply with the Covid Rules, then police officers ‘Enforce’ their legal power to disperse people or to issue fines. If this fails, then police officers have the right to arrest people and prevent further harm to the health and safety of the public. 

In my personal experience I have never had to issue any Covid fines as members of the public have been very understanding of the rules in place and are happy to comply. However, the crowd at Clapham Common from 6pm onwards was anything but compliant. Some people had started delivering emotional speeches from the bandstand, which resulted in a large crowd pulling closer to them and thus social distancing rules were completely ignored. As a result, the police officers on duty began to quickly Engage, Explain and Encourage members of the crowd to go home. It was no longer safe for them to be there whilst a pandemic continues to wreak havoc across the world. At this point the crowd became hostile and felt that their freedoms were being trampled on. I have seen numerous and well-respected doctors and healthcare professionals on Twitter commenting on the police taking away the rights of women to protest male related violence on females. The irony is that these same doctors and healthcare professionals know better than anyone, that the UK and more specifically the NHS cannot afford another 6-month lockdown with Covid cases and Covid related deaths shooting through the roof! 

This wasn’t even the worst part of that evening. All of us on duty that day had to stand there and listen to members of the crowd, including women, telling female police officers that they “deserved to be raped” and that “your colleague should’ve murdered you instead of Sarah”. How would you feel if you had to stand there and listen to people telling your female colleagues who are mothers, sisters, wives and partners, that they deserved to be raped and murdered? Some of my colleagues were spat on, some were pushed and assaulted and all of us were called “murderers”, “rapists” and every offensive word under the sun. But it’s odd how the various media outlets and their cameras failed to play these scenes on the news and across social media. Just imagine for a second, if a police officer had told a female member of the public, that she deserved to be raped and murdered? So why is it acceptable for people to make such comments to female police officers? I have nothing but respect for my colleagues who were on duty that day and the way we controlled our emotions and only arrested those individuals who had exceeded all bounds of decency. 

Since the murder of Sarah Everard, I have closed my social media accounts after receiving messages and DMs from friends and family alike asking me how I felt about “your colleague murdering an innocent woman”. The truth is, “he” is no colleague of ours. I refuse to use his name because he doesn’t deserve any mention. Like all police officers in the UK, I hope and pray that he is given the harshest possible sentence. His actions were horrible and disgusting, we have all sworn an oath to serve and protect our country and he did anything but that. The public have no idea how many officers it took, the 100s of hours of CCTV footage and door to door enquiries piecing together micro sized bits of information to find the murderer who took Sarah Everard’s life. It has been a horrible week for police officers; none of us want to be associated with that vile creature. Why is it okay to label police officers as murderers and rapists because of the actions of one or two individuals? Most police officers joined to protect the vulnerable and to help shape a safer world for our future generations to live in. Politicians have been quick to condemn the actions of the police, yet it is these same politicians who voted for the Covid laws and demand that the police to enforce them. 

Only three weeks ago, Mayor of London Sadiq Khan said “This is not the time to take our foot off the table…we must as a city remain on high alert.” After praising the work of the Emergency services he further said “We must repay them (Emergency Services) by continuing to follow the rules.” Mr Khan was one of the first political figures to criticise the Met Police after Saturday’s events, unfortunately for Mr Khan Covid doesn’t care if a vigil is taking place for a worthy cause. He should know better than this! Similarly, the criminal justice system is desperately in need of reform! Every year the police arrest thousands of men who commit crimes against women, whether that be rape or sexual offences, harassment, domestic violence etc. However, the percentage of convictions is horrifyingly low. If you want to get angry, then vent your anger at the people you elect and at the criminal justice system which is outdated and in need of reform! 

A few days after the events of Saturday 13th March, myself and my colleague were on our way to arrest a male suspect who had been accused of harassing their female ex-partner on social media; threatening to release intimate photos and videos of her. Whilst on our way to his address, we received all sorts of verbal abuse from members of the public. I was called a “murderer” “woman beater” “scumbag” “rapist” amongst many other things. I couldn’t help but share a quick smile with my colleague, because the irony was that we were on our way to arrest a male suspected of abusing their female ex-partner.

The one comment that hurt me the most was when a little girl who couldn’t have been more than five years old, ran up to us and shouted: “Hello Officer! How are you?” Before we could reply, however, her mother shouted: “Come here sweetie, stay away from them. They are horrible people; they will arrest you and hurt you”. The smile on the little girl’s face vanished, and with a horrified look in her eyes she ran back to her mother. I thought to myself, that If there was no Covid I would probably offer a high five to the girl. Sadly, her mother had now scared her from the police and, heaven forbid, if she was ever in trouble then who would she turn to for help? 

