One Year on: Rohingya Peoples Still Living in Refugee Camps in Bangladesh

It’s been a year since the Myanmar (Burma) military, conducted raids on Rohingya villages in Rakhine state. The so called ‘clearance operations,’ as described by the military were to find Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army (Arsa) militants, who on the 25th August 2017, attacked and killed 12 security personnel.



For over a month, the Myanmar military were claimed to have attacked hundreds of villages, burning, lutting, killing and raping along the way - forcing over 700,000 Rohingya to flee to refugee camps across the border in Bangladesh. The Myanmar authorities both civilian and military denied the extent of the violent crackdown, calling the operation as anti-terrorism raids.

The international community were slow in condemning the actions by the Myanmar military, and dithered on a response. The international community published statements calling for the end of the violent crackdown, with some United Nations officials calling the atrocities as ethnic cleansing. The United Nations Security Council (UNSC) were unable to agree to take more affirmative action.

A year later, most of the 700,000 Rohingya still live in makeshift camps along the Myanmar/Bangladesh border, while the Myanmar civilian government and the military generals dither on resolving the issues. All that has happened since, is the government led by State Counsellor Aung San Suu Kyi (Prime Minister) have agreed with the Bangladeshi authorities that over the next two years Rohingya refugees will be repatriated back to Rakhine state on a voluntary basis. If and when this process begins, it will have the support of the UNDP and UNHCR, who in June this year signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the Myanmar government, to assist in the repatriation process.  These a steps in the right direction for both the Myanmar civilian government and the international community, although without assurances of rights and protections for returning Rohingya, there are no guarantees that similar atrocities and will not occur in the future.



The repatriation process would likely rebuild villages and supply aid for returning Rohingya, but the issue of citizenship and freedom of movement have not been resolved and look unlikely in the near future, that’s if government official signals are correct. The Myanmar government and much of the majority Buddhist population view the Rohingya as Bengali Muslims from Bangladesh and have no rights to Myanmar citizenship since they were stripped of this under the 1982 Citizenship Act. These one million or so stateless peoples can not keep carrying on living in fear and lacking any human rights.

If the international community are advocates of the responsibility to protect, then increased pressure on the Myanmar government and military on the issue of citizenship and protection is required. The only major steps of cohesion on the Myanmar government and military has been a few statements of condemnation from world leaders, and limited unilateral sanctions. A year after the crackdown, the U.S have placed sanctions on a few military generals and police officials .

Myanmar is still in democratic transition, and Aung San Suu Kyi is trying to balance civilian governance, while maintaining relations with the military, who still hold sway over security, society and the economy. A return of tougher sanction will do more harm to Aung San’s efforts to bring democracy and rebuild the economy, but more targeted sanctions against key military generals, and a full break in relations with the military establishment by the west could force the hand of the military gripe over Myanmar

As for accountability for the inproportionate attacks on the Rohingya population,  There has been calls for the International Criminal Court (ICC) to investigate the military actions - although Myanmar is a non-party to  the Rome statute, the UNSC has the power to refer the case to the ICC. Though it is not as straightforward, this would require agreement by all members including the permanent five (U.S, UK French, Russia & China). China has been reluctant to blame or pressure the Myanmar government or military in the past and would likely block any moves to refer a case to the ICC. Nonetheless this is an avenue that other council members need to keep pushing, as the only real prospect for international action against the Myanmar military.

Furthermore, the Myanmar civilian government has announced a independent commission of inquiry into human rights violations during the August 2017 crackdown. Not much detail has been released, except that the commission will include a mix of domestic and international representatives and experts. On paper, this sounds like owning up to responsibility for the violence, but how independent will it be. Will the military establishment fully cooperate? As most Rohingya refugees will not be returning to Myanmar any time soon, will the commision visit the refugee camps in Bangladesh and talk to refugees about their experiences? Will the commission have the power to prosecute or at least recommend individuals to be put on trial? Theses questions have not been answered yet - and likely this commission will just show that the government is taking action, but nothing concrete happens. The military for instance are unlikely to cooperate or allow their personnel to be prosecuted. And the Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh are likely not want to talk to a commission of enquiry conducted on behalf of the Myanmar government, who have not stood up for their rights, independent or not. To overcome these issues, a more independent commission would be better of been run by the UN, even in cooperation with the Myanmar’s own independent  commission.

The Politicised Winter Olympics Between North and South Korea

The next instalment of the Winter Olympics has begun in Pyeongchang, South Korea. The next two and a half weeks will be dedicated to bring people from across the world together to watch or compete in winter sports on the world stage, but politics has overshadowed the pre-Olympic hype.

