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.    

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.

Aung San Suu Kyi's address at the Sydney Opera House

On Wednesday this week, Sydney was previledged to have Daw Aung San Suu Kyi address an enthusiastic crowd at the Opera House.

View a replay of this great event here:

How and Why the United Nations needs to be Reformed

Over the last month or so, I have been writing a number of blog posts on the United Nations (UN), focusing on the structure of the system and why I think it does not work. I have outlined some reasons for such, including too much power and influence in the hands of just 5 permanent member states (P-5). With the differing national interests and political ideologies, the UN, especially the UNSC is in need of reform.

For many decades there have been many discussions and debates on the issue of a requirement for reform of the UN system, but nothing as progressed beyond mere talking. There has only been one major change to the structure of the UN, and that was back in the 1960’s, when the UNSC increased from 11 members to 15, as to accommodate the increase in new member states during the era of decolonization. Apart from this increase nothing has changed.

Perhaps one area that could be reformed is broadening the participation in the UNSC. The international system has changed since the founding of the UN in 1945, and many more new nations have gained independence, with some increasing  their power and influence over the last 60 years or so. The current UN system has not allowed for this transgression of these major changes, and this can be argued as leading to the ineffectiveness of the UN. So perhaps what could be discussed and implemented would be to increase the number of permanent seats in the UNSC. It would be unlikely that any of the current P-5 members would give up their prominent place in world affairs, so they would still need to keep their positions. But giving for instance, Germany, Japan, Brazil and even India a permanent seat would acknowledge these changes in the international system and the rise in power and influence that these states now occupy on the global stage. Although, increasing the number of permanent seats in the UNSC may not solve the ineffectiveness of the organisation, and could further complicate its ability to maintain international peace and security, but it would make it more representative of the current state of world affairs.

Furthermore, to prevent national interests of the P-5 from been major considerations in the decision making process, and causes for stalemate in the UNSC, the power of veto could be removed from the hands of permanent members. Such a reform could be difficult to gain agreement from the P-5, as they would likely be reluctant to give up such power and influence that the veto brings them. But I think if the global community and more specifically the P-5 want to have an organisation that can effectively maintain international peace and security, there should be more equality for all member states, not just the privileged few.

The Iraq War was a waste of money and lives

This week a final report was released by the United States (US) inspector general for Iraq reconstruction concluding that the billions spent on trying to reconstruct Iraq after the 2003 invasion by the US and its allies was a waste of money and did not achieve much.

The eight years of occupation cost the US over $800 billion dollars in stationing hundreds of thousands of troops and reconstructing Iraq. On top of the economic expenditure, around 5000 American troops died, along with thousands more of Iraqis casualties.

The study was carried out as an audit on the overall expenditure by the US in this conflict over the eight years. The finding of the audit concluded that billions of dollars were wasted to corruption in both Iraq and the US and insufficient security, the money provided to rebuild Iraq was misused and did not accomplish the aim of improving the situation in Iraq.

The Iraq war had been a failure from the beginning for both American foreign policy and the future stability of Iraq and the entire region. Up until the invasion in early 2003, Saddam managed to stabilize Iraq and kept control of any ethnic or religious tensions, even if he had committed crimes against human rights. I agree that Saddam needed to be ousted from power, but I think it was an incorrect policy decision and strategy to firstly invade Iraq at a time were resources were required in Afghanistan and to remove all authority from power, including the dismissal of the police and military. 

The argument set by Bush and his administration, that Saddam and Iraq were linked to al-Qaeda and the 9/11 attacks was a misjudgement  The chemical and biological weapons that the US and other nations argued that Iraq possessed and were going to use to  attack its neighbours further were lies. All that seems to have been achieved by the war and the occupation was to fuel religious and ethnic tensions and further destabilize Iraq and the whole region.

