type here...
Home Blog

Chris Kaba’s death was avoidable

Aaron Fenton-Hewitt
-
0
Chris Kaba’s death was avoidable
  • Police officer who fatally shot Chris Kaba, named as Martyn Blake, 40, cleared of murder
  • Kaba died from a single gunshot wound to the head
  • Kaba’s family said the verdict was “painful proof that our lives are not valued by the system”
  • The ruling comes after reporting restrictions imposed by Kaba’s family were lifted, with CCTV footage identifying him as the gunman at a nightclub shooting in Hackney

Chris Kaba has been named as the gunman in a nightclub shooting just days before he died, it can now be reported.

After a judge lifted reporting restrictions requested by Kaba’s family, CCTV footage has been released showing Kaba allegedly shooting a man in both legs at a nightclub in Tower Hamlets. It comes after the police officer who shot Kaba, named as Martyn Blake, 40, was cleared of murder but still faces other charges.

In protest at Blake’s murder charge, over 100 Met officers turned in their firearms permits. In fact, such was the concern that more officers would hand in their weapons if Blake was convicted, and the army was put on standby for armed responses.

However, Kaba’s family said that Mr Blake’s acquittal “wasn’t just a failure for our family, but for all those affected by police violence”. Sheeda Queen, a cousin of Mr Kaba, and a member of the Justice for Chris campaign group, described “a deep pain of injustice, adding to the unbearable sorrow”.

Met Police Commissioner, Sir Mark Rowley, said Mr Blake had paid “a huge personal and professional sacrifice” in the two years since the shooting.

He said the officer had made “a split-second decision on what he believed was necessary to protect his colleagues and to protect London”.

An avoidable tragedy

It is unfortunate that a man’s death has been politicised. We often become so caught up in the spectacle of the latest controversy that we often forget about the victims themselves. A man has died – some would argue unnecessarily – which should not invoke feelings of happiness or joy from any self-respecting person.

With that being said, many questions arise out of this incident. Should he have been shot in the first place? Was there a way to bring him to justice without killing him? What justifies his shooting?

Many sceptics would argue that he should have been shot due to his criminal history. The public was allowed to see CCTV footage of Kaba allegedly shooting a rival gang member at a nightclub in Hackney, east London.

His links to a Brixton Hill-based gang called ‘67‘, and his extensive criminal record (including stabbing with intent to cause grievous bodily harm, affray, possession of an offensive weapon and possession of an imitation firearm) dating to when he was just 13 years of age, do not help matters. On paper, this is a remorseless career criminal.

However, we are quick to forget that even ‘career criminals’ are entitled to due process and to have their day in court. Police officers making a judgment based purely upon who they perceive a person to be can be quite dangerous and set a dangerous precedent.

If that were the case, we wouldn’t have a criminal justice system. Innocent people would be wrongfully harassed, arrested and even jailed – something which has happened to the black community in the past, and in some cases, to this very day. This could have contributed to why his family did not want his criminal history or any footage of him in the public domain.

This is not to say that the police aren’t or shouldn’t be allowed to make split-second decisions on whether not to use deadly force against someone; it’s more to do with the justification for doing so and the mental logic that goes into making such a decision that matters, here.

With that being said, it is also impossible to ignore a person’s history and reputation when deciding how to take action against them. The police (and their supporters) will argue that Kaba is not a petty criminal who’s only known for smaller crimes such as phone snatching. This is a hardened criminal who will not hesitate to use violence and weapons to achieve his goals.

The aforementioned CCTV footage is a testament to this, as well as body cam footage from the shooting itself – Kaba, upon being told to exit his vehicle (which was linked to an earlier crime involving a firearm) by armed police, rammed the police car in front of him.

This was when Sergeant Blake shot him. It’s arguable that had Kaba simply obeyed the officers and surrendered, he would be alive today.

Was he part of a gang? Yes. Did he have a criminal record? Yes. Did he attempt to use violence against the police? Yes. Therefore, did the police have reason to believe he was dangerous? Yes.

There have been several times in the past where police officers have been rightfully found guilty of wrongdoing against someone. This is not one of those times.

The mountains of CCTV evidence and body cam video have violently and emphatically put to bed any accusations of discrimination or foul play on the police’s part. Even the most police-sceptical must concede the police had the right to act in this scenario.

What now?

It is still unclear as to whether or not firearms officers are as confident as they were before the case, as it has set a precedent as to how firearms officers are treated if they exercise their power.

Many argue this whole case is a result of politics and the history between the black community and the police. Should officers be under greater scrutiny as to when they’re permitted to shoot? Should the history of the tension between the black community and the police give the former a greater influence on how the police should operate?

Kaba’s former gang has put a £10,000 bounty on Sergeant Blake’s head, forcing him and his family to go into hiding. The Met Police Federation said Blake ‘should have never stood trial’ [in the first place].

Is Harris really a Socialist?

Ayodeji Afolabi
-
0
Is Harris really a Socialist?

Donald Trump has called Kamala Harris a Marxist, Communist, Socialist and Fascist amongst other things. Is this just another politician hurling insults or is there any truth to these claims?

With election day in the US fast approaching, tensions are rising, and candidates Donald Trump (Republican) and Kamala Harris (Democrat) are ramping up their campaign rallies. In what may be their only debate on the 10th of September, 2024 Trump made a range of claims.

Trump is well known for his insults and mischaracterizations of others, and so far, his campaign has been no different. However do these political terms even fit together, or is it all just noise? Here’s why the mix of ideologies doesn’t add up—and what it says about political discourse today.

Former President Donald Trump speaks during a rally Tuesday, Sept. 24, 2024, in Savannah, Ga. (AP Photo/John Bazemore

Why is Communism so hated in the US (and other Western countries?

In some areas, it’s common to see statements like “A good communist is a dead communist” or “Only you can prevent Socialism.” Many claim the country is becoming socialist due to certain left-wing policies. While I’m not advocating for communism, I question whether those making these claims truly understand communism, Marxism, socialism, or fascism. It seems likely they don’t, and neither does Trump. These misconceptions arise from associations of failed communism with adversaries like Cuba, China, North Korea, and Russia, which the right uses to label the left.

Source: unsplash.com via David Todd McCarty

When Trump and other right-wing politicians use these terms, they often rely on a vague understanding of them. So what are Marxism, communism, socialism, and fascism?

Marxism is a socioeconomic ideology focused on class struggles, developed by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels. It critiques capitalism, arguing that societies—particularly Western ones—are divided into two main groups: the working class (proletariat) and the wealthy, owning class. Marxism is the philosophical foundation of communism but isn’t necessarily a blueprint for communist governments. Rather, it is an analytical tool used in sociology and economics.

