10622 임정민 1차기사 수정본+2차기사

[임정민]

컴퓨터로 글을 썼음에도 불구하고 뭔가 파일 첨부가 계속 안되는 느낌이여서 내용까지 직접 작성해서 올렸습니다.

1차 기사 수정본:

WuldElectionsRevised.innitbruv (1).hwp

152.00KB

내용:

Bulgaria Holds their Fifth Election in 2 Years

Bulgaria's parliamentary elections, which took place on April 2, 2023, have once again resulted in a stalemate, leaving no clear winner and triggering coalition negotiations. Voter turnout was low, with only 40% of eligible voters casting their ballots. This election marked the fifth election in Bulgaria within a span of 2 years, Which raised the question of whether it will be the last amidst the prevailing political crisis.

Three years prior to the recent elections, widespread anti-corruption protests swept across the country, demanding the resignation of then-Prime Minister Boyko Borisov, ultimately ending his decade-long rule. Since then, Bulgaria has been mired in a prolonged political gridlock, with two prominent blocs competing for power: the reformist bloc comprising PP (We Continue the Change) and DB (Democratic Bulgaria) - both of which oppose Borisov, and the center-right GERB (Citizens for European Development of Bulgaria) led by Borisov himself.

The inability to form a stable government has forced Bulgaria to rely on a succession of caretaker governments appointed by President Rumen Radev. The latest elections failed to break the parliamentary gridlock, as no party secured an outright majority. GERB emerged with the most seats, but its 69 seats out of 240 were insufficient for a clear majority. In second place was the reformist bloc with 64 seats. Despite initial denials of cooperation, both parties eventually decided to join forces in an attempt to form a coalition government.

On June 2, after two months of intense negotiations, Nikolai Denkov, the PM candidate of the PP-DB coalition, announced the success of the government formation talks. Subsequently, the Bulgarian parliament approved Denkov's GERB-PP-DB coalition government, with Mariya Gabriel from GERB serving as his deputy PM. They have agreed on various policies, most notably on their commitment to further integrate Bulgaria into the EU and supporting Ukraine.

Despite these developments, Bulgarian politics remain unpredictable. A noteworthy example Bulgarian political instability is the brief tenure of the Petkov government, which was formed in December 2021 through a big-tent coalition of parties with divergent ideologies, with the only similarities being their opposition against Borisov and his GERB party. Within six months, it fractured and was ousted by a vote of no confidence. This history raises doubts about the longevity of the current coalition between PP-DB and GERB; there is no guarantee that it will avoid a similar fate if internal differences and conflicts arise.

Furthermore, concerns have emerged about the growing influence of the 'Revival Party', a Russophilic and Ultranationalist group. In the recent elections, this party secured 37 seats, making it the third-largest party in Bulgaria - a significant increase from the previous election's results. The rise of this party raises questions about the potential indirect Russian influence on Bulgarian politics.

The formation of a new coalition government may offer some stability, but it remains to be seen whether this arrangement can effectively address the country's pressing issues and foster long-term governance.

Right-wing Parties Prevail in Finland

Finland held parliamentary elections on April 2, 2023. In the preceding 2019 elections, the center-left SDP (Social Democratic Party) had formed a coalition government with smaller centrist and leftist parties. Initially led by Antti Rinne, he was later replaced by Sanna Marin as prime minister. Marin's government received praise both domestically and internationally for its effective management of the Covid crisis and its success in gaining NATO membership following the Russian invasion of Ukraine. However, Marin's administration faced criticism for reckless spending, and fiscal conservatives expressed concern over the rising Finnish debt, which increased from 64% to 73% of the debt-to-GDP ratio.

The center-right conservative party in Finland, the NCP (National Coalition Party), emerged as the largest party in the aftermath of the 2023 elections. Its leader, Petteri Orpo, promised austerity measures to balance the budget. Another notable winner in this election was the far-right populist Finns Party, which secured the position of the second-largest party in parliament. Although the SDP gained seats, it was overshadowed by the two major parties, while the popularity of smaller left and center parties declined.