This major sporting event, held every four years, along with the summer Olympics is supposed to promote world peace and togetherness, but international political issues have on occasions taken a more central stage. This upcoming winter games in South Korea is no exception. The political tensions between South and North Korea has stolen much of the headlines over the last few months.

Here is a short summary of what has happened before the start of the games in Pyeongchang. A year ago, there where questions about if North Korea would participate in the Olympics in South Korea, who are sworn enemies. But after an official meeting in January between the two countries in more than two years, North Korea agreed to send a delegation of athletes, cheerleaders, and senior officials to the Olympics. The surprise inclusion in the delegation is the attendance of the formal head of state, Kim Yong-nam and Kim Yo-jong, North Korea’s leader Kim Jong-un’s sister.

The news of Kim Yo-jong attendance will mark an historic moment in the long standing tensions between the two Koreas, with the first visit of a direct descendant from the Kim dynasty to South Korea since the Korean war. Kim Yo-jong has met with the South Korean President Moon Jae-in, and has delivered an invitation for President Moon to meet with Kim Jong-un in the future.

This historic visit has been welcomed by the South Korean government as a sign of good will and thawing of relations between the two Koreas, but has also further politicised the event. Sending of such a high profile senior figure as Kim Yo-jong, who is a deputy director of the Workers' Party of Korea's Propaganda and Agitation Department (PAD), may just be for propaganda purposes aimed at overshadowing the games, rather than showing a willingness to  participate in future meetings between the two countries. Over the last few years Kim Jong-un has advanced his nuclear and missile program in face of global condemnation and sanctions, and has shown no signs of willingness to negotiate with South Korea or the international community, so this sudden race to show good will for its neighbour and the Olympics seems like a strategy to overtake the headlines and use it as both for internal and external propaganda. Along with such a high ranked delegation, the Kim regime moved the annual  military parade usually held in April to the eve of the games, further leading speculation of a propaganda ploy by North Korea. 

On top of the actions of the Kim regime, the Trump administration has send a delegation, led by Vice President Mike Pence, who has criticised Pyongyang of hijacking the game’s for its own purposes. Along with recent statements from the U.S Vice President and past criticisms from President Trump against Kim Jong-un’s regime, tensions and possible conflict have risen.

Although Kim Jong-un and the Trump administration have politicised these Olympics, the news of a senior political delegation from North Korea could possibly be a welcomed boost in restarting dialogue and future negotiations between North and South Korea and the international community. Even if Kim Jong-un is playing games by sending such a high profile delegation and holding a military parade on the eve of the games, the long term outcome of such a move could be a sign of holding out an olive branch to the South and the international community. The South Korean government and the Trump administration should  open up and welcome such senior figures of the regime to the Olympics and, should use this opportunity to reproach Kim Jong-un with the aim of future dialogue and peace negotiations. The best way to lower tensions on the Korean peninsula is open dialogue, not threats of military strikes and economic sanctions.

U.S strikes against Assad's forces have only complicated the Syrian conflict

The unilateral strikes by the United States on a Syrian air base have only further complicated an already messy conflict, rather than offer any strategic outcome on the ground in Syria or chance for peace.   

                                               

The decision to take this course of action seemed to be based on domestic consideration — perhaps also  to show Russia and even China — that President Trump is willing to use unilateral action when required, and for America's national interests. It may have been a coincidence that China's President Xi Jinping was on a visit to America, at the same time as the strikes were occurring, but I thing this was not the case. I think Trump used the strikes against Assad's forces as a pretext to outline to President Xi, that America could take similar action against North Korea, if China does not begin resolving the nuclear arms issue. This is in light of Trumps earlier warning for China and North Korea.

Perhaps even domestic issue played into Trump's calculations. Conducting a military operation against Assad's forces  have turned focus away from Trumps decreasing popularity and Russia's links to the Trump campaign. Media attention have been on the administration's foreign policy, rather then Trump's problems at home.      


Since Tuesday’s chemical weapons attack in Khan Sheikhoun, the U.S and other western countries have blamed Assad’s forces where’s Russia had argued that Syrian jets had hit a rebel controlled chemical weapons facility located in the town. As we know, getting any viable facts out of Syria is extremely difficult, with all sides posting misinformation. Due to this lack of viable facts or information, an independent investigation should have been concluded before Trump ordered unilateral strikes on a Syrian airbase.