Communism advocates for communal ownership of the means of production in a classless society, rejecting private property and profit-driven economies. Such economies often feature one-party governments. Examples include the Soviet Union, Maoist China, and Cuba, though North Korea is more of a dictatorship than a true communist state.

Source TCSNetwor/Ayodeji Afolabi

Socialism allows for public and private ownership, with government involvement in sectors like healthcare, transportation, and education to ensure social welfare. Countries like Sweden, Norway, and Denmark practice democratic socialism, combining capitalism with strong social safety nets.

Fascism is different from all others. Examples of fascists include figures like Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini. Fascism is a far-right nationalist political movement that suppresses opposition. A fascist opposes the interests of communists, socialists, and liberals. Fascism places the state or nation above individual rights and is inherently opposed to communism and socialism, making it contradictory to call someone both a fascist and a communist.

Is Harris really a Socialist?

The US is a free-market, capitalist economy where most production is privatized, though regulated by the government. This system fosters competition, innovation, and growth. Like many countries, the US embraces capitalism.

Given these definitions, it’s confusing that Trump labels Harris with such terms, as she is a Democrat. Because of her more liberal views on immigration, healthcare, and social equity, some might say her policies lean toward socialism, though they aren’t truly socialist. This suggests that Trump doesn’t understand these terms and is playing to an audience that may also be uninformed. Ironically, nationalist and racist groups, including the Proud Boys, KKK, and Oath Keepers, who support Trump, align more with fascism.

People watching the Presidential debate between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris Sept 10th, 2024 at the Giipsy, Las Vegas, NV. AP Photo via John Locher

Harris, on the other hand, supports economic growth through policies favoring the middle class, tax incentives for small businesses, and investments in entrepreneurship. While the political right often demonizes socialism, the U.S. incorporates certain socialist principles through programs like Social Security and unemployment insurance, though it remains a capitalist economy.

While Trump mischaracterizes opponents, as seen in past debates, calling Harris these terms is factually wrong and relies on his supporters’ misunderstandings. In today’s political landscape, voters must research and stay informed about the meanings behind political labels and policies.

Now the riots are over, we need far stronger communities

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Now the riots are over, we need far stronger communities

In the days since the UK faced pockets of racially motivated rioting, it has become commonplace to depict the police reaction as the first step before the real work begins. However, it is important to consider why these riots caught fire in communities up and down the country.

On one side, there are lawless racists that we need not appease. Their arguments are invalid, and there is little to gain by trying to rationalise their lawless behaviour. However, on the other side, there is another group, those who did not riot, but supported the display because they feel Britain is no longer British. This group found an unlikely spokesperson in a young man who called up LBC, a popular radio station, and told a national audience that the ‘Asians and blacks are taking over the UK’. It’s this group I believe we need to address.

Let’s move past lip service

Now that it seems like these breakout riots across the country have stopped, it would be a good time to start a national conversation about community cohesion. As someone who’s been working in the community cohesion space for many years now, I’ve often found that there are a lot of people happy to pay lip service to ‘bringing the community together’. Many government agencies speak at length about the importance of integration and community resilience but there aren’t enough people who are willing to get on the ground, commit money and stay engaged long enough to see things change.

One of the most powerful phrases I often use in community work is that ‘it’s not enough to simply prevent war, but folks interested in the community have to wage peace’. This means as a community builder, I don’t only want to be known for what I’m against but rather, for what I’m for. What are members of the community rallying for? What do they want? What are they animated about?

UK riots latest news: Boy, 15, in court for disorder along with Southport ‘ringleader’ who threw bricks at police | The Independent

This means community work is far more than stopping riots, it’s about helping communities genuinely come together, promoting shared values and constructing a vision of British values large enough for everyone to fit in.

One of the major challenges for community builders and those working in the community cohesion space is working out how to measure success. During ‘good times’ funding is often pulled from community work because people say there are no issues, so what’s the need for funding community work?

Rather than seeing things this way. we ought to reorientate what success means. The truth is, Tommy Robinson’s message would not have landed in communities if they had deep enough ties. When he tried to turn people against each other, people would have replied, ‘In this community, we know each other’. In this community, we understand our neighbours.

Meters apart but miles apart

The sad reality many of us may not want to admit is that Robinson’s message landed because many societies and communities across the UK are fractured. There’s a cosmetic unity in that we all come together during the Olympics and football games. We all smile at each other when we are getting on the bus. However, if you take a deeper look, many people live meters apart geographically but are miles away ideologically so much work is needed to foster genuine community cohesion.

In a 2018 survey, fewer than half of Labour and Conservative voters said they were willing to talk about politics with someone from the other side, and around 75% wouldn’t be happy for their child to marry someone from the opposite political side. 

When political views become political identities, we see people who agree with us in a positive light (intelligent, selfless and open-minded) and people who disagree with us as the opposite. Researchers have found that, when people disagree politically, they disregard each others’ expertise in unrelated domains

What does off-ramping look like?

I have been studying Far-right parties for the past 11 years and one area that needs far more work and research is in the space of deradicalisation and ‘off-ramping’. In other words, It’s not enough to simply label someone ‘far-right’. That doesn’t help them change their viewpoint. Instead, we need to put far more language and work into how we help those who have fallen prey to and believe in dangerous ideologies change. Those currently consuming far-right materials and engaging with people fanning the flames of their bad ideas. What does progress look like for them? There is nothing morally wrong with being right wing but where does right-wing being far right and then does it spill over into dangerous and unlawful behaviour that puts the safety of others at risk?

Huge anti-racism march in Walthamstow |
Charlotte England

How can we help these people think more broadly and engage with more nuance? We have to help them reject the often binary framing that far-right leaders use to cajole and mobilise followers to act. We can’t simply demonise these people. We have to engage with them and help them come in contact with reality. These ideas presented only matter if we want to build up strong communities that can reject the attempts of far-right leaders to stoke division in the future.

Like many, I was horrified looking at the riots, it made me feel uncomfortable. It made me feel unwanted in a country I’ve grown up in, served in and quite frankly, is my home. The headlines might now have changed, but the community or the deep community work should now begin.

The Southport tragedy has brought out the worst in us

Aaron Fenton-Hewitt
-
0
The Southport tragedy has brought out the worst in us
  • More protests planned over Southport stabbings
  • Local mosques to take safety precautions after far-right backlash against Islam and Muslims
  • Counter-protests are being organised across the country to combat misinformation and far-right rhetoric
  • Farage calls for urgent and stronger action to be taken to combat ‘societal decline’

A 17-year-old has been charged with the murder of three girls at a Taylor Swift-themed dance class in Southport.