After two months of negotiations, Orpo announced the formation of a coalition government with his NCP, the Finns Party, and two junior members: the social conservative Christian Democrats, and the Swedish People's Party, a Swedish minority party. This coalition is considered the most right-wing government in modern Finland, as the Finns Party has more influence in the coalition than ever before.

Due to the disparate characteristics of the coalition parties, the government negotiations were considered one of the most challenging in Finnish history. The Swedish People's Party and the Finns Party, in particular, faced constant conflict over immigration and may encounter future disputes over issues related to the Swedish minority.

Even after the formation of the Orpo government, discord has arisen within the new cabinet with the "Junnila controversy." Vilhelm Junnila, a minister in Orpo's cabinet, faced a motion of no confidence from opposition parties due to his alleged connections with neo-Nazi movements and controversial statements. Seven MPs of the Swedish People's Party voted against Junnila, an action strongly denounced by Rikka Purra, the leader of the Finns Party. Some of Junnila's past statements were also deemed unacceptable by the Christian Democrats, including his motion for "climate abortions" in "underdeveloped societies of Africa." Christian Democrat leader Sari Essayah condemned this motion as "eco-fascism of the worst kind." As a result, Junnila announced his plans to resign on June 30. Other Finns Party ministers, such as Jussi Halla-aho, Mari Rantanen, and Ville Tavio, are also drawing controversy, further straining the stability of this coalition government.

Pessimism in the Finnish public about this coalition government is widespread, with 49% of the polls showing that the public believes this coalition would not survive, compared to 28% who think it would. Sauli Niinistö, the incumbent President of Finland, also commented that the affairs regarding the coalition government have become “very embarrassing,” despite his usual apolitical stance as president.

Promises for Change Captures Thai Voters

Thailand's recent House of Representatives elections brought a surprising victory for the Move Forward Party (MFP), a progressive and anti-military junta party with a strong focus on youth-oriented policies. Thai politics have long been under the influence of the military-royalist establishment, and the current prime minister came to power through the 2014 military coup. However, the poor election results for the military-backed conservative forces, which only gained 76 seats compared to MFP's 151, clearly reflect the Thai voters' rejection of military rule.

The unexpected aspect of this outcome lies not only in the declining popularity of the military forces but also in the rise of the Move Forward Party as the main opposition to the military establishment. In previous elections, the more established and moderate Pheu Thai party, known for its populist agenda, had been expected to secure the most seats as it had since 2001, despite being repeatedly denied power due to military coups. However, in this election, Pheu Thai emerged as the second-largest party in Thailand, behind the MFP.

The Move Forward Party's platform includes ambitious reforms aimed at reducing military influence in politics, ending conscription, legalizing same-sex marriage, advocating decentralization, and repealing laws that ban Thai citizens from criticizing the monarchy. While these reforms are considered radical by Thai standards, they enjoy significant support in urban regions and among the youth.

The MFP intends to form a coalition government with Pheu Thai and six smaller coalition partners, which would give them a majority of 313 out of 500 total seats. However, their plans face a crucial hurdle as they must obtain approval from the Senate of Thailand, which is appointed by the Royal Thai Military and heavily influenced by the military establishment. This potential roadblock might hinder the formation of a new government, leading to political gridlock, given that the number of seats held by pro-military parties is far from a majority, and therefore cannot form a government.

While there have been concerns about the possibility of a military coup, the military has pledged to respect the election results. However, the Move Forward Party may face other challenges. Similar to the dissolution of MFP’s predecessor, the Future Forward Party in 2020, there are fears that the MFP could be forced to disband. Accusations against the MFP leader, Pita Limjaroenrat, of owning shares in a television broadcasting company, ITV, may potentially disqualify him from being a member of parliament, and possibly prime minister. Additionally, coalition talks between Pheu Thai and the MFP have encountered obstacles, particularly regarding the House Speaker position, leading to demands from some Pheu Thai supporters for PT to withdraw support for the coalition.