The strikes against Assad’s forces will not change the situation on the ground or Assad’s overall aims. As there is no independent evidence of the true perpetrator(s) of Tuesday’s chemical attack, Assad will unlikely change tact and halt his forces from continuing their combat operations against opposition forces. This action by the U.S could just embolden Assad to step up conventional attacks on rebel and civilian positions. As the former British ambassador to Syria, Peter Ford, has said, Assad has no military advantage from using chemical weapons, and that we can not rule out that the attack was staged by opposition forces. Until we have clear independent proof of who conducted the chemical attack, we can not accuse the Assad regime or opposition forces.

Trumps decision to order the strikes could well further strain relations with Russia, and drag America and it’s allies deeper into the conflict. The Russian President, Putin, and other officials have condemned the unilateral strikes. They have so far refrained from offering any plans for retaliation, which is understandable, as they will not want to escalate the situation further.

The question now is what happens next? The likely answer will be no major change on the ground in the short term, though in the long term, this unilateral action could well damage future peace efforts, and any cooperation between the U.S and Russia. The only way that this strike will have any purpose is if America changes policy toward Assad and militarily and politically begin regime change in Syria. This seems unlikely as there is no wider support within America or it's western allies. 

As for Assad, he could reconsider his regime position concerning peace talks with opposition groups. He may decide not to participate in future talks, especially if Russia and Iran steadfastly remain in support, which will likely be the case. Russia and Iran could well increase its military and/or economic support.    

The Spectacle of the U.S Party Nominations Has Truly Begun

The gloves are truly off, as both the Democratic and Republican parties have begun their primary elections to choose their candidates, to contest the Presidential elections in November. The caucus held on the 1^st February in the state of Iowa will be the first of many over the next 5/6 months, with the Hollywood style rallies and big spending candidates, debating and trying to persuade voters and delegates.      

The first blow in this long contest has been made in Iowa, with a somewhat surprise outcome for the Republican candidacy, with Senator Ted Cruz taking 27.7% popular vote, with Donald Trump 24.3% and Marco Rubio 23.1%. On the Democrat side, there was no surprising outcome, with Hilary Clinton with 49.9% of the popular vote, just snatching victory over fellow Presidential candidate Bernie Sanders 49.6%, and in third place Martin O'Malley taking only 0.06% of the vote, who has since ended his campaign, with only Clinton and Sanders left. So after the first caucus by both parties, the results show a tie within the Democrats and a narrow lead by Ted Cruz

 The polls and media got the Republican Caucus wrong with most polling agencies tipping a victory for Trump, but with an evangelical and more liberal state like Iowa, it seems Trump’s conservative anti-immigration focused campaign did not persuade voters in this small rural state in middle America. As for the Democrats, the campaign could become more contested than first thought.  With Iowa been a small state with a population of around three million, the numerical outcome for both parties is minor compared to the bigger states, but with it been the first time the public has had the chance to vote in this campaign, the outcome could be a sign of how the rest of the nation may vote and could sway the delegates at the party Conventions in June. We will have to wait and see. The real signs of who could become their party’s nominee will be when we find out the results of the so called ‘super Tuesday,’ when both parties hold the most primary/caucuses on the same day, to take place on 1^st March. This day is very important and could make or break a candidate’s campaign with almost half the total delegates on offer. With such a large amount of delegates to be gained by either candidates, the outcome could become crucial come convention time.

With such divides in policy and even ideology between and within the Democratic and Republican parties, and with an unconventional candidate in Donald Trump, this election campaign could become one of the most interesting ever. with so many diverse candidates, we cannot really predict who will win the party nominations or even become President, as the polls are failing to show a true outcome of results. Perhaps after ‘Super Tuesday,’ we might have a clearer picture, especially when some candidates end their campaigns.  

 As an Australian currently living in the UK, my opinion on the election outcome will not count for much, but the party nominees and the final candidate elected to become the next U.S President impacts indirectly the economics, politics and societies in Australia, UK and elsewhere.  For this I think that electing a candidate who will be in divisive and multilateral will be important for both the U.S and the rest of the world, especially at a time of global change. 

With my understanding of American politics leant from taking this subject during my undergraduate studies, reading about the current elections, and listening to expert analysis, it’s a safe bet that the spectacle of the Donald Trump show will fizzle out come convention time, and voters and delegates will choose a different Republican candidate. Which one I am not sure, but surly America and the rest of the world do not want another Bush to be Commander-in-Chief. So that realistically leaves Cruz and Rubio, and for me, Rubio seems the least divisive and the safest bet for the Republican nominee. 