The commissioner of the London Metropolitan Police, Dame Cressida, herself said that “had it been lawful, I myself would have attended the vigil”. As police officers, we want nothing more than to stand side by side with our fellow citizens to demand justice and equality for women. However, due to the pandemic, it is neither safe nor right to be holding such protests. I find it astonishing, that people are asking for Dame Cressida to resign from her position, considering she is the first female commissioner in the Met Police’s long history. The blame does not lie with the Met Police, we were simply doing our job according to the laws set out by the people that you elected. 

The events of this week have certainly shaken police officers. We have even at times questioned whether it’s worth us staying in a job that we love. We have wondered how is it fair for us to be labelled as murderers and rapists when all we want to do is help serve and protect our country. However, like most police officers my resolve has only strengthened. I am more determined now than ever to rid our streets of evil people – especially violent men – so that our women and girls can walk in peace. 

Disclaimer: The identity of the Police Officer has been changed for security purposes.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading
1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. A A

    18 March 2021 at 1:56 pm

    This is a very moving write up from the police’s perspective, something we don’t often hear.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Lebanon PM-Designate quits as the country faces a political deadlock

Published

on

Following months of continued political deadlock, the Lebanese PM-Designate Saad Hariri has stepped down from his role of forming a new government. As a result Lebanon is without a government for nine months. This resignation has plunged the nation further into a crisis, as it is currently also facing social, economic, and political turmoil. 

Lebanon has not had a functioning government since the massive explosion in Beirut that left over a hundred dead. The deadly explosion that took place in August 2020 resulted in the resignation of the previous government. Mr Hariri was then selected to form a new one. However, after months of disagreement with President Michel Aoun over cabinet positions, Saad Hariri has given up on the task. 

Currently, Lebanon is suffering from an unprecedented economic crisis, described by the World Bank as one of the worst in the world in the last 150 years. As a result of the currency collapse, there is a nation-wide shortage of food, medicines, electricity and fuel, which has left the nation desperate for help. 

The recent departure of Hariri is likely to cause further uncertainty and chaos for Lebanon, as it reduces its chances of receiving aid. The international community is refusing to offer any assistance to Lebanon until the nation forms a new government with a crackdown on corruption.  

President Macron described Lebanese political leaders as refusing to “act in good faith” and “favouring their partisan and personal interests at the expense of their country.” 

“They totally failed to acknowledge the political and economic situation of their country” said Mr Macron.

While the resignation of Saad Hariri remains a political matter, civilians are paying the price. The failure to form a new government and consequently the lack of international aid available, means that children are skipping meals during the day and going to bed hungry. The sick are unable to access their necessary medications.

The nation’s economy shrank by over 20% in the year 2020 and poverty worsened, with over half of the population now living below the poverty line.

Given the current state of the nation’s political and economic crisis, if Lebanon fails to form a new government, the country’s situation is expected to worsen further in the near future.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Politics

To Barnaby or not to Barnaby? That may decide the next federal election

Published

on

Many saw the re-election of the conservative Prime Minister Scott Morrison in 2019 as a return to normalcy in Australian federal politics. This was, of course, after Canberra became the world’s laughing stock swinging through six prime ministers (technically five, as one got his job back before losing the election) in just over 10 years. What started as a loss of confidence in the prime minister by his party’s MPs quickly became a numbers game. Add to that the lack of legislation regulating leadership spills, and anyone, at any time can pass an internal party motion, and an hour later Australia would have a new prime minister.

This is why the recent change of deputy prime minister poured salt on old wounds. For those not familiar with Australian federal politics, here’s a quick rundown: the two major parties are the Labour Party and the Liberal Party. The former being the equivalent of Britain’s Labour Party or America’s Democratic Party while the latter being equivalent to Britain’s Conservative Party and America’s Republican Party. The Liberal Party has typically governed in a coalition with the Nationals Party since its founding in the 1940s, so one deputy leader of the coalition is the leader of the Nationals Party who is also the deputy prime minister. The Nationals Party derive their voting base from the regional, rural, and non-metropolitan parts of the country.

Now, back to Barnaby Joyce . He is no stranger to being deputy prime minister back when he was the sidekick to former prime ministers, Tony Abbott and Malcolm Turnbull from 2016 – 2018. He knows the ins and the outs of the job very well and he also knows how to play politics, which is the main criticism against his retaking of the post. Commentators such as David Crowe, Katherine Murphy, Troy Bramston and even former Liberal leader John Hewson have piled on to say one thing: that his ascension back to the spotlight does not make the country better off. They argue him resigning the first time after being caught having an affair, allegations around sexually harassing women and his bold willingness to block any progress on climate change – much to some Liberals’ frustration – make him unfit to lead.

