Insights, analysis and must reads from CNN's Fareed Zakaria and the Global Public Square team, compiled by Global Briefing editor Chris Good Seeing this newsletter as a forward? Subscribe here. March 1, 2023 |
|
|
In 2019, Boris Johnson won the job of UK prime minister on a campaign slogan of "Get Brexit Done." Has current Prime Minister Rishi Sunak just achieved it?
The UK and EU agreed on Monday—pending a vote in Britain's Parliament, promised by Sunak—to alter the so-called "Northern Ireland protocol," a major point of tension over Brexit's finalized form. That had established a customs border in the Irish Sea, which separates the island of Great Britain from Northern Ireland, as an alternative to establishing such a border on land, between UK-member-nation Northern Ireland and EU-member-country Ireland. (The issue remains contentious and has raised fears of violence. Whether there should be any border between Ireland and Northern Ireland, after all, was the subject of a civil war and a decades-long insurgency known as the Troubles.)
As the Financial Times explains in detail, the newly agreed-to "Windsor Framework" would sort goods flowing from Britain to Northern Ireland into "red" and "green" channels, based on the likelihood they'd end up in Ireland (and thus within the EU). The former category would be checked before entering Northern Ireland from the rest of the UK. "Parcels to friends or family (in Northern Ireland) and online deliveries from Great Britain will not require customs paperwork," the paper writes, "ending another significant source of aggravation for Northern Ireland residents. Businesses using approved parcel carriers will have simplified customs procedures."
The deal is being celebrated by many. The Economist urges support for it, noting a dearth of workable alternatives from "(h)ardline Tory MPs." At CNN Business, Hanna Ziady reports potential economic benefits, as the existing arrangement has "upended supply chains (and) raised costs for businesses." In an editorial, the Financial Times calls this "a significant moment for post-Brexit Britain." The New Statesman's Andrew Marr declares, "Rishi Sunak has become Prime Minister. I exaggerate, but only slightly." |
|
|
Not everyone is wowed. In a Telegraph op-ed, Sherelle Jacobs argues the deal enshrines "Northern Ireland's fate as a vassal state of Brussels," as the EU will retain a say over how all of this is put into practice, and thus over Northern Ireland's trade policies. The Spectator's Freddy Gray lampoons the uncertainty (and the history of wooden jargon surrounding Brexit), arguing for instance that a so-called "Stormont brake"—included in the new deal to give Northern Ireland's devolved government a chance to reject EU mandates—might or might not be so meaningful, in practice. Multiple observers have cautioned that it's not clear whether Brexiteer MPs and Northern Ireland's top unionist party will line up behind the deal, as the details are examined more fully. The New Statesman's Marr notes warily the bitterness that any Irish Sea border could incur from unionist paramilitaries in Northern Ireland.
Still, some who back the deal hope it will deliver the UK from a miasmic political era dominated by Brexit and its aftermath—along with, they hope, broader geopolitical windfalls.
"With luck, the deal may yet begin a normalisation of UK-EU relations, and of UK politics," the FT writes in its editorial. The Economist offers similar sentiments, writing that the new deal "paves the way for much improved UK-EU relations. … It should bolster security and foreign-policy co-operation, something that matters more since (Russian President) Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine. Better relations with France could boost bilateral co-operation to deter migrants crossing the channel in small boats. And the deal would do much to repair Britain's relations with America, whose president cares deeply about peace in Northern Ireland." |
| |
In Case You Missed It: From Sunday's GPS |
|
|
Why did Vladimir Putin announce the mobilization of up to 300,000 additional soldiers last September? Analysis published this week by the Institute for the Study of War—home to some of the most detailed publicly available observations of Putin's war on Ukraine—suggests that "Russia likely began to run out of combat-ready forces by late May 2022 … Ukraine's sweeping counteroffensive in Kharkiv Oblast between September 6 and September 11 likely shocked Putin into realizing that he needed to order an involuntary reserve call-up," rather than rely on volunteer recruitment.
Disturbingly, the think tank notes that Russia has struggled to recruit volunteers and has effectively outsourced some of its recruitment efforts to the Wagner Group (the private mercenary army now fighting in Ukraine on Moscow's behalf) and to Russia's "ultranationalist community." The Institute for the Study of War points to a New America study by Candace Rondeaux and Ben Dalton, which identifies that private recruitment effort as going beyond the Wagner Group to include other organizations, one of which has had "a reputation for attracting violent far-right extremists." |
|
|
After a Wall Street Journal report this week that the US Department of Energy concluded, with "low confidence," that Covid-19 probably leaked from a research laboratory in Wuhan, China, the origins of the pandemic have returned to the public discussion, with force.
Other federal agencies have concluded otherwise, and the Journal writes in an editorial that its "scoop … doesn't mean the case is definitive. But it is more evidence that the media and public-health groupthink about Covid was mistaken and destructive." At The Washington Post, columnist Philip Bump notes the charged politics, writing: "What is clear … is that any new report bolstering the idea that the virus leaked from a lab will be used to score political points."
At Bloomberg, columnist Faye Flam writes that "low confidence" is the salient detail here, as no one really knows where Covid-19 came from, for certain. In a Washington Post op-ed, Dr. Leana Wen writes, "At this point, a far more useful analysis would focus on what should be done to prevent future pandemics in the case that either hypothesis (that Covid-19 leaked from a lab or that it was transmitted from animals to humans) is true." Wen recommends heightened governmental review of any lab research that makes pathogens more dangerous. "The lab-leak theory has credence because we know laboratory accidents with dangerous pathogens can cause catastrophic outcomes," Wen writes. |
| |
|
No comments:
Post a Comment