Uncertainty abounds in the midst of pending hand-off of Burkina Faso governance to Civilian Leadership

BBC: Burkina Faso leaders agree transitional framework

URL: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-30046413

A blueprint for the formation of and transition of power to a new civilian government in Burkina Faso received unanimous approval in a recent meeting in Ouagadougou (Capital of Burkina Faso). In 2013, former President Blaise Compaoré introduced measures that would allow him to extend his term as President by an additional five years and – in principle – for the foreseeable future. Such actions instigated mass protests throughout the state resulting in Compaoré’s resignation in late October, 27 years after first assuming power. Lt Col Isaac Zida assumed on the 1^st of November.

The approve charter states:

“An interim president will be chosen by a special college composed of religious, military, political, civil and traditional leaders.”
“The president will then name a prime minister to appoint a 25-member government.”
“The charter also calls for a 90-member national transitional council to serve as a legislative body.”

While those in attendance supported the proposed blueprint unanimously, I am curious to the extent which the general populace approves. I do, however, recognize though that a metric of public approval of the proposed plan in its entirety may not quite be relevant to the general discussion given the historical lack of political involvement in the state. What is clear is that there is widespread approval for an immediate transition to a civilian government.

I am also somewhat concerned about the manner in which this transitional/interim government is to be appointed. It appears that a large amount of power is being allocated into the hands of a few select individuals. It appears as though once the interim president is chosen, they can choose their prime minister and the result 25-member government. What controls exist to ensure that this interim government will not make a grab for power? Compaoré emerged as a consequence of a coup. How will the state prevent leaders from assuming too much power in the future?

Mexican President’s Activities Abroad Stoke Domestic Unrest over Corruption Allegations

Aljazeera: “Mexico president pushes trade ties in China while protests rage at home”

URL: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/13/mexico-china-trade.html

Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto recently spent time in China discussing opportunities for increased trade between the two states. Meanwhile, civil unrest is raging as evidence mounts supporting the conclusion that the disappearance of forty-three students late last September was a consequence of collusion between drug cartels and local police.

While this type of trade initiative under stable circumstances would likely be received positively by the Mexican public, it has propelled perceptions of President Nieto as misdirected in his priorities and its worst, apathetic to the tragedy at hand.

President Nieto has sought to justify his actions abroad by arguing that increased trade with China will help drive economic growth and subsequently mitigate poverty throughout the state - a driving factor of drug operations in Mexico.

While the participation of Mexican authorities in the recent tragedy is extremely concerning, I don’t believe Nieto’s recent tour of China is sufficient reason to label the President as apathetic to the incident. I agree with President Nieto that increased trade between China and Mexico could contribute to the long-term uprooting of the pervasive drug trade problem in Mexico. I am less certain as to whether the President might have been able to delay his tour abroad to address the more immediate concerns of corruption.

Referendum on State of the Union, Not an Ideological Shift

Aljazeera: "After winning big, GOP faces challenge of governing"
URL: http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/11/5/gop-agenda-midtermelections.html
by Naureen Khan

After securing a Senate majority in the midterm elections, the Republican Party has demonstrated considerable political confidence from what it perceives to be renewed ideological traction amongst voters (and the general public). In the midst of its recent success, Republican leaders have, over the past few days, unveiled a renewed political agenda centered on deficit reduction, tax reform, changes to entitlement programs, etcetera. In the article "After winning big, GOP faces challenge of governing" Author Naureen Khan disputes the perception that the midterm election results are a sign of approval for the Republican Party. Instead, Khan argues that the results of the recent midterm election were moreso a product of general dissatisfaction amongst the public rather than a signal of renewed interest in conservative policies. Khan contends that the greatest challenge for Republican Party will be to maintain the support it has recently gained.

Khan notes that over the past several years, Republicans have managed to garner significant political support by simply bashing policies adopted Democrats that in hindsight produced negative consequences. Now that the Republican party possesses overwhelming support in Congress, it will need to remain united and execute effectively on its espoused goals. It will no longer be politically sufficient to bash failed policies of the opposing political party to garner/maintain political support.