Joyce’s main claim to the Nationals’ throne rests with the assertion that McCormack was not standing up for the Nationals’ priorities, lest of which to publicly oppose any net-zero emissions target from Prime Minister Morrison after he alluded to one at the backdrop of this year’s G7 summit at Cornwall, England. This is a fair claim, and precedence shows that the Nationals will put on a tantrum if they are not taken seriously. Recently, the New South Wales government was threatened with a minority government status after its deputy premier and Leader of the Nationals John Barilaro threatened to divorce the coalition should a proposed policy increasing the protection for koalas be legislated

The premier, Gladys Berejiklian, stared her deputy down in what was the most prolific and rare example of disunity for an otherwise popular premier and her well-functioning frontbench. This is where Joyce comes in, claiming that McCormack has cozied up to the prime minister and so he must be replaced. For them, it was the prime minister’s growing acceptance of a net-zero emissions target that sounded the alarm bells for the Nationals to vote their leader out.

An interesting point to note is it was not Joyce who brought the motion to topple the leader, rather it was his ally, Senator for Queensland Matt Canavan who passed a spill motion and started the numbers game. A few days later Canavan wrote in an opinion piece for The Australian that making Joyce the leader again “restores a strong advocate for the economically nationalist, Australia-first approach that has always served us well”. The rest of his piece consisted of criticising China and trashing the idea of a net-zero emissions target. 

The title of this article indicates that Joyce could prove to be a double-edged sword at the next federal election. Both outcomes are being touted with Joyce back in the spotlight. The arguments in support of a Morrison-Joyce partnership argue that Joyce brings a personality and a buzz that was missing in McCormack. As Niki Savva writes in The Australian, “McCormack became the invisible man” after not promoting the National Party’s successes well enough to make a name for himself and allowing Morrison to sidestep him and not demand concessions in terms of both policies and ministerial appointments that the Nationals would find favourable.

His opponents cite allegations of Joyce sexually harassing women and his affair with one of his staff as reasons against his re-election. Alana Johnson, a founding member of the Australian Women in Agriculture, reacted to the leadership spill telling The Guardian that “the National party is obviously just not listening, otherwise they would never have chosen Barnaby to be the leader again” and claiming the party is trapped by “power plays between the boys”. Elaborating on the female factor, Nationals MPs Anne Webster and Michelle Landry both publicly claimed that “many women would be unimpressed” should Joyce be re-elected. Yet the response seems to be mixed. While some women are openly stating their disappointment, others, like Nationals Senator Perin Davey is more wanting to ‘focus on the future’.So, the question remains, is Joyce’s re-appointment worth it? Well, if Morrison and Joyce can strike the balance between the needs of their electoral bases and close any window of opportunity that Labour could exploit and drive a wedge between them, then all that remains is for Joyce to show that he has “come back a better person”.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Politics

Is Russia really a democracy?

Published

on

On 20th August 2020 Alexei Navalny, the Russian opposition leader and anti-corruption activist was poisoned with a Novichock nerve agent leaving him hospitalised in Germany until late September. When Navalny was well enough he returned to Russia despite warnings that he would be arrested once he arrived. Navalny was convicted for two years and eight months for violating the conditions of a suspended sentence. Since then, many believe that the Kremlin was behind the poisoning of the opposition leader as a way to silence him and his work. Many believe this, because Novichock was used by the Soviet Union during the Cold War as a way to slowly get rid of their enemies. So, is Russia truly a democracy if they are suspectedly ‘silencing the opposition’?

The poisoning and silencing of Alexei Navalny in a country which claims to be a democracy is not new, rather it has been going on for as long as Navalny has been exposing the Russian Government. There are three main aspects which make a country democratic: free media; free and fair elections; and fair law. Russia has none of these.

The 1993 Russian constitution declares Russia to be a “democratic federal law-bound State with a republican form of government”. Thus, it is considered to be a democracy. In the 2018 Presidential election, the candidates that were supposedly running against Vladimir Putin (the current Russian president) were fake as they were hand-picked by the Kremlin. The point is Navalny, one of the strongest opposition candidates who was the one to expose the corruption within the Russian Government, was not able to run against Putin. Therefore, not making the 2018 election free and fair at all.

