site banner

Transnational Thursdays 28

This is a weekly thread for people to discuss international news, foreign policy or IR history. I usually start off with coverage of some current events from a mix of countries I follow personally and countries I think the forum lives in or might be interested in. Feel free as well to drop in with coverage of countries you’re interested in, talk about ongoing dynamics like the wars in Israel or Ukraine, or even just whatever you’re reading.

1
Jump in the discussion.

No email address required.

Netherlands

Our users @Nantafiria and @MartianNight have covered the results of the Dutch election in detail in last week’s roundup. Among the possible coalitions @Nantafiria floated included an alliance between the ruling VVD (24 seats), the NSC (a splinter of the former Christian Democrat opposition party, 20 seats), and the far right PVV (37 seats). Nanta also mentioned that the former two have expressed skepticism in the latter, and this week that seems to have materialized, with VVD announcing they will not join a government with PVV. The other big winner of the election, GL/Pvda (Green Left-Labor) will not be lending their 25 votes to the PVV either. It remains unclear for now which way NSC will swing, it seems contingent on PVV toning things down a bit, which they’ve signaled some willingness to do:

[Wilder’s] party's election platform states that the Netherlands “is not an Islamic country. No Islamic schools, Qurans and mosques.”...

[NSC’s] centrist leader, Pieter Omtzigt, said he couldn't accept “unconstitutional” policies.

Article 1 of the Dutch Constitution outlaws discrimination “on grounds of religion, belief, political opinion, race, gender, disability, sexual orientation or on any other grounds.”

In an election-night victory speech, Wilders pledged not to push any policies that would breach Dutch law or the constitution.

A coalition between PVV and NSC would still leave them with 57 votes, several shy of the 76 needed for a majority. The farmer party BBB might also throw their 7 seats on board. Also contentious are PVV’s stance against sending aid to Ukraine; it’ll be interesting if they moderate on this as well to attract smaller parties. Hopefully our locals can provide more detail!

Poland

A month and a half after the election Poland has finally kinda sorta formed a government, or as Politico rather impolitely puts it:

“Poland’s zombie government shuffles into being: One former PM joked that the new Cabinet led by Mateusz Morawiecki would have a lifespan shorter than that of a house fly.”

Polish President Andrzej Duda on Monday swore in a new government headed by Prime Minister Mateusz Morawiecki — whose term in office is likely to be only a maximum of 14 days.

Why so short? Well, because they lost, of course. PiS was still the biggest winner in terms of overall votes so they get the first chance to form a government, but they wouldn’t have a majority even with the far right Confederation, who has refused to work with them anyway. It seems weird, but I guess Morawiecki has two weeks to appoint ministers and run a normal government before a vote of confidence happens, which he will lose.

in a sign of the real import of the ceremony, the speakers of both the parliament and the upper chamber Senate didn’t bother showing up.

After that two weeks then Donald Tusk’s Civic Coalition gets its chance to form a coalition, which for now is hammered out:

Tusk’s Civic Coalition is an electoral alliance of four parties led by his centrist Civic Platform party which also includes the Greens.

A new political group called the Third Way includes the long-established agrarian party, the Polish People’s Party, and Poland 2050, a relatively new party led by Szymon Holownia, a conservative Catholic who had trained to be a Dominican friar but became a journalist and was co-host of Poland’s Got Talent reality show.

Another coalition partner, the New Left, includes some former members of the pre-1989 Communist party but increasingly a new generation of younger progressives. It stresses support for women’s and LGBTQ+ rights and for fighting climate change.