Axel Muganwa Rudakubana has also been charged with 10 counts of attempted murder after eight other children and two adults were seriously wounded in his attack on 29th August 2024.

Following pressure from media due to the serious nature of the crime, Recorder of Liverpool Judge Andrew Menary KC felt it necessary to name the Cardiff-born attacker – which was previously impossible due to his age – as it was in the public’s interest to know and to ‘prevent misinformation’.

The Southport murders sparked violent scenes across the town with five arrests, a police van being set alight and a local mosque being vandalised. Copycat riots occurred across England, with over 100 arrests being made on 31st August in London.

Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer said “action will be taken” following the “violent disorder“.

He added: “These thugs are mobile, they move from community to community, and we must have a police response that can do the same.“

A local resident describes the events as ‘Southport’s 9/11’ – Alex Taylor-Brown

Not even tragedy can escape politics

It is undeniable that this situation is a tragedy. Three innocent children murdered in cold blood, with their lives ahead of them. One can only imagine the pain, grief and sorrow that the parents of the three girls must be experiencing. It takes a certain kind of character to be willing to take the life of a child, let alone three.

It is understandable that people are in desperate need for some sort of justice. There is a growing sense of anger amongst Britain’s citizens, and rightfully so.

Unfortunately, with that anger comes agendas from all sides of the political spectrum, with all of them trying to prove that they are right. In some cases, the victims of the crimes are actually forgotten and simply become a means to an end; that is, to use their tragedy as proof that either political side uses to further their narratives. Both are wrong, in this case.

To a certain degree, the right have scored a massive own goal. Within 24 hours of the incident, on social media, incorrect claims were made that the killer was called “Ali Al-Shakati” who had arrived in the UK illegally on a boat last year and was a Muslim, which led to a local mosque being vandalised.

Chants of “f*** Muslims, f*** Allah” were heard and many rioters attacked the police directly.

Far-right English Defence League founder Tommy Robinson posted to his X page, “There’s more evidence to suggest Islam is a mental health issue rather than a religion of peace….They’re replacing the British nation with hostile, violent, aggressive migrants … Your children don’t matter to [the Labour government].”

The police say that the perpetrator was in fact born in Cardiff, Wales, and does not practice Islam religiously.

Merseyside Police shared bodycam footage of the disorder in Southport – @MerseyPolice

This has sparked a national conversation about xenophobia, Islamophobia and how the spread of online misinformation has real-world consequences. It has also given further ammunition to those who believe social media companies have a responsibility to prevent misinformation to be spread online (especially X, formerly Twitter).

This will certainly hurt the cause of the ever-growing negative sentiment towards immigration in the UK, both legal and illegal, which is welcome to the left. Unfortunately, they are also partly wrong.

In this particular case, the right – specifically the far right – got it wrong. Their preconceived biases against Islam and migration led them to spread false and inaccurate information, without which their narrative would crumble.

However, to suggest that this incident wholly represents those who have legitimate concerns about rising levels of immigration to the UK – which is what certain figures on the left are attempting to do – is a misnomer. The two situations are not mutually exclusive.

It is possible to believe that the current levels of migration are unsustainable whilst also condemning xenophobia, violence and civil unrest. The majority of the people who expressed anger were normal, law-abiding citizens – it is simply unfortunate that the far right capitalised on the anger to spread their rhetoric.

To suggest that this situation is wholly representative of the immigration debate is to label anyone concerned about it as a far right, violent, bigoted hooligan with no respect for law enforcement.

Not only is this false, but it also damages relations with those on the conservative side of the debate, ironically pushing them towards actual far right rhetoric that the left claims to be against.

A man with a swastika tattoo joins a far right demo – Stand Up To Racism

What now?

Protests have continued to happen across the country.

The Muslim Council of Britain predicts and expects riots to happen in Liverpool, Glasgow, Lancaster, Blackburn, Newcastle, Birmingham, Sunderland, Dover, Middlesbrough, Leeds and Hull.

On Friday 2nd August, in Sunderland, protesters were seen vandalising an Uber driver’s car, whilst some were openly spotted with Nazi tattoos. Riot police and K-9 dogs were deployed.

The Prime Minister has promised a ‘tough response’ to the disorder on the streets whilst calling for his National Violent Disorder Program to be used, which gives police extra powers and the ability to use highly controversial facial recognition technology.

UK Election: What are the key Parties pledging?

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
UK Election: What are the key Parties pledging?

With just over two weeks to go until the General Election, the politicians have set out their stall this week. The publication of the party manifestos is a big moment in any election because it’s when those seeking your vote have to come off the fence. They’re forced to put their plans on the table.

The manifestos are big documents – 80 pages from the Conservatives, and more than 130 from Labour. They cover all the important policies – from the economy and tax to defence, education, the NHS and immigration. They are a detailed snapshot of the services the politicians hope to deliver and how they intend to make us pay for them.

Realistically, there are only two likely outcomes when we wake up on 5 July. Either Rishi Sunak or Keir Starmer will be Prime Minister. So, we are going to focus on the Labour and Conservative manifestos. And we’re going to concentrate on the measures that will directly affect our personal and household finances.

Where the other parties have something interesting to add to the debate, we’ll look at their proposals too.

THE ECONOMY

Conservatives – Tax cuts are the centre of its plan to reignite economic growth, while at the same time the party wants to reduce borrowing and debt.

Labour – Its plan focuses on wealth creation. It will be “pro-business and pro-worker” and introduce a new industrial strategy, which will end short-term economic policy.

Liberal Democrats – It wants a better relationship with the European Union and an industrial strategy focused on renewables and other sectors.

Ed Davey (Photo: Getty)

Greens – It wants to raise taxes for the wealthy, invest more in health, and bring railways, energy companies and water providers back under state control.

Reform – It would reform the planning system, speed up house building and infrastructure projects and cut red tape, including employment laws in order to make it easier to hire and fire workers.

TAXES

Conservatives – The party has promised to cut taxes by 17.2 billion pounds a year by 2029/30, with a 2-percentage-point cut in National Insurance. Self-employed workers would be exempt from National Insurance by the end of the next parliament.

Labour – It has pledged not to raise taxes “for working people”, with no increase in the basic, higher, or additional rates of income tax, National Insurance, or VAT. It will cap corporation tax at the current level of 25%.

LibDems – Its priority would be to raise the personal allowance when the public finances allow. It plans to reform capital gains tax to raise around 5 billion pounds ($6.3 billion).

Greens – It would introduce a wealth tax on individuals with assets above 10 million pounds.