As for the Democrats, with O’Malley gone, the chose has got easier. Clinton seems the most likely chance to win the nomination, although becoming the first women President, I am not sure. Her association with the establishment and resent scandals over private emails, along with it seems conservative public, it will be interesting if she can make it to the White House. As for Sanders, his socialist liberal ideology and policy pledges will not stand for much in a country with many who dislike socialism or socialist ideas. At 74, his age would surely be a factor in voters and delegates minds, even though so far he has gained much support from younger voters, with his free education pledges. But I think he will not be able to carry on this support or gain others as the campaign carries on. In the end, If I was legible to cast my vote I would elect Hillary Clinton regardless of the minor scandal, the name and the links with the establishment as the next and first women President of the United States of America, because she has experience on the international stage (former Secretary of State) and holding elected office (Senator for New York), and she will be the least divisive and have a multilateral approach on the national and international stage. 

     

More Global Cooperation Required to Fight ISIS and Bring Peace to Syria

On  24th November, a Russian Su-24 jet fighter was shot down by the Turkish military on the border between Turkey and Syria. This is the first time a Russian military aircraft has been in an incident over the skies of Syria, since began its operations in support of Syrian government forces, against Islamic State and other rebel groups in September.

This shooting down of a Russian fighter jet by a NATO member has shown the risks that a lack of cooperation between all actors, either state or non-state has in the theatre of war. It was inevitable that this sort of incident would occur, when you have so many parties involved in the fight in Syria. Apart from the United States led coalition and Russia deploying military resources in Syria, there are also the Syrian government, ISIS and many other rebel groups fighting for their own interests. It seems that all these different actors have their own agenda for fighting and in some cases targeting groups with similar interests.

The civil war in Syria is in its fourth year and many other actors have been drawn into to conflict since it began in 2011. The most divisive has been the so called Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), who have occupied large territory in both Iraq and Syria. ISIS seems to be fighting on a number of fronts and against a number of actors or states. They have declared war against anyone who does not support their extremists’ views and have committed many atrocities in Syria, Iraq, Turkey, Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Paris and many more places.

The dimensions of the Syrian civil war have changed over the past few years, with an increased focus in defeating ISIS, and even more so since the latest attacks in Paris, Beirut and the Sinai Peninsula. Since these recent terrorist attacks, member states of the United Nations Security Council have voted to call for the international community to use "all necessary measures" to fight ISIS. Russia has also since September this year in support of the Syrian government started targeting ISIS and on many other occasions attacked other rebel positions. Also, since the 13^th November terrorist attacks in Paris, French has sent an aircraft carrier to the region, doubling their efforts against ISIS. In the United Kingdom, there is a debate on if RAF jets should begin participating in targeting ISIS in not just Iraq, but also Syria. Speculation is that the UK will have to get involved, although some politicians and commentators are still sceptical of this action. 

With so many different groups and countries involved in the Syrian civil war, the issue of how to end the conflict and defeat ISIS and other extremists is becoming more urgent, but also difficult, as the years and months go by. There have been opportunities for the international community to step in and halt the conflict, but concrete action has failed every time. The United States and its western allies, who support the moderate Syrian rebels, want Bashar al-Assad to step down, and for a transitional government to take over, but Russia disagrees with this plan, as they view Assad’s government as the only group to keep stability and order in Syria. Also, Russia has other more economic and strategic interests in maintaining support for Assad.

The options that I think will need to happen to bring peace and stability to Syria, is, first a global effort that includes Russia and Iran to work as a coalition of nations to combat the threat of ISIS around the world. Second, for renewed efforts from all actors involved in the Syrian conflict to find a peaceful resolution. All that ISIS are doing is using the political vacuum left because of the Syrian civil war to create a so called caliphate in the middle East and attack its enemies.

To prevent further incidents like the one on Tuesday there needs to be a better understanding and cooperation between NATO members and Russia. Having two separate operations to combat ISIS will not be effective and may lead to further cases of shooting down of each other’s aircraft. The issue is that the western coalition does not agree with Russia’s support of Assad, which is undermining efforts to bring peace to Syria. So until there is more cooperation between all sides, defeating ISIS and bringing peace to Syria may be a lot harder to achieve.       

U.S Naval Presence Increasing Tensions in the South China Sea

Over the last few weeks’ tensions between the People Republic of China and the United States has hit a new level in relations between the two superpowers. In the last week or so, the U.S has sent a naval destroyer USS Lassen within the Chinese claimed 12-mile exclusion zone of the Subi reef. 

The issue of contention with this act by the U.S and protest from the Chinese government is linked to the ongoing dispute over a number of small islands and reefs in the South China sea. China along with the Philippines, Malaysia, Brunei, Vietnam and Taiwan have been at loggerheads for many years and even decades over sovereignty of these islands and reefs. In recent years China have built man made islands and placed runways and other structures on them, claiming their right to do so, even though under international law these specks of land or reefs are in international waters.