While the massive growth of anti-military rule parties are showing a clear change in Thai politics, it is yet to be seen whether the opposition can effectively manage a chance to bring true reform.

Turkish Presidential Elections: Erdogan Continues His 20-Year Rule

The results of the 2023 Turkish presidential election have confirmed the victory of Recep Tayyip Erdogan, who has been the incumbent president of Turkey. This election was considered a critical test for Erdogan's political career, as his second presidential term has been marked by various crises.

Erdogan's rise in Turkish politics began when he became the Mayor of Istanbul. However, due to making endorsements for Islam, which was deemed unacceptable in the strictly secular Turkish politics, he concealed his religious ideology and founded the Justice and Development Party (JDP). Initially, the JDP presented itself as a Muslim Democrat, liberal-conservative party inspired by European Christian Democratic parties. The JDP won a landslide victory in the 2002 elections, and Erdogan became the prime minister in 2003.

During his tenure as prime minister, Erdogan's government implemented successful constitutional and neo-liberal economic reforms, but it also displayed authoritarian tendencies, including curbing press freedoms and suppressing the Kurdish minority. In 2014, Erdogan ran for president, a mere figurehead position at the time, and won with 51% of the votes. In 2017, a constitutional referendum transformed the parliamentary system into a presidential system, consolidating Erdogan's power as the head of government.

As president, Erdogan's actions have drawn criticism for leaning towards authoritarianism. He temporarily blocked Twitter in 2014 and restricted access to Wikipedia in 2017, although the Constitutional Court later overturned the decision. In 2016, an attempted military coup led to a state of emergency declaration, resulting in the detainment of military officers, the closure of opposition media, and the strengthening of the executive branch, known as the 2016 Turkish purges.

Erdogan's second term proved challenging, with a combination of factors such as massive Turkish debt, geopolitical tensions, conflicts, and unorthodox interest rate policies leading to a crash of the Turkish lira in 2018. The economic situation worsened in 2020 due to the Covid crisis, further eroding the public's faith in the government. The 2023 Hatay earthquake also exposed the government's lackluster response.

Despite the opposition's confidence and allegations of an "unfair" election, Erdogan secured 52% of the vote in the second round of the presidential elections. This victory signifies various implications for different groups in Turkey. Erdogan's supporters celebrated his triumph as a win for the entire nation, while the opposition vowed to continue their struggle for real democracy in the country.

Erdogan's popularity remains strong among Muslim and conservative communities, but it has deepened the social divisions between these groups and the secular, Kemalist groups. The contradictions of Turkey being a secular republic and a Muslim nation is once again brought to the political spotlight.

On the international stage, Erdogan's victory is expected to maintain Turkey's neutral stance in the Russian invasion of Ukraine and solidify its position as a key power broker in the conflict.

As Erdogan begins his new presidential term, Turkey faces significant challenges, and its future direction remains a topic of keen interest for both domestic and international observers. Erdogan has promised to abandon his unorthodox economic policies to improve the economic situation in Turkey, and made statements suggesting Turkey’s plans to abandon Russia for strategic reasons. The outcome of this election underscores the complexities of Turkey's political landscape, and the greater geopolitical influence Erdogan’s victory may bring internationally.

2차기사

NootrailiteeInnitBruv.hwp

82.00KB

내용:

Navigating Neutrality: Its Impact and Relevance in Modern Geopolitics

Following the Geomun Island incident, also known as the Fort Hamilton Incident, and the subsequent escalation of tensions among western powers over the Korean peninsula, the fate of Korea became a topic of intense debate. One proposed solution was to establish Korea as a neutral state, immune to the influence of neighboring powers. While this idea was ignored in mainstream international politics, it is today recognized as an effort to safeguard Korean independence and promote global peace during an era of colonization.

