In October, Catalonia voted to secede from Spain. The regional parliament declared itself independent from Spain, but the Spanish government stepped in to retain control and order early regional elections to determine new leadership. That vote will take place Thursday, with Europe closely watching. Meanwhile, a nuclear situation is developing in Georgia, and persecution of the Rohingyas in Myanmar continues unabated.
A movement for complete independence
What the Catalans decide will decide “whether it will mitigate or exacerbate the stand-off between the Catalan independence movement and the government in Madrid,” explains The Economist. “If the separatist block wins an absolute majority of votes it will press even harder for a legal referendum on independence. If it loses its previous majority of seats in the Catalan parliament, that would widely be seen as a victory for Mariano Rajoy, Spain’s conservative prime minister.”
Rajoy previously suspended the Catalan self-government, led by Carles Puigdemont, who is currently campaigning through video from Brussels. “He faces arrest on charges of rebellion if he returns to Catalonia. Oriol Junqueras, the leader of Esquerra Republicana (Republican Left), the largest separatist party, is in jail, facing a similar charge. In all, eight pro-independence candidates are either in prison or self-exile.”
“The demand to free its leaders has reinvigorated the independence movement. Some supporters were disillusioned when no European government backed their cause and almost 3,000 Catalan companies moved their domicile because of Mr Puigdemont’s actions. With Catalonia split almost evenly between two warring blocks, the outcome of the election depends mainly on turnout.”
“In any event, the election is likely to be followed by weeks of haggling. And the Catalan problem will continue to bedevil Spanish politics, even if it mutates from acute to chronic.”
Not a healing solution
The regional election is unlikely to heal any bitter divisions between Catalonia and Spain, writes Giles Tremlett in The Guardian. He argues that the “silent majority”, made up of depoliticized Catalans, are not as caught up in the independence process as others.
“It would be wrong to see this vote, though, as Catalonia against Spain. Instead, it pits Catalans against Catalans, making the election both starker and more representative than the chaotic and illegal independence vote organised by the separatist government on 1 October – which produced dramatic and disturbing images of police beating their way into voting stations to snatch away ballot boxes,” he writes. “These are extraordinary circumstances, with Catalonia split into two increasingly angry halves and polls showing that those who preach moderation or compromise are the least likely to succeed.”
Both sides are angry — and yet, they must continue living together after the vote.
“In this rarified and confrontational atmosphere, with the unpredictable “silent majority” so important, opinion polls cannot be trusted. The latest by the Catalan regional government, for example, had to be statistically adjusted after failing to find a sufficient number of people to answer its questions.”
“The only certainty is that whoever wins on Thursday will face two daunting tasks: mend the divisions between Catalans and make peace with Madrid.”
How Georgia’s nuclear decisions will affect the United States
“Georgia is on the cusp of a very important decision about nuclear energy. We shouldn’t miss what’s at stake,” write Zack T. Pate and William E. Webster Jr. in the New York Times.
The Georgia Public Service Commission will rule this week on whether construction of two nuclear reactors should continue. These two reactors are the Vogtle generation station, and is the only commercial nuclear project underway in the United States. However, the financial landscape of this project has changed because the price of natural gas has dropped, taking the wholesale price of electricity down with it.
“But the Vogtle expansion, which when fully operational will generate enough to power about 500,000 homes and businesses, has implications well beyond Georgia and the Southeast. America’s commercial nuclear industry safely and reliably produces 63 percent of our emission-free electric power. The cancellation of the Vogtle project would likely dim the future of this vital American industry.”
“What we are seeing in Georgia today is a mismatch between costs and benefits. The Public Service Commission is appropriately focused on the economic stability and health of Georgia. The plant is being built by a coalition of companies led by Georgia Power that have a mission to serve customers and shareholders,” they write.
“Cancellation of the Vogtle project would mean a long-term reduction in the United States of this reliable and emission-free source of generation. It will also diminish American leadership in global nuclear safety and security, reduce the diversity of available energy sources and be a blow to thousands of skilled workers with an inevitable loss of many well-paying jobs.”
Will Georgia make a decision that would change the dynamics of nuclear power? Only time will tell.
The fall of Aung San Suu Kyi
“Think about that: In the early 21st century, a government institution has consciously set about to eliminate an entire ethnic group’s presence within its country,” writes Christian Caryl in the Washington Post. “And fatefully implicated in this nightmare is a woman who, not that long ago, exemplified heroic endurance and courage in the pursuit of democratic ideals.”
Aung San Suu Kyi once galvanized the world with her struggle for democracy and equal rights in Myanmar, but the tides of opinion have turned against her after the Rohingya crisis on her own soil. “There is something uniquely awful about a Nobel Peace Prize laureate acting as an enabler of the murder and displacement of an entire community,” writes Caryl.
“Commentators have faulted her for her silence on what many are calling a deliberate act of genocide. But that’s not quite right. Far from being silent, she has actively defended the military’s actions, writing off eyewitness accounts of its crimes — in a chillingly Trumpian flourish — as “fake news.””
Caryl goes on to detail other incongruities in Suu Kyi’s leadership, that completely disqualify her from her previously laudable character and accomplishments.
“The world has lost a hero. Were we wrong to put her on a pedestal in the first place? Should we stop viewing international politics through the prism of heroism? Or should we refocus our efforts on the ideals that she once seemed to embody?”
In 2017, Caryl writes, no one has fallen lower than Aung San Suu Kyi.