Green Party parliamentary candidates (left to right) Ellie Chowns, Carla Denyer, Adrian Ramsay and Sian Berry during the Green Party General Election campaign launch in Bristol (Jonathan Brady/PA) (PA Wire)

HEALTH AND SOCIAL CARE

Reform – It would raise the point at which people begin paying income tax, reduce the tax on buying property and abolish Inheritance Tax on all estates under 2 million pounds. It would also reduce the main rate of corporation tax to 20%.

Conservatives – The party has committed to above-inflation increases for the National Health Service (NHS) every year, and will recruit 92,000 more nurses and 28,000 more doctors.

Labour – It will cut waiting times by adding 40,000 more appointments every week. It will also double the number of cancer scanners.

LibDems – It has pledged a 9 billion pound package commitments, including increasing the number of community doctors and higher pay for care workers.

Greens – The party wants to increase the NHS budget by 8 billion pounds in the first year, rising to 28 billion by 2030.

Reform – It would cut tax for frontline healthcare staff for three years, offer tax relief on private healthcare, and provide some NHS patients with vouchers for private treatment.

DEFENCE

Conservatives – The party wants to boost defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by 2030.

Labour – It will set out a path to the same 2.5% target.

LibDems – It would raise defence spending every year of the parliament, also with an ambition to spend at least 2.5%.

Greens – The party would cancel Britain’s nuclear deterrent.

Reform – It would increase defence spending to 2.5% of GDP by year three, and then 3% within six years. It would recruit 30,000 army staff.

IMMIGRATION

Conservatives – The party has promised to bring in a binding cap for legal migration. On illegal migration, it says monthly flights will take those arriving on small boats across the Channel to Rwanda.

Rishi Sunak told Sky’s political editor Beth Rigby that he accepted the public’s cynicism about his failed promises to lower net migration CREDIT: Stefan Rousseau

Labour – The party wants to reform the points-based system, by bringing in restrictions on visas and by training workers where there are domestic shortages. On illegal migration, it will scrap the government’s Rwanda plan, and focus on stopping people-smuggling gangs and beefing up border security.

LibDems – It will tackle people-smuggling, lift the ban on asylum seekers working and scrap the government’s Rwanda scheme.

Greens – It wants to help migrants “put down roots”. It would end the minimum income requirement for spouses of work visa holders and provide safe routes for those fleeing persecution.

Reform – It would freeze non-essential immigration and bar international students from bringing dependents. It would detain and deport those arriving illegally, and pick up migrants in small boats and take them back to France.

EUROPEAN UNION

Conservatives – The party said it will “build” on its post-Brexit relationships in Europe, including through new defence treaties.

Labour – The party wants to reset, deepen and improve its relationship with Europe.

LibDems – It has promised to “fix the UK’s broken relationship”, ultimately resulting in seeking to join the single market. EU membership remains its longer-term objective.

Greens – It wants Britain to rejoin the European Union as soon as possible.

Reform – It would scrap the more than 6,700 EU regulations which Britain retained after leaving the bloc. It also plans to abandon the so-called “Windsor Framework” deal with the EU and renegotiate the EU Trade and Cooperation Agreement.

Credit: Getty Images

CLIMATE POLICY

Conservatives – The party wants to cut the cost of tackling climate change, while sticking with its 2050 net zero target. It pledged to treble offshore wind, scale up nuclear, partly through using new Small Modular Reactors, and promised no new green levies or charges.

Labour – It will aim for clean power by 2030 by doubling onshore wind, tripling solar power and quadrupling offshore wind. It will establish state-owned Great British Energy, backed by 8.3 billion pounds, and it will not issue new licences for oil and gas fields in the North Sea.

LibDems – It has committed to cutting greenhouse gas emissions to net zero by 2045 at the latest.

Greens – The party wants to stop all new fossil fuel extraction in Britain, phase out nuclear power, and rely increasingly on wind power plus solar.

Reform – It plans to ditch the net zero target and related subsidies and fast-track licences of North Sea gas and oil. It was also fast-track clean nuclear energy.

EDUCATION

Conservatives – The party has pledged to protect day-to-day spending per pupil. It will ban mobile phones during the school day and introduce a new “Advanced British Standard” for 16-19 year-olds. For 18-year-olds National Service will become compulsory, with a choice between military or civic duties.

Labour – It will recruit 6,500 new teachers in key subjects, establish 3,000 new primary school-based nurseries, and introduce free breakfast clubs in every primary school. It will also charge fee-paying schools Value Added Tax.

LibDems – The party will put a mental health professional in every school, increase funding and create life-long skills grants to spend on education and training.

Greens – The party wants a 2 billion pound pay uplift for teachers. It would scrap university undergraduate fees, which are currently 9,250 pounds per year.

Reform – It wants children to be taught about their heritage, and plans to ban “transgender ideology” in schools. It would also provide a 20% tax relief on private education to reduce pressure on state schools.


Celebrating Three Years Of Impact

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Celebrating Three Years Of Impact

We recently took an organisational break at The Common Sense Network to explore the last three years. We looked at what is working and what’s not, focusing on how we can have more impact as an organisation in the coming years.

We believe now more than ever, that there is a great need for bi-partisan spaces where people with differing perspectives can interact and learn from each other.

We are even more committed to creating that space for fruitful dialogue—our impact report details where we have seen the most growth and impact.

2021 – 2023 Common Sense Impact Report (Final)Download

Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in historic criminal trial

The Common Sense Network
-
0
Donald Trump found guilty on all counts in historic criminal trial
  • A jury in Manhattan, New York reached a verdict in the criminal hush money trial of former President Donald Trump.
  • Trump was charged with falsifying business records related to a 2016 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels by his fixer Michael Cohen.
  • Trump is set to face President Joe Biden in November’s presidential election.

A New York jury on Thursday found former President Donald Trump guilty of all 34 felony charges of falsifying business records related to a hush money payment to porn star Stormy Daniels by his then-personal lawyer before the 2016 election.

Trump is the first former U.S. president to be found guilty of any crime.

His sentencing was quickly scheduled for July 11 at 10 a.m. ET. That is four days before the beginning of the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, where Trump is set to be formally confirmed as the GOP’s presidential nominee. Trump, who remains free without bail, faces a maximum possible sentence of four years in prison for each count.

Trump’s demeanour did not change during the reading of the verdict. His son Eric Trump looked angry after the jury foreman repeatedly said “guilty” to each count as it was read.

The 12-member jury deliberated less than 10 hours over two days before sending out a note to Judge Juan Merchan saying they had reached a verdict.

Before the announcement, Trump, his lawyers, prosecutors and reporters expected the jury to be dismissed for the day at 4:30 p.m.