A US State Department spokesmen John Kirby, has since the incident stated that the U.S navy was just exercising its rights of freedom of navigation in international water, as allowed under international law. The Chinese on the other hand viewed this as provocative and was not needed at such a time. I think that the action taken by the U.S maybe provocative and was seeking a reaction from the Chinese authorities, but was not in violation of international law or encroached the sovereignty of China. One U.S naval vessel passing by a group of man-made islands does not declare war or instigate increased tensions between the two superpowers, all that it seems to have done is show that the action of building artificial islands on undeclared reefs as provocative for a long term solution to the dispute.

With at times high tensions between a number of countries in the region all claiming territorial rights over many of the islands and reefs, with China having the largest claim, the ongoing dispute needs a solution found for the good of international peace and security. The waters in the South China sea are major trading routes with large amounts of ships passing these islands and reefs every day. So what needs to happen to prevent a major incident involving casualties is first, for China to halt the reclaiming and building of artificial islands and structures in the disputed area, and second, for all the countries involved to organise an international conference to find a compromise in regards to claims over the area. With the U.S stating that they will not back down, and will carry out further ‘rights to freedom of navigation’ in the South China sea, this could lead to military to military confrontation, if agreement over the islands and reefs are not found.                      

Changing Dimensions of the Syrian Conflict

The conflict in Syria is over four years old, with no signs of an end in the increasing violence and death toll.

The continuing conflict has forced millions of people to seek protection in other countries. As Europe has witnessed large amounts refugees from Syria, bringing to the realisation that it is not just a regional concern but also an international one. As I have written about in earlier posts, the international community has not effectively found a solution to ending the conflict. The United Nations Security Council has been divided, with Russia and China vetoing four key resolutions aimed at putting pressure on the Syrian government to put an end to the violence and negotiate peace.

Now we have a situation where the Assad regime has managed with the support of Russia to keep control of much of the strategic areas of Syria, including the major coastal towns and cities. Reports over the last few weeks have speculated increasing assistance to the Assad regime by Russia, as a number of jets, hundreds of personnel and other military equipment have been sent to an airbase in Latakia. The Russian's have claimed that these forces are not intended to support Assad's forces, and even the U.S Secretary of State John Kerry stated that this increase  is just for protection of Russian forces already in Syria, although Kerry was concern of future intentions of an increasing Russian military presence in Syria. This concern by America seems more of a risk that the U.S led coalition and Russian forces could accidentally come into conflict, rather than issue of Russian troops and equipment present in Syria. This renewed military buildup by Russia comes at a time when the U.S and its allies step up their own campaign not against the Assad regime, but Isis, who have been gaining a foothold in the continuing violence and instability.

The conflict in Syria has changed the dimensions of the international community’s response, with focus turning to combating extremist forces within Syria, rather than trying to remove Assad or finding a solution to ending the conflict. This war against Isis has become the key strategy of the international community with increasing emphasis by the U.S and other countries including Australia and the UK. In respect to Australia, in the last few weeks Royal Australian Air force jets have begun bombing Isis forces in not just Iraq, but also Syria. The UK on the other hand limited its role to just fighting Isis in Iraq, but there is speculation that in the next couple of months Parliament could decide to authorise airstrikes within Syria. It’s all well and good that the international community is fighting against extremists groups like Isis, but this is only one actor in the conflict, there needs to be a refocus towards  either renewing pressure on Assad to step down or working with the Assad regime to finding a solution to bring peace to the people of Syria.    

The case of Syria is now proving that if conflicts of such a nature are not solved early, even though from the beginning this war had many dimensions from multiple actors internally and externally, there should have been a larger emphasis for the root causes of the spread from protest to all out civil war. These causes in my mind was Assad and his regime. The sad thing with Syria, was that Russia has been a longtime supporter of Assad and his regime, meaning that the UNSC were unable to influence the Russians to support the stance of majority of the international community towards placing pressure on Assad. Even China's long term policy of non-intervention played a key role in its decision not to agree with the resolutions tabled by the west.

So the outcome at present is that we have an outside extremist group in ISIS which stems from the occupation of U.S led forces and conflict Iraq, increasing its hold on large parts of both Syria and Iraq. The extreme  views and violent tactics of ISIS have become more of a concern to the international community, leading many countries to be dragged into a U.S led coalition to fight extremism from the air. This conflict in Syria and the instability in Iraq has spread from a mostly regional issue to an international concern. Europe at present is witnessing the fallout of such a spread of violent conflicts, with hundreds of thousands of refugees from Syria fleeing to the continent.