I am curious as to the extent in which President Obama's choice of political agenda in his second term affected the results of the midterm election. I recall another article (I can't remember what) which discussed the potential dichotomy of presidential legacy vs. long-term party interests. The article discussed how Obama's choice of contentious public policy issues as priorities coincided well with his desire to establish a political legacy, but possibly at the expense of the Democratic Party. It noted that the party as a whole may become potentially divided and/or suffers due to the effect of contentious policies on the maintaining of the party's political base.

Despite that the results of this election favor the Republican Party for the moment, the party should be wary of celebrating in excess, as it will still need to execute on its stated promises in order to garner sufficient support to stay in office and make long-term changes in policy.

Turkey / U.S. Disputes over U.S. / Syria Engagements Highlight a Fundamental Shift in Alliance

Washington Post: "For Turkey and U.S., at odds over Syria, a 60-year alliance shows signs of crumbling"
URL: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/for-turkey-and-us-at-odds-over-syria-a-60-year-alliance-shows-signs-of-crumbling/2014/10/29/9fa07c49-0546-4afd-b6ad-cf6fa70e7fe4_story.html?hpid=z1

While there exists agreement between Turkey and the United States that Syrian President Bashar al-Assad must be removed in order for stability to return to Syria and the surrounding region, there are fundamental disagreements on how the problem is to be approached. The United States has been adamant in its support (military or otherwise) for Syrian rebels and others who oppose the Islamic State. Meanwhile, the Turkish government has been quite vocal in its opposition of U.S's involvement, especially with regards to the distribution of arms. As noted in the article, Turkish officials have frequently stated that "Washington policymakers do not always sufficiently take into account the concerns of allies", arguing that United States has the privilege of "cherry-picking" initiatives and problems while its allies in the region suffer the brunt of the resulting retaliation.

Over the past several decades, there has been a divergence in the foreign policy agendas of the two states. During the Cold War, Turkey, as a member of NATO, represented a key ally in the U.S.'s communism containment initiative. Utilizing Turkey's proximity to the USSR to establish missile launch sites, the U.S. was able to negotiate mutual reductions in missile / nuclear weapons systems. Since then, the U.S.'s relationship with the state has been rocky. Relations between Turkey and the U.S. have deteriorated notably since the end of the Cold War, particularly as a result of tensions surrounding Turkey's invasion of Cyprus in the 1970s and the U.S.'s invasion of Iraq following the turn of the millennium.

Given Turkey's proximity to many of the volatile regions in which the United States is involved, Turkey's concerns about the broader implications of being aligned with the United States appear legitimate. That being said, it appears as though the United States should seriously re-evaluate its relations with Turkey and its approach towards engagements in the Middle East. Despite the United States' disposition to act unilaterally in its engagements abroad, Turkey represents a significant ally and point of leverage from which the United States is able to engage with Russia and the Middle East. To lose this strategic ally would be to forfeit significant geopolitical influence.

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi Secures Borders and Public Infrastructure as Militant Attacks Escalate

NY Times: "Egyptian Forces Demolish Homes for Buffer Zone Along Gaza Border"
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/30/world/middleeast/egypt-sinai-peninsula-gaza-buffer-zone.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=photo-spot-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

This past Friday in what New York Times journalists Kareem Fahim and Merna Thomas have called "the deadliest (attack) on the Egyptian military in years", as many as thirty-one Egyptian soldiers were massacred by militant forces. Since then, Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi has expedited the establishment of security zones around Egyptian borders and utilities. While ordinarily, such measures would appear rationale means by which to secure public safety, they may instead be the consequence of ulterior motives. As the government's crackdown on dissenters continues to intensify, citizens and international spectators question whether this truly is a matter of public safety or perhaps an opportunistic power grab on the part of the administration.

One of the key problems associated with this particular scenario is that the government and populace are not entirely certain whom it is they are defending against. The authors noted that while the government has often blamed Palestinian militants for the attacks, they have often been unable to substantiate any of these claims with evidence. Additionally, according to one local resident cited in the article "The attack could be from outside the borders, from inside, from the governorates — who knows." Unable to distinguish who the perpetrators are, it is not immediately clear whether these actions are signals of domestic unrest or foreign assault.