Trump was sitting in the courtroom with his arms crossed and a resigned look on his face minutes after the announcement was made. The jury, which had asked for time to fill out the verdict form, was brought into the courtroom about a half hour later.

Trump, 77, was charged in the case with 34 felony counts of falsifying business records related to a $130,000 payment to porn star Stormy Daniels by his then-personal lawyer Michael Cohen before the 2016 election.

“Jurors, I want to thank you very much for your service,” Merchan said after the verdict was read. “That’s a long time to be away from your job, your families, your other responsibilities.”

“I want you to know that I really admire your dedication, your hard work,” the judge said.

The verdict in Manhattan Supreme Court came hours after jurors heard readbacks of testimony by Cohen and former National Enquirer publisher David Pecker, as well as portions of legal instructions they received Wednesday from Merchan.

Trump is the first former U.S. president to be charged with a crime.

‘They don’t care about our future’: 4 in 5 children don’t feel listened to by politicians

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
‘They don’t care about our future’: 4 in 5 children don’t feel listened to by politicians

The biggest survey of children in England ever produced has revealed four in five children don’t feel listened to by politicians.

The Children’s Commissioner Dame Rachel de Souza, who led the project, is calling on political parties to put children at the heart of their manifestos in the election.

It comes as charities have launched a mass-scale election for young people under 18, which will allow them to cast a vote for political candidates in their constituencies through their school or youth group.

The survey was sent to 367,000 children aged 0-18, as well as some adults, in every local authority in England.

It asked children to share their thoughts and opinions on things like family, education, health, online safety and their future, and then their responses would be shown to the politicians in charge of running the country

Why was the Big Ambition survey commissioned?

Dame de Souza said the survey “is a call to action to all politicians and policymakers in this general election year: listen to children and act on what they are telling you.”

“This is a generation of children faced with ever-evolving technology, stiff competition for jobs and university places, a postcode lottery in access to good healthcare, parents struggling with rising costs and lives played out over social media – but rather than becoming despondent or pessimistic, they are charged with energy and a passion for making change.” said Dame de Souza.

What did the results show

The questions in the survey focussed on ten main areas: family, education, social care, youth work, online safety, health, safety from crime, jobs and skills, unaccompanied children seeking asylum, and thoughts on ‘a better world’.

The results showed that just one in five children (22%) felt that the people who run the country listened to what they had to say, and only 10% of teenagers (ages 12-18) believe they have the power to influence the issues they care about.

Source: Unsplash

Dame de Souza said she wants to tackle this by asking every political party to agree to write a document for children, setting out what they will do, and how they will involve children, and hold a leaders’ debate about childhood. She also wants children to be talked to about every legislation and policy reform that affects them before it is made into law.

60% of children said they enjoyed going to school or college – with three quarters (75%) agreeing they have great teachers who support them.

On health and wellbeing, the survey showed that less than half of children (49%) agreed with the statement ‘You feel happy with the way you look’. 60% of boys agreed, compared to just 40% of girls.

71% of children say they have a healthy diet, and 68% of children with SEND (Special educational needs and disabilities), and adults answering on their behalf, said they can access good healthcare, compared to 84% for children without SEND.

Around 80% of younger children ( 6-11-year-olds) said they felt safe and protected in their local area, compared to 66% of 12- to-18-year-olds.

Almost three-quarters of children (72%) agreed that there were fun activities where they live, but that falls to 62% for children with special educational needs or disabilities.

Children said that activities and clubs should be better funded, accessible for every child, held in-person and should be easy to find, as a way to help children avoid falling into crime or gang activity.

Tory donor ‘racism’ dispute is embarrassing for all involved

Mike Omoniyi
-
0
Tory donor ‘racism’ dispute is embarrassing for all involved

A Tory minister has said his party would take another £10m from a donor who allegedly made comments about Diane Abbott that No 10 called “racist”.

Tory Donor Frank Hester apologised after reportedly saying the ex-Labour MP made him want to “hate all black women”. Andy Street, a Tory mayor, told the BBC that he would return the cash, however, Post Office minister Kevin Hollinrake said that his party would accept more because Mr Hester’s apology demonstrated he was not racist.

The disagreement within the party comes as Downing Street faces calls to return the money.

What Happened?

The disagreements over returning Mr Hester’s money come after a day of internal party turbulence over Mr Hester’s comments, first reported by the Guardian on Monday.

In 2019 Mr Hester allegedly said: “It’s like trying not to be racist but you see Diane Abbott on the TV, and you’re just like I hate, you just want to hate all black women because she’s there, and I don’t hate all black women at all, but I think she should be shot.”

In further remarks reported by the newspaper from the same meeting, the Phoenix Partnership boss is claimed to have said that there was “no room for the Indians, then?” and suggested staff climb on a train roof.

In a social media post, published earlier, Mr Hester said he “abhors racism”, which he described as a “poison that has no place in public life”.

He added: “We should have the confidence to discuss our differences openly and even playfully without seeking to cause offence.”

Frank Hester made the comments at a meeting he called of his ‘foreign’ workers to defend himself against claims he had made racist remarks. Photograph: TPP / YouTube

Why did Downing Street take so long to call it racism?

No 10 and Conservative ministers initially stopped short of making that criticism of Frank Hester’s remarks. However, Sunak’s spokesperson released a new statement on Tuesday evening, after a day in which Kemi Badenoch, the business secretary, Kwasi Kwarteng, the former chancellor, and William Hague, the former Conservative leader, all described Hester’s comments as racist.

The fact that it took our first minority Prime Minister 24 hours to work out whether clear evidence of racism was in fact racist is shameful. This demonstrates a weakness in Sunak to lead from the front which many of his critics have long complained about. This is the latest instalment in a series of unfortunate events from the Tory party in a week, including the defection of party deputy chairman, Lee Anderson.

The responses

This scandal has evoked some very eery responses from commentators across the UK. Top of this list has been an impassioned defence of Frank Hester by GB New’s Nana Akua

What is most egregious about this defence of the indefensible is the claim that Akua makes that she wasn’t personally offended as though that should have any currency here. The central point is that someone was criticised and their gender and skin colour were part of that criticism. Whilst it may be odd not to find that offence, this is a plausible position. However, the statement that Mr Hester’s comment wasn’t racist is pure fantasy.

In a statement released on Monday, Mr Hester’s company said he “accepts that he was rude about Diane Abbott in a private meeting several years ago but his criticism had nothing to do with her gender nor colour of skin”. It added: “The Guardian is right when it quotes Frank saying he abhors racism, not least because he experienced it as the child of Irish immigrants in the 1970s.