Let’s hope this report on the cost of the war and reconstruction, along with the other inquiries conducted by the US and its allies will offer lesions for the reconstruction of Afghanistan and any other future decisions will assist governments to make better decisions in the future.                  

How peace can be achieved in Afghanistan?

Image source: WikiCommons, Photo credit: Sergeant Brandon Aird US Army 

As the date for the withdrawal of foreign forces from Afghanistan gets nearer, peace and stability still seems a long way off. By the end of 2014, less than two years away, most international combat troops are planning to leave, handing over the responsibility of securing the country to the Afghan National Army (ANA).

Although foreign forces hope to have further weakened the Taliban by the time they depart, reality on the ground seems to suggest that the Taliban will still have the capability to wage war against the Afghan government, who they view as puppets to the United States (US) and are corrupting the country.

Over the last few years their has been an international effort to bring both the Taliban and Afghan government to the negotiating table to discuss how to bring peace and stability, but on every occasion, disagreement or outright rejection by both sides has lead to a stalemate.

The most recent attempt to bring stability to the region was in early February this year when the British Prime Minister David Cameron held peace talks between leaders of Britain, Afghanistan and Pakistan, in a bid to bring stability to the region. Although many issues were discussed, but with out representatives of the Taliban not been present, the future peace and security were not solved.

Unfortunately, I don't think the objectives of the US and NATO to bring stability to Afghanistan and its people will be achieved, especially when any signs of peace talks by both sides seem unlikely in the near future. The Taliban are a disbanded force hiding out in Pakistan waiting to attack foreign and Afghan forces, and when international troops leave, they are likely to regroup and return to Afghanistan in a bid to either remove the Karzai government or take control over some areas of the country.

To bring peace and stability in Afghanistan will involve spending more resources to developing the countries non-existent infrastructure and helping the people, who many are drawn to the Taliban due to the corrupt and incompetent government. The international community also needs to end their interference into Afghan politics which feeds the corruption. Finally, all sides of the conflict, including the Taliban need to meet as equals to discuss how Afghanistan and the wider region can achieve long term peace and stability, if not this conflict could spread into regional civil war.

Another unfortunate truth is that all these solutions are unlikely in the current situation.

We need to talk about North Korea

The signing of the armistice in 1953 was to bring the Korean War to an end. However to this day, North Korea (DPRK) and South Korea (ROK) , with its ally the United States (US) are still technically at war.

For the past 50 years, the DPRK has had a succession of three leaders all from the same Kim family. The newest member, Kim Jong-un succeeded his father Kim Jong-il in 2011 as leader of this reclusive communist state. At 29 years of age, Kim Jong-un has carried on his fathers and grandfathers dogmatic rule over the North Korean people and have alarmed and confronted the international community.

At the death of Kim Jong-il, who was in power for over 20 years, the west thought the situation in North Korea may change, as Kim Jong-il’s sons were seen as more westernised and liberal, but Kim Jong-un seems as unpredictable and authoritative as his father. As Jong-un is inexperienced at ruling, there are suggestions that he is trying to play power games with the military generals to stamp his authority.

The continuing defiance against the west has been one strategy deployed to demonstrate Jong-un’s authority to both the people of North Korea and the international community. On Tuesday, the DPRK’s state news agency reported a planned underground nuclear test had taken place, and many surrounding countries had felt seismic activity indicating that there may have been a nuclear test, although no radiation has been detected so far to verify these reports. The DPRK announced that they had built and tested a more sophisticated nuclear device than the previous  attempts in 2006 and 2009, with more radioactive material been used. If North Korea had successfully tested a more powerful nuclear weapon, along with newly built long range missiles, they might actually become a more long term threat to the rest of the world.

After years of multilateral six-party talks ending in failed negotiations, the international community seems to have found no answer to prevent North Korea from spending resources on obtaining Nuclear capabilities rather then feeding its people, who have suffered decades of famine. Even many sanctions by the west have not stopped North Korea, but instead have made their leaders more determined to go down the nuclear path in fear of US aggression. 