The politically questionable policies adopted by Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi in conjunction with the focus of these militant attacks on Egyptian military forces leads me to believe that these attacks are motivated by unrest. Terrorism is defined by its emphasis on civilian targets / populations and it appears that up to this point the attacks have been largely directed towards the government. The nature of these attacks seems to imply that these assaults are internal, motivated by defiance against the administration and its current policies. If this is the case, securing of the borders and public infrastructure will be ineffective in quelling the violence. Perhaps President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi recognizes this and is capitalizing on the opportunity to consolidate his power through military control of key infrastructure.

Clinton Vists the South to Rally Support for Democrats in the midst of Midterm Elections

New York Times: In South, Clinton Tries to Pull Democrats Back Into the Fold
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/16/us/in-south-clinton-tries-to-pull-democrats-back-into-
the-fold.html?ref=politics&_r=0

 Presidential Candidate Hilary Clinton visited Kentucky this past week in an attempt to rally support for Kentucky Senate Democratic Candidate Alison Lundergan Grimes as she seeks to unseat Republican Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

Over the past few presidential cycles, Kentucky voters -- more centrist in political stance, have become somewhat alienated from the Democratic Party. Kentucky Democratic voters, largely composed of white working class Americans, were significantly opposed to the election of Barack Obama in the past two elections. Clinton, during the 2008 primary, led by as much as forty-nine percentage points over Obama. Furthermore, Grimes has consistently refused to disclose who she voted for in the previous election for reasons that some speculate relates to the lack of Obama's popularity in Kentucky.

The author notes how former U.S. President Bill Clinton's reputation in Kentucky is viewed quite positively in the South and how fondness for his policies and character are and have been a driving force in support for Clinton in this region. A tone of nostalgia embodies much of the discussion of sentiment for the Clintons in the South.

It is interesting to see how animosity for Obama and favorable perceptions of Bill Clinton interplay to shape voter sentiment in South. The angle with which the Democratic Party has sought to rebuild relations in the South appears quite rational. Focusing on platforms of workers rights and social programs seems likely to resonate amongst the Southern Democrats given the prevalent base of blue-collar workers.

I am uncertain as to how much of an effect Hilary Clinton's appearance in the South will have in this particular election. While voters in the region may be nostalgic for policies of Bill Clinton and supportive of the centrist platform Grimes has presented, it is still unclear whether this will be sufficient to unseat long-time incumbent Mitch McConnell.

Missing the Forest for the Trees: First Ebola Victim Diagnosed on U.S. Soil Dies

Death of Thomas Eric Duncan in Dallas Fuels Alarm Over Ebola
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/09/us/ebola-us-thomas-eric-duncan.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&version=HpSum&module=first-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news

Over the past week or so, the media has been riled up posting constant updates on the condition of Eric Duncan, a Liberian national and the first individual diagnosed with the Ebola Virus on U.S soil. This Wednesday, Duncan succumbed to the illness and passed at Texas Health Presbyterian. While the presence of the virus on the continent is concerning, media networks have exploited the unfortunate circumstances of Duncan to unduly arouse panic and fear.

While consistently reiterating irrelevent and redundent information about Duncan's personal history and activities, media sources have quite consistently and egregiously been remiss in their discussion of the difficulty with which the virus is transmitted. The virus relies on exchanges of body fluids in order to spread from one host to another. By convenienty abstaining from mentioning this fact, they exaggerate the risk this man's illness poses to the general public. Instead, journalists appear content to inflate articles with emotionally charged anecdotes and testimonials. The map presented in the article misrepresents the significance of the reported cases in Europe and North America as they remain relatively isolated in nature.

Far more noteworthy are the procedures in place to deal with such potentially malicious viruses. The article mentions how doctors at Texas Health Presbyterian failed to diagnose and recognize the possibility of Duncan's contraction of the virus while abroad. The time frame and means by which Duncan was eventually diagnosed are far more concerning. The Washington Post recently noted how the World Health Organization in conjunction with many of the most prominent developed nations  sub-national organizations failed to effectively identify the threat the virus posed and its potential for outbreak.

Far too much attention has been granted to individual cases of Ebola outbreak. The broader bureaucratic failures associated with the failed attempts of containment have much more significant implications as to how effectively we as a globe can collective problems.