In addition, Russia lacks free media. Navalny started his blog in 2008 in order to expose malpractice and corruption within the Russian Government. Navalny believed that the media was not exposing this and therefore decided to do it by himself, as he believed that Russian citizens had the right to know. And he was correct. One thing Vladimir Putin was seen doing very early on in his presidency is centralising many aspects including the media. In the early 2000s independent Russian media companies were slowly coming under state control as a way for the Russian Government to decide what is said and what is not said about them to Russian citizens i.e. a way to censor the media. Thus, it was a way to silence the corruption within the Russian Government.

To assess whether a country has fair laws you need to assess whether a country’s constitution successfully grants citizens civil liberties. Civil liberties are the freedoms that protect citizens from tyranny. However, Russia yet again fails at this. Putin has had Russian law on his side ever since he became President. In early April 2021, the Russian President signed a law that paves the way for him ruling until 2036. If Putin remains President until 2036 then there will be an endless cycle of lack of free media, lack of free and fair elections and lack of fair law. Therefore, ultimately leading to a lack of democracy. Thus, continuing to silence his opposition as everything is still under Putin’s control. So, what does all of this mean for Russia’s democracy in the future?

It is clear to say that Russia does not have a liberal democracy like many countries around the world including the USA, UK, Australia etc. However, just because Russia does not have a liberal democracy does not necessarily mean they are not a democracy. There are many types of democracy and on many occasions, Russia has been identified as a democratic dictatorship. A democratic dictatorship is when Russian voters are allowed to vote but there is no point in voting for a candidate other than Putin, as evidence suggests that the candidates running against Putin are fake and controlled by the Kremlin. Like Russia, China is known for being a democratic dictatorship because they allow Chinese citizens to vote but there is only one option on the ballot paper.

Granting Russia a liberal democracy which will be better for their citizens is not as easy as it looks. In order to achieve a liberal democracy, citizens need to be granted civil liberties. To achieve this, these civil liberties need to be granted through the constitution. However, as shown changing the constitution under a leader like Putin is hard as everything including the law is centralised. Thus, it ultimately comes down to the leader. With a new leader there can be a possibility for Russia to become a liberal democracy but that is only if the law grants for another leader to be President. Therefore, Russia is stuck in this loophole.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Politics

Keep politics out of the Supreme Court — an interview with Richard Zacaroli author and speaker on socio-political issues

Published

on

Bio: Richard Zacaroli has served for over 30 years on boards of non-governmental organisations in the education, cultural exchange, community development, and finance sectors. He is Chair of the board of directors for Greenheart International, and a Pual Harris Fellow with Rotary International. Rich is a frequent guest lecturer at CSU-Sacramento and has authored numerous articles focused on the socio-political environment in the U.S. Rich and his wife Lori live in Sacramento, California. They have a blended family of five children and twelve grandchildren.

The Analyst: You recently wrote an article talking about how the expansion of the Supreme Court would actually do more harm than good. You wrote that, instead of expanding the Court by four seats, two should be added. Another route that many people have mentioned is removing the lifetime service of Supreme Court Justices, and allowing Justices to be changed after a certain duration. What do you think about this?

Richard Zacaroli: I would say that could be an additional route, but not a singular solution. I do believe that balancing the Supreme Court by adding two seats would be a good idea, but I also agree that putting durations on terms that the Justices can serve makes a lot of sense. It has to be a fixed duration, whatever it’s going to be – eight years, 12 years, 20 years. While 12-15 years makes most sense, it just cannot be arbitrary, and Justices cannot be removed by vote of the Senate on any kind of arbitrary basis. As long as Justice’s terms are fixed they can’t be politicized. I would also say that if you did have fixed durations for Justices, that would allow much more time to vet the right candidates who represent a majority of American opinion and thought.

The Analyst: Do you think the process in which the Supreme Court Justices are put into place is very politicized? And if so how can we minimize the effect of politicization of Supreme Court Justice nominations in the coming years?

Richard Zacaroli: I think the process has been very politicized, particularly for the past two Justices; the refusal of the Republican-led Senate to consider President Obama’s nomination of Merrick Garland for a full year in 2016, as well as in the rushing of Amy Coney Barrett to replace Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. In my opinion, these were highly politicized. I think a way to minimize the politicization of the process is, first, to require two thirds of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court Justices. That would assure that there is consensus among Republicans and Democrats on Supreme Court Justices who are confirmed. Second, require a fixed period of time, perhaps 90 days, within which a Supreme Court Justice must be nominated and confirmed. I would also say that the Senate should not be allowed to have confirmation hearings on a Supreme Court Justice perhaps 90 days before a national election. These are definitely ways that the process can be depoliticized.