“He rang Diane Abbott twice today to try to apologise directly for the hurt he has caused her, and is deeply sorry for his remarks.

“He wishes to make it clear that he regards racism as a poison which has no place in public life.”

Ms Abbott said as a “single woman” she was already “vulnerable” when walking or taking a bus in her Hackney constituency.

“For all of my career as an MP I have thought it important, not to live in a bubble, but to mix and mingle with ordinary people,” she added.

“The fact that two MPs have been murdered in recent years makes talk like this all the more alarming.”

Is David Cameron winning over critics?

Shane Green
-
0
Is David Cameron winning over critics?

One hundred days, thirty-six different visits to twenty-six different countries, and eight different multinational gatherings including the G20 and G7. Lord David Cameron’s gargantuan diplomatic efforts since returning to high office are made possible only by the absence of democratic accountability, with no constituents to return home for, he can afford to be travelling seven days a week but is trading democracy for diplomacy really worth it?

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron recently marked 100 days since his return to government. Despite skepticism, he appears to have won over his critics for his energetic approach to foreign policy which has thus far seen him make four trips to the Middle East to meet key players in the Israel-Gaza conflict, a couple of visits to Kyiv amidst the ongoing Russo-Ukrainian war, complete a tour of the Americas including the Falkland Islands, and a visit to every major European capital. Such efforts have even led some to credit Cameron with restoring British influence in the world.

Nonetheless, such an approach is only made possible because Cameron has no constituency and thus no niggly pressing domestic concerns such as potholes and rubbish collection to concern himself with. As Lord Peter Ricketts put it, Cameron is clearly relishing his freedom to be Foreign Secretary for seven days a week, compared with his ministerial peers who must return to their second jobs as constituency MPs.

This evokes several interesting questions. Does the Foreign Secretary need a direct democratic mandate to conduct his duties on behalf of the British government and its people? And if he does not, should he?

Should the Foreign Secretary be an MP?

The Office of Foreign Secretary is one of the four great offices of state. The incumbent is, in effect, the highest-ranking British diplomatic, responsible for UK relations with foreign dignitaries and carrying out the government’s foreign policy. Inevitably, this results in an intense travel schedule.

British Foreign Secretary David Cameron with Israeli Foreign Minister Eli Cohen, following the October 7 deadly attack by the Palestinian Islamist group Hamas. November 23, 2023. Reuters.

And yet, traditionally, the British Foreign Secretary would still be expected to juggle such responsibilities with that of an MP tending to local constituents and their concerns. This isn’t feasible, not least if you want your leading diplomat to consistently show up on different stages across the globe. Not least, if simultaneously, you want your local MP to be both sincere and effective at addressing issues in your local area.

If the foreign secretary should not be an MP, should he be a Lord?

Where is the Foreign Secretaries’ democratic mandate?

When Rishi Sunak chose to appoint David Cameron as Foreign Secretary, the latter had taken a political leave of absence following the infamous Brexit referendum he called back in 2016. This meant that to become a minister, without an upcoming election, the only way was to appoint Cameron to the Lords, where no election is required – Lords are appointed by the King on the advice of the Prime Minister.

Members of the Lords cannot enter the House of Commons and thus do not face the same level of scrutiny a cabinet minister drawn from the House of Commons itself would face.

Instead, members of the House of Lords are scrutinized by their peers. This blurs democratic accountability when Lords are not elected, but chosen by politicians, and the representatives chosen by citizens to act on their behalf cannot provide the necessary checks and balance on their power.

However, some experts argue Lord Cameron is kept in check, not least, by four of his predecessors. Former holders of the Office of Foreign Secretary – Lord David Own, Lord Douglas Herd, Lord William Hague, and Lord Philip Hammond are said to be more capable of providing the necessary checks and balances on the current Foreign Secretary than even those in the Commons given their wealth of expertise and experience in the very role he fills.

Is it High Time for a UK Senate?

Come what may, so long as the Lords remains an unelected house there will remain an argument it has no place in a modern democratic society. So what other democratic alternatives are there?

Reforming the House of Lords has been an ambition of many in politics over the last century. The idea of a UK senate, akin to the one operating in the United States, is an idea that resurfaces infrequently.

Across the pond, the Senate consists of one-hundred senators, with two directly elected from each state. The Senate confirms the ministerial appointments of the government and provides the necessary checks and balances on behalf of the electorate.

Whilst across the Channel, in the case of the French senate, it also provides an opportunity for proportional representation, which has the additional benefit of helping to rebalance geographic divides, a well-known British problem.

Ultimately, the UK doesn’t have to trade democracy for diplomacy, but for now, it chooses to.

No Third-Way: How the two-party system is broken

Cleo Anderson
-
0
No Third-Way: How the two-party system is broken

British politics is to put it simply a mess. Even for those of us who might pride ourselves on keeping up with the political agenda, it’s getting harder and harder to know all the details of the latest scandals as there have been so many.

From the Labour Party battling antisemitism claims, and now the recent ex-Conservative MP’s Islamophobic comments, the choices seem slim. Here’s an overview of those two issues and why it feels that people may be voting for ‘the best of a bad bunch’. 

Labour’s Antisemitism?

Leader of the opposition, Keir Starmer has spent the best part of late 2023 into the new year campaigning and stamping out concerns of anti-Jewish sentiment in the party’s ranks. Despite multiple public and concerted efforts to demonstrate change, Labour is still suffering from the allegations of antisemitism. Recordings of Azhar Ali, Labour’s candidate in the North West seat of Rochdale were released in which he made anti-Israel remarks. Labour ultimately removed his campaign support yet many felt that they didn’t move fast enough. Coupled with a U-turn on Labour’s green investment pledge, and tiptoeing around the war in Gaza, it is reasonable to ask what does Labour really stand for? Other than an opposition to the Conservatives. 

The Conservatives Islamophobia?

This leads us to consider the Tory party. Who are currently in political power, but arguably not in any comfort. Lee Anderson’s outburst of anti-Muslim rhetoric in regards to London Mayor Sadiq Khan, Rishi Sunak struggled to condemn his comments and as of writing Lee Anderson still has not apologised. Anderson has since been stripped of the Tory whip, but one wonders the damage that could spiral from this unless a diversion tactic is employed. But the Conservatives have little else to distract voters’ attention, with waiting times crippling the NHS, and news headlines of economic recession, what is there for the Tory party to brag about?

By-elections indicate General Election victory?