Although at this point, western sanctions seems the most realistic strategy for the international community, but in the long term may worsen the situation for the people of North Korea, especially if China begins losing interest in propping up the communist regime, which I think will happen in the next few decades. One think that the world does not need, is an even more failed state as North Korea to contend with in the future. 

The Arab Spring still not over

Back in early December 2012, I wrote a blog post on the situation in Egypt, where the ideals of the ‘Arab Spring’were still been fought for.  Over two months later not much has changed in Egypt, and instability has even spread over to Tunisia, although reasons for a re-spark of the revolution are different.

Image source: WikiCommons Image credit: Mona

In Tunisia, where the so called ‘Arab Spring’ began,has descended into further chaos in the last few days. As we can all remember back in 2011, when a revolution succeeded in removing from power, former authoritative President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali, stability in that country would be achieved. But on Wednesday, Shokri Belaid a top opposition politician, known for his staunch criticism of the government was assassinated outside his home, sparking violent protest against the government. Also, labor unions across the country have called a general strike, not been seen in Tunisia since 1978, which crippled the countries economy.

Prime Minister Hamdi Jebali, as to calm the situation, asked for the Parliament to be dissolved, and for a forming of a technocratic government to solve the economic situation and bring stability to the country, but his government and other parties have rejected his requests. This has lead to four opposition parties walking out of the National Assembly in support of a new technocratic government.

It looks like the countries gripped by the ‘Arab Spring’ two years ago have not been able to achieve what the millions of protesters who took part were demanding. Although in both Tunisia and Egypt, authoritative leaders were removed from power after decades of brutal control, the power has just shifted to more Islamist oriented parties and the military.

The situation in both Egypt and Tunisia is just a process that both countries will need to go through to achieve stability, if that be full democracy or their own version. In almost every time in history where a nation has removed a long standing authoritative regime, stability has been a long violent process until peace has been achieved. Other nations around the world need to leave both Egypt and Tunisia to go through this process without hindering the situation, instead offer support when requested for future development and stability.            

Who has Sovereign Rights over the Falkland Islands?

The Falkland Islands, a self-governing British Overseas Territory just off the coast of Argentina does not get a mention much in geopolitics, but this small island with more sheep then people has been a contested piece of land for almost 300 years. 

Ever since Britain colonised the uninhabited islands in the early 19 century, Argentina has claimed sovereign rights over the Falklands and has even gone to war over this fact.

Back in 1982 Argentinean forces invaded the islands and occupied them for 74 days until a British task force reclaimed the Falklands with over 200 British and 700 Argentinean soldiers killed.

For many years after the war, relations between Britain and Argentina were strained with either nation willing to discuss the issue over the islands. But since the early 1990’s relations have improved, although there has been no formal negotiation over the future of the Falklands.

The problem with solving the sovereignty issue of the Falklands, is the reality that most of the 2563 inhabitants have British ancestry and view themselves as firstly Falkland Islanders and secondly British. The Argentineans on the other hand argue that the islands are historically and geographically part of their territory and should be given back. The British government has clearly stated that as the majority of the Falklands population wants to stay as part of Britain, they will not abandon the islands. The issue is further complicated with oil and gas reserves been found around the islands, which the British would be keen to keep hold of.

In the last few days the relationship between the two nations has been further strained, with the Argentinean Foreign minister HectorTimerman rejecting his British counterpart William Hague’s invitation tomeet Falkland Islandgovernment representatives in London next week. This snub, along with renewed calls from Argentine President Cristina Fernandez de Kirchner for Britain to agree with the 1965 United Nations Resolution, calling for a negotiated solution to the dispute, has increased tensions over the last few years.