In the last week or so, many world leaders or senior foreign advisers have come out and stated that for any future peace in Syria, will require the international community to negotiate with Assad. The possibility of a transitional government with Assad as part of it has been considered for any future peace in Syria. I think in the reality of the present situation in Syria, dropping the opposition to Assad by much of the international community would be wise for future peace and stability. Assad seems to be in a strong position, especially with Russian forces inside Syria, and he has shown that although the west are against him, he still has enough allies in Russia and Iran to hold on to power. It’s hard to predict in what capacity Assad would contain in any future transitional government. Course you would think that Russia and Iran would want Assad and this regime to contain much of the control and decision making positions. On the other hand, the true Syrian opposition forces and the west would want Assad and his government to maintain a limited position. Thus, any future negotiations would require a delicate balance, which would legitamise the concerns of the majority Sunni population, as well protect the many minority groups, including the Alawite’s. The next few months will be decisive on how the Syrian’s achieve with assistance from the international community a path of long term peace and stability.  

Russia is taking on the West again and is winning: but for what?

The situation in Ukraine has become a major concern for Europe, if not the rest of the world. Russia, after over 20 years since the collapse of the Soviet Union is flexing both its diplomatic and military muscle in a region which they view as their sphere of influence. The last few months has shown the international community and more specifically Europe and to some extent the United States, that Russia has reemerged from its post Cold War slumber and it means business.

President Putin must be under the view that with Russia’s control of oil and gas supplies too many European countries that he has them wrapped around his little finger, and he would be correct. Even with sanctions against members of his regime, Putin has not backed down taking on Europe and the US, and currently seems to be winning. The European Union is divided on taking further, more aggressive action because of oil and gas, and the only thing that is preventing a full invasion by Russian forces is NATO. Although Ukraine is not a member of the organisation, many surrounding states are, and NATO is indicating, even without officially stating, that they are willing to intervene, militarily if necessary. Since March this year NATO aircraft have been patrolling and monitoring close to the Ukraine Border, and member states have been conducting training exercises in the region, including 600 US paratroopers. 

The current state of affairs in Ukraine, are indicating, that Russia acknowledges that although Europe and the US are looking weak over the situation in the region, that openly deploying Russian troops into Ukraine  will only strengthen and encourage stronger action by the EU and NATO. President Putin is playing a smart game of warfare, by supplying and encouraging pro-Russian rebels, even sending troops without insignia on their uniforms to assist, claiming, "It's all nonsense, there are no special units, special forces or instructors there,". The rest of the worlds of course dismiss this claim, as the rebels are well armed and trained.

I do not understand why Russia and more importantly Putin is staying on course with its actions in Ukraine. Putin speaks of protecting Russian speaking Ukrainians, but would he be still staying on course if Europe and the US were taking a more aggressive approach? I would say no. Does Putin want an all out civil war in Ukraine? Because as it stands it looks like becoming one, unless Russia backs away or Europe and the US take more active action against Russia.  

China needs to stop its Provocative Campaign in the East and South China Sea

Over the last couple of months there has been increasing tensions in the East China Sea between China, Japan, South Korea and the United States, along with  other countries in the region. The main issues are the growing rise of China as the new top dog in the region and a long standing dispute over a group of islands called Senkaku/Diaoyu which belong to Japan, but are claimed by a handful of other countries including China. Although the current crisis is over a tiny group of uninhabited islands that lay on top of gas and oil deposits, the main issue of concern not just to the region but also the international community is the rising power of China, who are on a campaign to flex its military and economic muscle.

The most recent example of China’s military and diplomatic flexing has been in the last few months, when they installed a Air Defence Identification Zone (ADIZ) over the disputed islands, and which overlaps Japan’s own ADIZ. This action by China requires all commercial and military aircraft to identify themselves with Chinese authorities when passing through this zone, but the US, Japan and other countries have rejected these requests and have conducted military flights in the area. Not much has been mentioned in recent weeks concerning the ADZ, and no reports of incidents over the matter.

Apart from the ADZ issue, the US and China navy ships have come close to colliding with each other in the South China Sea, near another group of disputed islands. Both countries have released statements blaming the other for the near miss, with the US saying that the Chinese ship was being aggressive towards their vessel which was in international water and the Chinese stating that the US ship was harassing the new Chinese aircraft carrier, as it was carrying out exercises. 

 On the matter of the dispute in the East China Sea, my understanding is that the Senkaku islands are a sovereign territory of Japan, as they were owned by a Japanese family for many centuries, and have recently been transferred to the Japanese state. I am not a lawyer, but one would think that international law would under this argument grant full sovereignty to Japan. Except no international organisation or country wants to deliberate on sovereignty rights, so this issue will drag on into the future.