While the discussion and allegations can rage on, many would ask does this translate into votes? Despite the issues, Labour has managed to flip not one, but two Tory seats to red. Labour overturned huge Tory majorities to win in Kingswood and Wellingborough in recent by-elections. Yet many commentators pointed to low turnout to question whether there was widespread support for Kerr Starmer’s Labour Party or a lack of enthusiasm for either option. 

When you look at the list of issues currently on the plate of our political parties it’s hardly inspiring options. The best of a bad bunch springs to mind, and arguably why Labour continues to poll ahead of the conservatives as a general election looms. We are seeing the same trend in the United States with many voters uninspired by either camp: Democrats or Republicans. In a two-horse race, you could be forgiven for assuming that there is a ‘good’ horse and a ‘bad’ horse. Simply put, we assume there will be a clear winner and loser. Yet in the western (English-speaking) world, our two-party systems, see political mayhem unfold. This leaves no choice to voters other than ‘what is the least worst option?’

How does it end for Vladimir Putin?

Shane Green
-
0
How does it end for Vladimir Putin?

By now, Russian President Vladimir Putin’s interview with American conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson has reached over eighteen million views on YouTube. The explainer pieces have been numerous. Nonetheless, here at Common Sense we feel that missing in the widespread coverage of the interview has been an in-depth look at the Russian leader’s vision for the future. Just how does Putin envision developments unfolding in the international arena?

“The world should be a single whole…That is the only scenario where the world could be stable, sustainable, and predictable”. These are not the words one might expect to see attributed to a certain Vladimir Putin, and yet they are indeed his. This remark was made during the by-now infamous interview with American conservative political commentator Tucker Carlson.

Below, we seek to answer, what really lies behind the strongman persona? Is Vladimir Putin an idealist?

Tucker Carlson (left) awaits the signal to begin his interview of Russian President Vladimir Putin (right). Kremlin Archives.

Understanding the origins of the Ukraine War

To understand Vladimir Putin’s vision for the future, it is integral we first turn to the past. The topic which dominated much of the interview was of course the ongoing Russo-Ukraine war. Putin’s justification for his war weaved a lengthy narrative consisting of a centuries old claim to sovereignty over parts of Eastern Ukraine, the collapse of the Soviet Union, and the subsequent failure of the West to integrate Russia into a new international security apparatus.

Putin’s key argument was that the Russian leadership had seemingly misunderstood the notion that when the Soviet Union ceased to exist, it would immediately become a new entity free of past charges, and thus with ideological dividing lines no longer an issue, Russia would be welcomed by the West with open arms. As we now know, this wasn’t the case.

On the contrary, NATO expanded, five times, by Putin’s count, whilst Russia protested. And so began a series of unfortunate events. From CIA backed coup attempts to accusations of industrial sabotage, and international financial blackmail. The thread connecting all of these events was the notion that the United States had been setting the rules by which everyone except themselves must play. And so we arrive at our present predicament.

The world is being divided into two competing blocs

When prompted by Tucker Carlson, if the world had broken into two competing hemispheres, Putin’s response was an unflinching yes, yet it needn’t be this way.

Putin argued that the world was undergoing a series of historical shifts in its balance of powers. Would-be superpowers, for so long, condemned to the side-lines of international development, were now beginning to reap the inevitable economic growth which follows such rapid population growth as seen in China, India, Indonesia, and the like.

President Lula of Brazil, President of China Xi Jinping, President of South Africa Cyril Ramaphosa, Prime Minister of India Narendra Modi and Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov pose for a BRICS family photo during the 2023 BRICS Summit. Reuters.

Putin cited the example of the BRICS group of nations, responsible for just 16% of the world’s economic output in 1992, today exceeding even that of the G7 group of advanced economies (32% vs 30% respectively). U.S. attempts to repel such unstoppable forces had already backfired. Its weaponization of the dollar had only resulted in countries de-dollarizing more rapidly.

Bogeyman stories about the rise of China were dismissed assuredly, with Putin describing Chinese leader Xi Jinping as a friend, and likening China to a neighbour or close relative. Putin’s message to the West was clear. It’s not a matter of if, but how the world will change, ‘painfully and quickly, or gently and gradually?’

How is the world going to change?

What fate lies ahead for us then, in the West?

Well, according to Mr Putin, that depends on our leaders. Mr Putin argued in today’s changing dynamics, we need forward thinking and adaptable politics. Political leadership matters, “if we want to ensure the future, then we need to change our approach to what is changing.”

By Putin’s accounts, this means the West first adapting to, what he described, as the facts on the ground in Ukraine. Russia could not and would not be defeated. All stakeholders – Russia, Ukraine, and the West – knew this. The only matter up for debate was how to deliver an agreement that would both bring an end to the war and allow the West to save face.

As for the United States, it’s dominance as the sole superpower of the world was up, the sooner it accepted that, the sooner it could focus on ways to offset its inevitable demise using its still considerable economic advantages.

The future is, and ought to be, according to Vladimir Putin, multipolar. This means a world with multiple power centres, rather than one; a world which allows for the co-existence of different sets of values; and for these values to be the guiding principles which shape international rules and regulations.

These were choice words by Mr Putin throughout. By design, they form a clear binary between the existing rules-based international order espoused by the West, and the emerging multipolar world. Which fate lies ahead, nobody really knows.

Are Young Brits Becoming Less Democratic?

Shane Green
-
0
Are Young Brits Becoming Less Democratic?

A recent study by the centre-right think tank Onward found that 65% of 18-35 year olds in the UK supported a “strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliamentary elections”. Is Britain in the midst of a democratic crisis?

As one of the world’s oldest democracies, Britain is often viewed as a beacon of liberalism. Indeed, the national identity of Britons is so synonymous with the ideal of democracy and democratic values, that throughout its history, the country has not infrequently waged war in the name of ‘liberating’ citizens of foreign nations who do not enjoy the same privileges.

Amidst this burgeoning context, why then, in a recent study conducted by the centre-right think tank Onward, did 65% of 18-35 year olds in the UK think that contrary to democratic systems, they would prefer a “strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliamentary elections”?

Below, we dissect if young Brits truly feel this way, why this might be, and how this may affect UK democracy going forward.

Do young Brits really want an authoritarian leader?

Despite the headline figure that 65% of 18-35 year olds favour a “strong leader who doesn’t have to bother with parliamentary elections”, given the choice between a Boris Johnson, Liz Truss, or Rishi Sunak, and a Vladamir Putin, Xi Jinping, or Kim Jong Un, one could confidently predict the same cohort of young people would favour the former. So what do these figures actually suggest?

Young people are tired. The oldest of this cohort would have turned 18 in 2007. Since then, they will have experienced no real wage growth. This means that wages, when adjusted for inflation, have not increased at all for the entirety of this group’s professional careers. For context, an analysis by the Resolution Foundation found that real wages grew by an average of 33 per cent per decade from 1970 to 2007.