Spain

I’ve covered the seemingly stillwater results of the Spanish election that happened all the way back in July. With both the left and right deadlocked and competing for third parties, things looked dangerously close to going to yet another election. However, incumbent Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez has finally managed to secure another term. He did it by finally relenting to the demands of the Catalan separatist party Junts to grant amnesty for people who participated in the referendum, including the Junts leader in exile, Carles Puigdemont. This is a significantly unpopular move, even within Sanchez’ own party. Reportedly about 70% of Spanish citizens oppose amnesty and if another election was held the left would likely do much worse. However, it was the only way Sanchez stood a chance at staying in power. Jacobin adds more detail on what to expect:

this will be a minority government formed by the PSOE (121 seats) and Sumar (31 seats), the radical-left coalition led by Labor Minister Yolanda Díaz. Yet this executive will also depend for its survival on the votes of so-called peripheral Spain, i.e., the various regionalist and nationalist parties from Catalonia (Junts per Catalunya and Esquerra Republicana de Catalunya (ERC), who hold seven seats each), the Basque Country (Partido Nacionalista Vasco, five seats, and EH Bildu, six), Galicia (Bloque Nacionalista Galego, one seat) and the Canary Islands (Coalición Canaria, one seat)...

the road ahead is not easy. With such a broad and composite majority, every vote in parliament may turn into a quagmire, with a real risk that Sánchez’s new cabinet may not last. The parties that backed Sánchez know that letting this government fail would mean handing Spain over to the Right. Yet goodwill often isn’t enough. How will it be possible to reconcile radical-left Sumar’s agenda on social policies, progressive taxation, or housing, with right-wingers in the Partido Nacionalista Vasco, Junts per Catalunya, or Coalición Canaria?

Peru

You probably remember the recent political crisis in Peru, but to recap:

In 2021 Peru had an election between two deeply unsavory individuals: the left wing Pedro Castillo and the right wing Keiko Fujimori (daughter of the more famous Alberto Fujimori, now in prison for human rights abuses). Castillo won with less than a percentage point and a minority in the legislature. Fujimori’s Popular Forces claimed the election was rigged and started trying to impeach him pretty much immediately (you don’t actually need a crime or anything to impeach a President in Peru, you can just say they’re unfit to rule). After several attempts of this he decided to launch a “self-coup,” dissolve Congress, and create a new government. Needless to say this did not work, he was finally actually impeached, arrested, and his Vice President Dina Boularte came to power.

The year following was a weird one. Castillo’s most ardent supporters took to the streets in mass protest against what they saw as a concerted attempt to violate the democratic results of the election at all costs (which to be fair is basically accurate). The institutionalists on the left, however, saw Castillo’s self-coup as simply going too far. While a member of the Peruvian Marxist left herself, current President Boularte found herself working with the center left and the conservatives against some members of her own party and the popular uprising. In the months that followed she deployed the security state against the protestors pretty brutally, which seemingly only encouraged them to fight harder. Things have calmed down now but the scars are there to stay. Boularte remains in power but her hold is fragile; her most recent opinion poll put her popularity at an abysmal 8%.

And apparently it’s not over yet. Attorney General Patricia Benavides (who spent a fair amount of time trying to get Castillo impeached) launched an eleven month investigation into police brutality and has now announced she is officially blaming President Boularte for the deaths of protestors. This is a pretty plausible outcome for the investigation, though it should be say there are some complications:

The attorney-general filed the complaint against the president just hours after she herself had been accused of leading a corruption ring, which allegedly dropped investigations against lawmakers in exchange for them appointing allies of Ms Benavides to key posts in the judiciary.

Ms Benavides has denied any wrongdoing, has fired the prosecutor who made the allegations against her team, and has so far resisted calls for her resignation.

What happens now? Congress will review the allegations, and since they backed putting down the protests, it is unlikely they will attempt to impeach her (unless the right wing is feeling particularly opportunistic, which they may be). A criminal trial wouldn’t happen until after Boularte leaves office, but it certainly wouldn’t be the first time a former President has been charged for crimes that Congress supported after they left office (see: Fujimori). Given the weak institutions in Peru, hopefully this doesn’t encourage Boularte to stay in power specifically to avoid prosecution.