The Analyst: You mentioned in your article that four out of the nine current Supreme Court Justices were appointed by Presidents that had lost the popular vote, and therefore it could be argued that they don’t represent the American people. In your opinion, do you think that a President who didn’t win the popular vote should be given the authority and power to decide a lifelong government position, such as a Supreme Court Justice? 

Richard Zacaroli: Yes, absolutely. I don’t think any changes should be made in that regard. Let’s put it this way, if you have a President who passed away during his term and the Vice President assumes the presidency, you can’t stop the process of nominating Supreme Court Justices. Similarly, our political system is such that, occasionally we may have Presidents who didn’t win the popular vote but still won the electoral college vote, as has happened twice in the past 20 years. You cannot stop the Supreme Court nomination process because of that. I personally think that more of the politicization of the process is taking place in the Senate, and not the Office of the President.

The Analyst: Would it be a feasible solution in the future to dictate that no more than four Justices could be conservatives, no more than four could be liberal, and one must at all times be a moderate, in order to avoid the current 6-3 predicament, as well as removing the President and his party’s bias when nominating a judge?

Richard Zacaroli: I think something like that could make sense, but it would be difficult to manage. For example, if you’ve got a Republican-led Senate and a Supreme Court Justice who was very liberal passes away or retires, it’s going to be very difficult to get another Supreme Court Justice who is liberal through the confirmation process. I think the more effective and straightforward way of doing it is requiring ⅔ of the Senate to confirm Supreme Court Justices. In that way, it’s going to be pretty much assured that you will have Republican and Democrat consensus for the candidate, and that in itself is going to bring the Supreme Court more toward a moderate orientation that is representative of where America is ideologically. 

The Analyst: Why do you think that, currently, there is not that sort of rule implemented for the ⅔ majority, whereas in other political practices, we see that simple majority rule is needed from the Senate?

Richard Zacaroli: The Senate process is broken in that regard, you know, with the filibuster rule and other things. I think it makes sense that a simple majority of the Senate is needed to confirm certain legislation such as the federal budget, but appointment of Supreme Court justices goes to the very fabric of our society. The Court is ruling on issues that can become really personal to all Americans, right? And therefore I think the confirmation of Supreme Court justices above any other legislative decision really should be vetted and when confirmed, represent what a majority of Americans believe. That can only be achieved if you’ve got consensus among both Democrats and Republicans, which can be achieved by requiring a supermajority of ⅔ of the Senate. 

 The Analyst: In the past couple of years, we have seen the unfolding of a highly polarized America, especially after the four years under Former President, Donald Trump’s time in office. You yourself have a lot of experience working with various individuals, domestically and internationally, what would you say is a good argument in order to convince Americans that despite what the media portrays, America is still a moderate state?

Richard Zacaroli: So that’s a very good question, a complex one with complex answers. When Americans do come together, from both sides, and all of the polls indicate this, Americans generally agree on the paths that we should be taking as a nation regarding the issues that most affect our lives such as health care, immigration, environment, gun control, racial and social equality. Polarization occurs when the biased media machine magnifies different perspectives. I think that one thing we should encourage people to get out of their comfort zones, watch, read and listen to unbiased news sources that just present the news without opinions and a lot of hyperbole. This will allow people to form their own opinions. Another approach could be broadcast and published forums, with real people talking to real people on both sides of that debate, not politicians. People will realise that we as Americans are more united than we are divided in this country when it comes to the major issues. People need to at least hear the other side. On most issues they are going to realise that it is not that different from what they think, or that at least compromise is possible.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Touba completed her degree in Environmental Science from University of Maryland. Currently she is pursuing her masters in Material Science at Johns Hopkins University. She is passionate about gender equality, environmental justice, sustainable and ethical practices and women in STEM. Twitter: @ToubaaaShah

Continue Reading

Politics

Biden’s legislative agenda hangs by a thread

Published

on

The culmination of the Star Wars saga – at least until the muddled storytelling of the sequel trilogy – is the jubilant image of the Rebels gathering on Endor and celebrating their toppling of the Empire. John Williams’ score reverberates through the galaxy as humans and Wookies alike embrace on the rooftops of Coruscant and the steppes of Kashyyyk to mark a change in their political fortunes. The parallels between our comparatively mundane existence and the distant swashbuckling galaxy of bounty hunters and lightsabers are admittedly few and far in between. However on 8th November, as chyrons flashed with President Joe Biden’s electoral victory across CNN and MSNBC and millions gathered on the sidewalks of cities across the United States, George Lucas’ concluding storyboard for Return of the Jedi had sprung to life. After four long years, in the duel of fates, the dark side had finally been vanquished. Or so we thought.