The concept of neutrality has had a massive impact on various corners of the world and has occasionally ushered in peace and prosperity for the neutral state, when managed well. Switzerland serves as a prime example, having maintained a policy of neutrality since 1516 and achieving international recognition as a neutral state in 1815, a status it has maintained ever since. Swiss neutrality has brought substantial advantages for the nation: Swiss citizenship affords unparalleled freedoms in terms of international mobility and economic engagement, making it one of the most valuable citizenship an individual can have. The commitment to neutral foreign policies has lent credibility to Swiss banks, contributing to Switzerland's status as a global financial hub. Neutrality has also provided opportunities for diplomatic influence on the global stage. Finland, a neutral state during the Cold War, played a role in creating the OSCE and influencing the formation of the Helsinki Accords. Yugoslavia, an independent European communist state distinct from the Soviet Union, not only provided a measure of freedom and prosperity to its citizens but also led the Non-Aligned Movement, making it a prominent figure in the third world.

The benefits of neutrality encompass international prestige, stability, and conflict prevention, making it an appealing option for many nations. This has given rise to the stereotype of neutral states as peaceful countries with thriving economies, illustrated by examples like Austria and Singapore.

However, recent years have seen several countries steer their stances away from neutrality. Traditionally neutral European states such as Sweden and Finland have decided to pursue NATO membership instead of maintaining their neutrality. Switzerland, while not entirely abandoning neutrality, has made its support for Ukraine and the western bloc more evident.

This shift away from neutrality has been largely triggered by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. A significant aspect often overlooked is that Ukraine was, at one point, a neutral European nation. Both its declaration of independence and its constitution established Ukraine as a neutral country. Nonetheless, Russian actions undermined Ukrainian sovereignty through war. This prompted other neutral European countries to reeval‎uate the risks associated with neutrality.

The image of neutrality is frequently associated with peace, and some, with this pacifist image, view neutrality as a craven stance. This perspective often neglects the dangers of neutrality: while neutral states may lack enemies, they also lack allies. This means that in times of conflict, neutral states have no allies to provide direct military aid, as was evident in Ukraine's case. The Russian invasion of Ukraine demonstrated that neutrality cannot shield a nation from the sufferings of war, and when war does strike, neutrality may only increase the suffering. While many neutral nations acknowledge this risk and implement deterrence policies by investing heavily in their defence capabilities, the realization that warfare is not an outdated strategy has generated concern over neutrality in currently neutral countries.

This is not a new concern. The catastrophic consequences of the two World Wars marked the decline of neutrality in the Concert of Europe. Belgium's neutrality during World War I led to more entanglements, as the British guaranteed Belgian sovereignty to uphold its neutrality, forcing the British to join the war alongside Belgium. Belgian neutrality was established by the geopolitical players of Europe with the intention of balancing the power dynamics between France and Germany and maintaining peace. This concept was not limited to Belgian neutrality, and was implied in many other countries such as the Netherlands. However, this hope proved false during both world wars. In World War II, nearly all neutral states except Sweden, Turkey, and Portugal were invaded by the Soviet and Nazi regimes. Following the war, these neutral nations responded to their diplomatic failures by forming and joining NATO.

In the days of rapprochement between the two Koreas, an old idea reemerged as a model of diplomacy for a united Korea in the future: Neutrality. While it was made irrelevent when the North-South relationships soured once more, Korea is still one of the hotly contested regions in geopolitics, and this importance may bring plans for a neutral Korea to the spotlights once more when seen necessary, whether by internal or external forces. The idea of neutrality has enduring relevance and has shaped the course of history in various ways. While it offers certain advantages in terms of stability, diplomacy, and economic potential, the changing global landscape and lessons from past and present conflicts have recently prompted some neutral countries to reassess their positions. If Korea must choose its place in the ever-changing world with neutrality as an option, it must recognize the potential benefits and dangers of this stance properly.