The US has been dragged into the crisis, though quite willingly on the side of Japan, as they are allies, and also they want to keep a check on China’s new aggressive stance in the region. The US since the end of the second world war have been the main military force protecting its own national interests and its allies in the region, but since the rising economic and military power of China over the last couple of decades, the US has seen its status as the regions and even the worlds only superpower decline. China at the present acknowledge this change in the status que and have been taking advantage of a weaker US role in Asia and the rest of the world, but continuing in a campaign  of  provocative action against its neighbors will not advance stability in the region or win international support.

The Agreement over Iran’s Nuclear Program is a Good Place to Start

Last week Iran signed a deal with the international community, which will see them halt some of their nuclear program for six months, in return for over $7 billion of sanction relief. The plan is that this short term agreement will lead to a more permanent deal over Iran’s nuclear program. For more then three years, western powers have placed sanction on Iran, as they suspected that the program was for building nuclear grade weapons and not for peaceful means, as been stated by Iran’s officials. 

This deal, although not perfect has allowed for a more open dialogue in a long standing stalemate between Iran and the international community. The agreement also will allow more inspections on Iran’s nuclear facilities by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) during this six month period. Hopefully if Iran does keep its word, which I think they will, the country and its people will benefit greatly from increased investment and status in the world.

Since the signing of the agreement last week, many politicians in both Israel and the United States have been skeptical of such a deal, including Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, who said, “Today the world has become a much more dangerous place, because the most dangerous regime in the world has taken a significant step toward attaining the most dangerous weapon in the world.” And US Republicans and some Democrats are concerned that the deal has not remove Iran’s nuclear capacity.

I understand the concerns of what has been labeled a soft agreement by many, but in reality, the deal is better then further stalemate. In the end, nothing would be able to prevent Iran from acquiring a nuclear capability, other then military force, which in light of the current situation in Syria and other parts of the region, a military option would be unwise. Even President Obama seemed reluctant to go down that path. So a deal although soft in content, will hopefully lead to more future transparency by Iran on the issue of their nuclear program, and with such a big step for the conservative Clerics to agree to this deal in the first place, the signs seem good for a more permanent deal that will satisfy both Iran’s ambitions and the international communities concerns. And you never know this may bring better relations between the US and Iran.  

Why the United Nations System does not work?

Earlier this week I wrote a blog on the workings of the United Nations (UN) system, explaining the role and structure of the three main organs of the organisation. I am going to carry on with this theme of the UN, and explain why I think the system does not work.  

Over the last week leaders from member states have convened at the UN headquarters in New York, for the annual meeting of the General Assembly. One of the issues that would likely be discussed will be reform of the system, although I think and suspect others will likewise  that the UN system will be the same next year. Also, the situation in Syria will be centre stage, especially since a new resolution needs to be agreed upon by the UN Security Council (UNSC), concerning Syria’s agreed disarmament of its chemical weapons.

Most of the power within the UN system lies in the UNSC, where key issues dealing with maintaining international peace and security are discussed and decisions are made. Although each member on the UNSC has a vote and some influence in any decisions, the real power belongs to the five permanent states (US, UK, French, Russia and China), who all have vetoes over the decisions of the council. 

The problem with giving just five members state so much power in world affairs has led to the abuse of this system. Any issues discussed or draft resolution presented at the UNSC can be vetoed by any of the P-5, meaning that if this occurs, the thus resolution is not adopted. The conflict in Syria and the UNSC gridlock is a recent example, though there has been many more in the past, where P-5 members have vetoed draft resolutions even if majority of the global community are in agreeance. In the case of Syria, Russia and China has vetoed three draft resolutions presented to the council so far. Much of the reasons for a veto from a P-5 member are because of national interests influencing their decisions. Russia’s support for the Assad’s regime is evidence for my case, as they are steadfastly protecting the Syrian government at the UN, because national interest are trumping over any international criticisms. Russia has its only naval facility in the Mediterranean in the port city of Tartus, Syria, and also has many economic interests in the country, which they are unlikely to give up.

Another reason for vetoes is also due to the UN Charta, which advocates that all states have the rights to non-intervention and sovereignty over their territory. Russia and China for example have rejected any international intervention in Syria and in other cases, arguing that member states should not intervene in other member’s internal affairs.

Although I am using Russia as an example, the other P-5 states make decision on national interests as well. The US for example, in 1994 was reluctant to intervene in preventing genocide in Rwanda, because of the death of 18 American soldiers in Somalia a couple of years before, and public opinion and other concerns did not warrant the risk of intervening to prevent the killing hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians in Rwanda.      