The days following Election Day were fraught with nail-biting anxiety and anticipation for millions of Americans glued to their television sets. The ongoing pandemic impeded in-person voting and scores of Americans – over 100 million – opted for the convenience of mail-in ballots to cast their votes. John King and Steve Kornacki explained every electoral permutation of states swapping between red and blue as votes trickled in and the political calculus changed within hours. Over the next several days, Wisconsin flipped from red to blue, followed by Michigan, and finally, as voting machines sorted the ballots from Philadelphia and Allegheny County in Pennsylvania, the mathematical exercise finally had an answer: Joe Biden had won the 2020 Presidential Election. 

Biden during his campaign coined the election as a battle for the “Soul of America.” For four years, Donald Trump’s administration subverted political norms for personal gain and expediency. Mired not only by Robert Mueller’s Special Counsel Investigation, but an impeachment, a myriad of unscrupulous behavior by his cronies, and a bungling of domestic policy in response to the Covid-19 pandemic. Yet despite the abundant impropriety, Former President Donald Trump received the second highest popular vote tally in American history. Buoyed not only by the increasing political divide between rural-urban voters but also the disproportionate parity given to “red” states in the Electoral College. Biden comparatively had all but been ruled out as a candidate until his resurgence after the South Carolina primary. With Bernie Sanders failing to ratchet up support after his breakout 2016 election campaign, much of the Democratic party consolidated behind Biden. The career partisan with a mixed legislative record promised to “build back better.” Over 150 days later, Biden’s legislative promises largely hang in the balance of an inert Senate shackled by an antiquated parliamentary procedure. 

In particular, this week’s blockage of Biden’s For the People Act (H.R.1) – coined as the most ambitious voting rights legislation in a generation – is the latest measure of obstruction by Senate Republicans. Fresh from an attempted putsch by QAnon and Trump loyalists on 6th January and enactment of state voter suppression laws across the country, the bill promised to expand voting rights, change campaign finance laws, and limit partisan gerrymandering. Yet its failure in the split Senate portends further doom and gloom for Biden’s rather quixotic agenda. 

Biden started off with a bang. A litany of executive orders in his first week intended to undo Trump era directives and his landmark achievement thus far, the American Rescue Plan. The bill injected the recovering economy with nearly $2 million dollars in stimulus, including expanded unemployment benefits, direct payments to individuals, expanded the child tax credit, and earmarked grants for small businesses struggling to stay afloat amidst a recession. However, by using the parliamentary procedure of budget reconciliation, Biden overrode the filibuster rules and the 50-50 senator split in the Senate to pass his bill with a simple majority; Kamala Harris providing the tie-breaking vote in her capacity as president of the Senate. Donald Trump and Senate Republicans used the same reconciliation process to shoehorn the now infamous tax cuts of 2017. Biden however, forsaking austerity for increased deficit spending, has proposed over $4 trillion of additional funding under his Build Back Better Plan. Significant appropriations intended to bolster climate policy, child care, infrastructure, and job creation. Such exorbitant spending is anathema to conservative ideology and top Senate Republican Mitch McConnell has deemed Biden’s budget as “radical” and the “wrong prescription for America.” The same obstinacy that hampered the Obama administration now threatens to derail Biden’s legislative mandate. 

It’s rather facile to suggest that the filibuster is the thermal exhaust port on the senatorial Death Star. However, in a split Senate, a practically untenable supermajority of 60 Senators is required by parliamentary rules to pass major legislation. Much of Biden’s signature legislation is unlikely to receive the endorsement of ten Senate Republicans. Additionally, the specter of Donald Trump as kingmaker looms large over the 50 Republicans in the Senate. Despite Trump’s second impeachment and election defeat, he has consolidated control over the GOP and its electorate. A recent Reuters/Ipsos poll shows over 53% of Republicans still view Donald Trump as the legitimate President of the United States. Liz Cheney’s sacking as House Republican Conference chair last month is widely seen as punishment for her impeachment vote during Trump’s second impeachment trial earlier this year. One Republican voting with the Democrats is tantamount to political suicide. Ten is fiction. The polarization of the country has only intensified political differences and the whispers of the “Big Lie” threaten to ignite the crucible of American society. 