I think that the best way to solve the issue of the future of the Falkland Islands is not on bringing up the past, but for all parties involved including the elected Falkland Islands government to begin formal discussions, leading to a long term agreement. From what a know of the situation, majority of the Inhabitants on the Falklands want to remain as part of Britain, and in March this year they will have the chance to vote in a referendum on if they will remain a British Overseas Territory or not. What ever is decided by the people, both Britain and Argentina should respect the wishes of the Falkland Islanders. 

How can the International Community Support Mali?

On the 11thJanuary this year French troops where sent to intervene in Mali, where the ragtag Malian forces have been fighting Islamist rebels who have taken control of much of the north of the country.

The Mali government under the interim President Dioncounda Traore, who came to power after a military coup in early 2012 to replace former President Amadou Toumani Toure, have been in a losing battle with a well equipped Islamist rebel groups. The Islamists have links to Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups.

Over the last few months the Malian army have prevented the Islamists from gaining further ground in the south of the country, but with division in both the army and government, rebel forces have moved within a couple of hundred kilometers from the capital Bamako.

This sudden advance by Islamist forces alarmed the international community, especially ex-colonial power French who are worried that Mali would become a terrorist safe haven in the middle of North Africa, if the Islamist takes control of the capital.

French sent an initial force of about 800 troops, with afurther 2000 to be sent over the next few weeks. Also some African nations have forwarded the plans to send a contingent of about 3000-4000 troops to Mali as part of a United Nations approved mission. On top of French forces, the US and other European nations have offered logistical support.

Over the last week since French and the rest of the international community has actively intervened in Mali on the request of the Mali governemt, there has been much discussion on how to deal with the problems in Mali and more respectively North Africa where there is a growing spread of Islamist groups linked to terrorist activities.

The western nations in Europe and the US do not have the stomach, even man power due to conflict in Afghanistan to commit large amount of resources to combat Islamist forces in Mali and North Africa.

The plan by the international community is indicating that they will help train the Malian army and the other African forces due to arrive as part of a UN mission, and offer logistical support. Although this strategy applies to the understanding that African nations have to rely on themselves to combat issues of weak government and Islamist activities in the region, but history tells us that relying on African nations to deal  with the many issues in Africa with only limited support from the international community will not solve the long term problems.

On the other hand European powers have in the past made Africa as it is today, but I think that if Africa, especially North African nations are to develop free from weak governments and civil war, western countries may need to take a larger role in actively supporting a better future for the people of Africa, including sending more then just a hand full of advisers and military trainers.    

The United Nations Millennium Development Goals on Education have been unrealistic

The other day, I read an interesting news article by the BBC discussing the issue of the Millennium Development Goals (MDG) on education and if these goals will be achieved by 2015.

Back in 2000, international leaders pledged that all children in the world would receive a primary education by 2015, but a recent report published by the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization(UNESCO) state that the goal will not be achievable by 2015.

Although the report argues that the amount of children receiving a basic primary education has increased since 2000, this has only happened in some parts of the world and not all. There are large parts of Africa that have seen no major increase in children receiving primary education.

Like all ideas, enthusiasm was there at the beginning, but as time passes, the will of the people achieving a conclusion fades over time (these people been the world leaders, and even us as global citizens). 

Perhaps, the goal of achieving universal primary education in 15 years was a little ambitious, and as history has shown, grand expectations take more then 15 years to achieve. Just look at the development of most industrial nations, it took more then a couple of decades to go from poverty to industrial powerhouses.

Funding and good governance seems to be the main problem in reaching the MDG on education. As the BBC article mentions, world leaders have been preoccupied with recent economic down turn and fighting terrorism, rather then increasing funding for global education. Also, a lack of good governance in many parts of the world has undermined much of the achievements so far. The persistence of war and corruption in especially Africa has prevented further efforts to achieve the goals setout by world leaders in 2000.

I think that we can provide universal primary education in the near future, but we need to be realistic on the time frame and the challengers ahead. There is no use for governments promising large amounts of money, without securing a framework to deal with issues such as good governance, peace and security, and global cooperation.