With the power of the UN system in the hands of just five member states, who all have at times different interests, this has lead to indecision and gridlock on many occasions.

How the system is structured has effectively prevented appropriate responses and actions by the global community in avoiding or ending many conflicts.

As a former UK diplomat Carne Ross,  once said, "One of the very odd things that I experienced when I was on the Council, was that the one group of people you could guarantee would not be consulted on what was being discussed in the Security Council were the people most affected  So whether it's Iraqis, Kosovars, Sudanese, or Syrians their legitimate representatives would never get a chance to have a say on what they thought the Council - what the world should do,"

To conclude I would like to say that the UN does have its merits in promoting development and providing humanitarian aid, along with health and education to millions across the world, sometimes on a limited budget.  

The Workings of the United Nations System

The United Nations System (UN) was founded in 1945 in the aftermath of two world wars, and was the brainchild of the three victories nations of WW2,  the US, UK and Soviet Union (Russia), aimed at saving future generations from the scourges of war. The objectives of the newly formed organisation of states are to protect international peace and security by preventing the need for war, through a notion of cooperation and collective security. To achieve these objectives, the UN has two main organs (institutions), the United Nations Security council (UNSC) and the General Assembly (GA), along with a number of departments and agencies that deal with a range of issues from human rights to providing aid and development across the globe. The GA is in a way a world parliament, with almost all nations represented. Each member state has one vote, with a two-thirds majority required for any decisions on key issues such as admission of new members and UN budgets. Also decisions are non-binding.

The UNSC on the other hand does bind all member states to any decisions made by the council, and is the main organ given the powers to achieve the objectives of international peace and security. The UNSC is made up of 15 member states of which 5 are permanent, known as the P-5 (US, UK, French, Russia and China) and 10 non-permanent members who serve for two year terms. The UNSC is the main decision making body in the UN and has the role of deciding if the international community will intervene in certain conflicts by either adopting sanctions or deploying peacekeepers. For any resolution to be adopted requires 9 council members agreeing, although the P-5 can veto any decisions made in the council.

Finally there is the Secretary-General (SG) who is elected by the General Assembly on the advice from the Security Council. Their main role is mostly as the chief administrator of the organisation, although the charter does give the power of the SG  to bring to the attention of the UNSC of any issue that he or she thinks is of concern relating to international peace and security. The SG and his office also play the role of chief diplomat promoting international peace and security.        

Will peace finally come through Israeli-Palestinian negotiations?

Finally, after almost three years of stalemate over resuming talks over the peace process in the Middle East,both Israeli and Palestinian negotiators have decided that over the next nine months both sides will aim for a “final status” agreement (a final plan to bring peace).

The US Secretary of State, John Kerry, who has been mediating with both sides over the last few months, said "the two sides have agreed that all the final status issues, core issues, are all on the table for negotiation.” The thorniest of these are overcoming the status of Jerusalem, where the Palestinians want the Eastern part of the city to become their new Capital under a two state solution, but Israel have long argued that they are unwilling to divide the city. Also, the problem of drawing up a border to accommodate a Palestinian state, and the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank are major concerns for the negotiations. .As there are many core issues that will make the next nine months difficult for both sides to agree to a negotiated peace, but after decades of violence and mistrust, a final solution needs to be found.

I am no expert on the issue, but from what I have read and understood, there needs to be an independent Palestinian state on the West Bank and if both Hamas and Fatah can agree to unite, the Gaza strip as well. Only two separate states will bring peace to the region, as history has shown there is too much animosity between both sides for them to co-exist in the same country.

As for the issue of Jerusalem, Israel will need to agree to a divided city, where by any new Palestinian state would have East Jerusalem as its capital and the rest staying a part of Israel. The Palestinians would probably not agree to any peace plan that does not involve their new capital been East Jerusalem, as two holy Islamic buildings, the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa mosque are located there.  

Another major problem will be the drawing up of a border of a new Palestinian state, and incorporated in this is the issue of Israeli settlements in the West Bank. I think to overcome this issue, two situation will need to happen, firstly, Israel will have to halt all new construction of settlements, and secondly, for both sides to agree to land swaps. This could be difficult for Israel, as many right-wing coalition members in the government and settlers are unwilling to budge from their stance on not leaving the settlements, but for any peace deal to aspire this will have to happen.

I hope for future peace and stability in the region that these negotiations will not end like the Oslo Accords, where instead of agreement, there was mistrust on both sides, leading to a failed deal and more violence. This time the issues need to be resolved, because if not, the problems faced by both Israeli’s and Palestinians will become even deeper.

For short summary of some of the core issues of the conflict mentioned in this post visit: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-11138790