Yet Biden remains unabated in his plea for comity and bipartisan legislation, much to the chagrin of the progressive wing of his party. Many of Biden’s pleas are ostensibly for political theater, intended to convey to the American public that he remains committed to his campaign promises of re-establishing norms of unity and civility. However, the precarious nature of Democratic senators and their diverse “Big Tent” of constituents also requires placating moderates. Namely, Joe Manchin of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona. Both Manchin and Sinema have publicly stated their opposition to abolishing the filibuster through op-eds in the Washington Post. In doing so, they have effectively provided the death knell to much of Biden’s legislative hopes ahead of the 2022 midterm elections. The Democrats can hope to pass another bill through budget reconciliation this year, however under the Byrd Rule, any of Biden’s ambitious promises deemed extraneous to budgetary spending would be discarded in the final bill. Even so, a simple majority requires the approval of Manchin and Sinema, both of whom have balked at the mounting cost of Biden’s legislative proposals. 

Yet despite voicing opposition against the For the People Act for its partisan scope and promises, on Tuesday both Sinema and Manchin voted to begin debate on the ultimately blocked bill. This signals for some that both Senators may cave to public pressure and ultimately use the “nuclear option” to end the filibuster. The nuclear option allows for the Senate to override the existing filibuster by closing debate and advancing legislation with a simple majority. The nuclear option has been used by Senate Democrats in 2013 to eliminate the 60-vote rule for presidential nominations, and most recently by Senate Republicans to end the debate on Neil Gorsuch’s nomination to the Supreme Court. Despite these precedents, Manchin continues to argue that ending the filibuster will “destroy our government” and Sinema states that the filibuster “compels moderation.” Other critics have cited that nuking the filibuster will ultimately give Republicans free reign to legislate when they eventually take power. However, proponents of filibuster reform argue that the party with majorities in all three branches of government — Republican or Democrat — deserves to use its legislative entitlement. Barack Obama – long a victim of McConnell’s obdurate Senate – has vehemently rebuked the filibuster as a “Jim Crow relic.” Others have offered alternative proposals such as gradually lowering the filibuster threshold to 55 votes or re-enacting a “talking filibuster” where Senators must hold the floor with speeches in order to delay legislation. While the debate to end all debate rages on, a failure to legislate ensures a failure to galvanize the electorate in the upcoming midterm elections. 2022 brings with it heavily gerrymandered districts and several Congressional Democratic seats up for grabs. Historically, majorities have failed to maintain their momentum going into the midterm elections. A split legislative branch and McConnell’s machinations after the 2010 midterms all but hamstrung the remainder of the Obama-Biden administration. If history repeats itself and Republicans seize control of the House or the Senate, the new FDR will all but be a legislative bystander for the remainder of his term. For too long the United States has fallen behind its allies and adversaries due to incrementalism, congressional gridlock, and a regressive parliamentary rule. If the filibuster remains and Democrats fail to go big as promised, it’s a question of when, not if, the Death Star floating above Mar-a-Lago is fully operational once again.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Politics

How has the United States’ position on the use of force changed?

Probably one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in the history of the United States was the invasion of Iraq in 2003

Published

on

Throughout history, attitudes of the great powers have been changing on the legality of the use of force. Great powers such as the United States rejected International law at various moments. International law is defined as the legal responsibilities of States in their conduct with each other, and their treatment of individuals within State boundaries. But both the Clinton and Bush presidencies in the 1990s and 2000s also used international law to justify military interventions and implement liberal imperialist foreign policies. However, unlike Clinton and Bush, Trump followed his predecessor Obama by wanting to take a step back from protracted wars around the globe and becoming less interventionist. Then Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo claimed that America had always been a “liberating force, not an occupying power” but the time of “self-inflicted shame” was now over. So how did America come to this point? Has America’s need to maintain its hegemony become less attractive and more expensive? Or has this been a change based entirely on a shift in morality and mindset?

US intervention during the Reagan era

It’s clear that even from the Reagan era of the 1980s, the aims of successive US administrations were to overthrow democratically established governments and to impose aggressive policies and actions in order to protect its own interests. For example, the International Court of Justice found that from 1981 to 1984, the US undertook an “act of aggression” by providing funds for military and paramilitary activities by the Contra rebels in Nicaragua. However, the US justified its actions and the sanctions it imposed on the Nicaraguans as a “collective self-defence because of Nicaragua’s indirect aggression against El Salvador”. Geopolitically too, the US claimed its use of force was to preserve political stability in Central America and to combat the threat of communism by the Sandinista government. These arguments were widely rejected by international lawyers and human rights organisations. For example, former Professor of Law, Pete S Michaels, examining the legality of US intervention in Nicaragua, commented that the Neutrality Act and the Boland Amendment both suggested that the United States intervention in Nicaragua was illegal. But America was also protecting its financial and business interests. Various US companies had still had either businesses based in Nicaragua such as United Fruit, Monsanto and over 30 other US businesses or held significant interests in Nicaraguan firms for example 50% interest in the Gemina flour mill, 75% interest in B.C.I. Chemicals and a 30% interest in the Polycasa plastics company