India & the West

Reportedly the United States apparently stopped India from assassinating another Sikh separatist in June, this time not in Canada but actually on US soil.

An Indian government employee who described himself as a “senior field officer” responsible for intelligence ordered the assassination of a Sikh separatist in New York City in May, U.S. prosecutors alleged Wednesday.

The government employee, who was not named in the indictment filed in a federal court in Manhattan, recruited an Indian national named Nikhil Gupta to hire a hit man to carry out the assassination, which was foiled by U.S. authorities, according to prosecutors.

The court filing did not name the victim, but senior Biden administration officials say the target was Gurpatwant Singh Pannun, general counsel for the New York-based Sikhs for Justice, a group that advocates the creation of an independent Sikh state called Khalistan within India.

I remain wildly uncertain of how to think about all this. It seems so out of character for the Modi government to be placing hits in allied countries, but I can’t think of much reason why the US would lie here. In every other sense the US has bent over backwards to pull India into its orbit, giving them no strings attached weapons, GE engines, and so on, without even a promise to shift position towards Russia at all. Why jettison all that now? (a question for both sides).

Philippines

During the Japanese occupation of the Philipines, communist rebels called the Hukbalahaps played a large role in fighting off the occupiers. When the conflict ended they expected to have a large say in the newly decolonized country, which was naive of them considering independence was being granted by not just any colonial master, but the United States of America. Instead, the US empowered Manuel Quezon on a deal that partially included him completely marginalized the Hukbalahap. Well communist insurgency didn’t stop there, it came back in the 68 (on Mao’s 75th Birthday) and spread until the 72 when Fernando Marcos, at America’s encouragement, put the country under martial law for fourteen years. There have been various attempts at reconciliation in the successive administrations but nothing concrete.

Marcos’ son Bongbong (no, seriously) is in power now. So it is some irony that his government is finally meeting with the Communists to sit down in Norway and try to negotiate a peaceful end to the conflict. If successful, this would end one of the longest insurgencies in the world (I believe the Naxalites in India are longer, but probably not much else), one that has cost over 150,000 lives.

Sierra Leone

A confusing series of events took place this past Sunday. A group of soldiers seemingly went rogue and attacked an armory. They were driven off but headed to a nearby prison and let out all the prisoners (including, reportedly, a famous rapper LAJ who was booted from the US for various crimes). After a shootout that left over 20 people dead, the government seemingly has control of the situation. Still, dozens of the assailants are at large and the government has imposed mandatory national curfew still.

It’s still quite unclear what happened but everyone has been using the dreaded word “coup”. There have of course been a series of coups across West Africa recently and Sierra Leone itself is no stranger to coups - actually the current President even led two coups himself and has signaled willingness to do it again in the future. He won a second term recently in what was most certainly an illegitimate election, so there are plenty of people upset with the status quo, but details on the motivations of the participants and whether this was even a real coup attempt are still to be forthcoming.

Azerbaijan

Last week the US Senate unanimously passed the Armenian Protection Act blocking military assistance from Azerbaijan. It will now need to go through the fractuous House, which can hopefully at least agree on giving less funding.

The UN International Court of Justice has also now ruled that Azerbaijan must allow ethnic Armenians to return to Nagorno-Karabakh. This leaves things in a kind of weird place. Azerbaijan didn’t actually kick ethnic Armenians out, they self-evacuated because of credible fears of violence. Just because they’re allowed back will they feel safe?

Azerbaijan’s foreign ministry said in a statement that it “is committed to upholding the human rights of the Armenian residents of Karabakh on an equal basis with other citizens of Azerbaijan”.

But many ethnic Armenians who fled have expressed doubts that they will be safe if they return to the enclave, if they are allowed back at all, under the rule of what they see as a hostile power.

No new word on the details of the ongoing negotiations between the two countries, except Armenian PM Pashinyan saying that two countries “are speaking ‘different diplomatic languages’ even though they were able to agree on the basic principles for a peace treaty.”