Young Brits are tired of constantly having to fight for basic rights you would expect in any advanced economy. Boonchai Wedmakawand/Getty Images

At the same time, they can’t buy a house because there aren’t enough houses being built. The UK has the lowest rates of available properties relative to its population of all OECD members. They have witnessed, helplessly, the complete and utter failure to build any semblance of a decent train line between Manchester and London which might help bridge the UK’s huge regional inequality and boost the economy. All of this whilst also enduring the worst cost of living crisis in a generation.

You can’t eat democracy

If the UK wishes to dispel any notions of democratic backsliding, it needs to start taking seriously outcomes for its young populace. As Zambian President Hakainde Hichilema so aptly put during the UN General Assembly in New York, two years ago, “you can’t eat democracy”.

Governments must deliver economically. When successive governments fail to do so, disillusionment grows not just with politicians, but with the democratic process itself.

Democracy is a social contract. Young Brits wake up, go to work, and pay their taxes just like any other citizen. In return, they expect certain rights. The right to work in return for a fair wage. The right to own a home. The right to access reliable public transport. The UK’s failure to deliver such outcomes for young people means the social contract is broken. Until it is fixed, young people’s disillusionment with democracy will continue.

How this manifests during the general election will be interesting to see as it unfolds. What’s undeniable is if young people wish to take charge of their own future, they must first turn at the polls – something they have been historically bad at compared with their peers.

Looking ahead to the 2024 UK General Election

Looking ahead to this year’s UK general election, young Brits seem poised to back the Labour party heavily.

According to polling company YouGov’s latest data, around 60% of young Brits say they will back the party. This figure comes despite recent criticism that the party’s cautious approach to its lead in the polls has come at the expense of any meaningful policy proposals. As noted by Martin Wolf in the Financial Times, that strategy might indeed increase its chance of winning the election. But it will deprive it of a mandate for much change.

Nonetheless, if young Brits indeed desire a government that acts in its best interests, irrespective of parliamentary procedure, acting without a mandate, on the condition it achieves tangible outcomes for young people, might not be as impermissible as once thought.

Should Britain prepare for war with China, Russia and Iran?

Shane Green
-
0
Should Britain prepare for war with China, Russia and Iran?

Sometimes coined the “forgotten war”, experts warn the Korean Peninsula is more dangerous today than it has been at any time since the onset of the Korean War in June 1950. With new UK defence secretary Grant Shapps identifying the region as a possible future conflict zone for British forces, here’s what you need to know.

In his first speech as the new UK defence secretary, Grant Shapps declared that Britain should prepare for possible future wars with China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. Shapps argued the world had come “full circle” since the end of the Cold War and the fall of the Berlin Wall, moving from a post-war to pre-war setting.

Why you should care about the Korean War?

The Korean War is sometimes called the “forgotten war” because it’s overshadowed by the conflicts that came both before and after it — take the devastation of World War II and the disastrous U.S. war in the Vietnam War, respectively. Yet it arguably serves as the best example of the Cold War battle for ideas between Western liberal democracies and rival authoritarian regimes. What many forget is that the Korean War continues today, as does the broader battle for ideas.

Below, we explore the continued effects of the Korean War today and its new staging amidst the ongoing war between Russia and Ukraine.

The Korean War: Explained

  • The Korean War was fought between North Korea and South Korea from 1950 to 1953.
  • Over 800,000 soldiers and 1.5 million civilians were killed during the conflict.
  • Before the war, Korea was a unified nation but under a brutal Japanese occupation.
  • The end of World War II saw Japan stripped of its colonies, and Korea was divided between the two superpowers – the Soviet Union in the North, and the United States in the South.
  • In 1948, the two occupation zones became two sovereign states: the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea in the North, led by Premier Kim Il Sung; and the Republic of Korea in the South, led by President Syngman Rhee. Both leaders committed their cause to a unified Korean state.
  • In 1953, the combat ended with the signing of the Korean Armistice Agreement, leading to the creation of the Korean Demilitarized Zone (DMZ) separating the two countries.
  • No peace treaty was ever signed, meaning the two Koreas remained at war, engaged in a frozen conflict.
  • Matters have been further complicated by the North’s likely development of nuclear weapons.

Despite the ceasefire, the Korean Peninsula remains prone to recurrent skirmishes. The most recent being January of this year, when North Korean shelling of the buffer zone between the two countries near Yeonpyeong Island led South Korean authorities to order a civilian evacuation of the island. Nonetheless, the primary theatre of conflict between the two nations is not the Korean Peninsula but the Ukrainian battlefront.

Today, the conflict between Russia and Ukraine serves as a proxy for the continuation of the Korean War

A great irony of the current geopolitical context is where once the Korean War was fought as a proxy war for the Cold War between the Soviet Union and the United States. Today, the Russo-Ukrainian War is a theatre for a proxy war between North Korea and South Korea.

According to leading defence analysts, the Brookings Institute, a proxy war occurs when a major power instigates or plays a major role in supporting and directing a party to a conflict but does only a small portion of the actual fighting itself.

North Korea is currently Russia’s largest arms supplier, with a spokesperson for Ukraine’s military intelligence estimating that North Korea has supplied Russia with around one million rounds of ammunition.

South Korean President Yoon Suk Yeol meets with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy, July 2023. Reuters.

Meanwhile, South Korea has provided Ukraine with more shells indirectly, via the US, than all of Europe. Whilst also signing agreements to export tanks and fighter jets to Poland, which has in turn provided military vehicles to Ukraine since the onset of its war with Russia. This essentially pits the two Koreas in a proxy war via Russia and the Ukraine.

When will the war end?

While all wars are multifaceted, the fundamental problem remains, as it was at the onset of the war back in 1950, an irreconcilable difference in opinion on the political and economic system best equipped to govern a unified Korea. Simply put, both countries want unification, but under their own leadership.

North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un ahead of a meeting with Russian President Vladimir Putin, September 2023. Reuters.

North Korean Supreme Leader Kim Jong Un recently took this one step further by repudiating all talk of peaceful reunification and labelling the South Korean leadership its “principal enemy” and threatening the use of nuclear weapons. Needless to say, peace on the peninsula seems a long way off.

123...91Page 1 of 91

Editor Picks

Must Read

Hot Topics

About Us

Our mission is to make democracy healthier by creating spaces for people who disagree to have fruitful dialogue.

Contact us: hello@tcsnetwork.co.uk

Follow Us

© Copyright - Newspaper theme by tagDiv