Probably one of the biggest foreign policy mistakes in the history of the United States was the invasion of Iraq in 2003. Along with Britain and other countries, the US declared that Iraq posed the “greatest security threat” – being a rogue state with connections to terrorist organisations such Al-Qaeda; and that Saddam Hussein was harbouring weapons of mass destruction which he wouldn’t think twice about using against the West as he had used them against his own people. However, under the guise of helping the Iraqi people and spreading democracy, the US was actually found to have breached the UN Charter by going headlong into an illegal war. In contrast to the 1991 Gulf War which was seen as a “morally defensible war” with the support of the UN Security Council to remove an invading power, the Iraq war this time around had very little to do with WMDs and human rights but was entirely “motivated by a desire to (re)establish American standing as the world’s leading power”

Obama and his approach

Fast forward to 2011 where there appeared to be a change in tactics. President Bashir Al Assad of Syria was accused of brutal crackdowns of civilian protests, including using chemical weapons against his own citizens. However President Obama had been elected at a time when the global financial crises had had a huge impact. Thus, his administration adopted a more “geopolitical realism” approach – trying to avoid being mired in a yet another expensive and endless conflict in the Middle East. Obama admitted himself that Syria was of no vital strategic importance to the US – ironically serving to also acknowledge that past foreign interventions were undertaken primarily to protect US interests rather than the humanitarian reasons professed at the time. 

But at the same time, did America still have a duty to uphold its “policeman of the world” status by acting decisively when a sovereign nation appeared to be killing its own citizens? As it is, when the US had evidence that Assad was “preparing to use chemical weapons” and that this was a major threat to national security, Obama clarified that US intervention would not be “open ended” and that there be “no [American] boots on the ground”. But was this too little, too late? Did Obama’s reluctance to use force early on and possibly reduce or even avoid the humanitarian crisis and chaos that followed, put a question mark over those policy decisions? It is possible that the protection of millions of defenceless Syrians against the horrors of civil war, might have been enough justification for forceful American intervention in the beginning, in this case. 

Is the present time different? 

The election of Trump meanwhile ushered in an era of “America first” further favouring a non-interventionist style. Trump made it clear that the US would be employing a completely counter position to previous administrations. It would not now be interfering in other countries’ affairs but would be putting the “interests of the American people and American security above all else”. Thus, the United States should pursue its interests and would not be constrained and controlled by international law. Moreover, in the case of Syria, Trump made a decisive statement at the National Security Council meeting that he did not want to stay in Syria for a lengthy period. This itself revealed that his approach was different to the normal US rhetoric. Prior to his presidency Trump opposed attacking Syria and his tweets were always focussed on forgetting about Syria and instead prioritising America, its people, jobs, healthcare system etc. However, as President in 2018 he justified the US military to conduct precision missile strikes against the Syrian government as a response to a reported chemical attack on its own citizens by the Assad regime. Thus, legality of the use of force was on humanitarian grounds. The US put forward a legal argument that the use of chemical weapons, both in Iraq and Syria, was a threat to world security, peace and stability. But this is problematic as it’s hard to claim when and how force should be used and also the war in Syria has turned out to be a devastated site of proxy wars between great powers. This ‘shared power’ makes it very difficult for any one party to declare war. 

And so to today and Biden’s “foreign policy for the middle class”. Biden promises to take a much more multilateral approach in order to “defend the liberal international order”. So does that mean normal service will now resume and Uncle Sam will retake its position in policing the world? From the so-called threats of Cold War communism and terrorism through to self-proclaimed protection of democracy and human rights, America has used a gamut of reasons to justify foreign interventions and wars. But it seems there has been a definite shift in the last 40 years to reduce its observable presence on the world stage but not necessarily its influence. The US still appears to be intent on protecting its hegemony and its own interests as it always has been and will likely continue to bend the rules when it suits – regardless of cost to other nations. In the meantime, we just have to watch and wait.

All views expressed in this editorial are solely that of the author, and are not expressed on behalf of The Analyst, its affiliates, or staff.

Continue Reading

Recent Comments

Articles