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.    

Another Failed Ceasefire in Syria

It seems that another ceasefire in Syria is crumbling even before it could get off the ground.

At the start of the cessation of hostilities on the 12th August, hopes that this attempt at peace, even just for a short period could at least last for the seven days, as was its intention, but this has not been the case. In the last few days, tragic incidents of violations by all parties to the conflict has meant that the ceasefire has failed in its stated goals. The most recent violation – been the targeting of aid convoys on their way to delivering urgent supplies to civilians in Aleppo – has all but destroyed any chance of a ceasefire renewal.  

The aim of months of negotiations between the United States and Russia, was for a cessation of hostilities between Syrian armed forces and opposition groups – excluding so called Islamic-State and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham – for seven days. As part of the agreement, humanitarian aid was to  be allowed to be sent to ease the suffering of civilians in the besieged city of Aleppo, and other areas of Syria. If the violence ceased for seven days, and there was access for humanitarian aid, both the U.S and Russia agreed to coordinate joint strikes against ISIS and Jabhat Fateh al-Sham.

When the agreement was announced, I was a little sceptical on the purpose of such a narrow and limited negotiated terms. Firstly, there seemed to be no plan for what would happen after the seven days, even if they were successful in their stated goals. I would assume that the U.S and Russia may both honour their agreed joint cooperation in targeting ISIS and other extremist groups – but what about Assad's siege of Aleppo – and his forces deliberately targeting civilians? Secondly, let's say humanitarian aid was sent to Aleppo, and other parts of Syria – but how long would lets say 20-30 trucks of food, water and medical supplies last – especially as Assad’s forces begin bombing again?  

As safe passage of humanitarian aid has not occurred and there has been violations of the ceasefire, the conflict looks likely to intensify over the next few days. I don’t think that the ceasefire will be renewed by either Assad or any of the opposition groups, especially as all sides have put blame on each other for its failure.

 

All that has seemed to occurred, is that mistrust between the U.S and Russia has deepened, especially since U.S-led forces accidentally bombed and killed 62 Syrian soldiers on Friday. This agreement was the first time in this conflict that both countries were planning to cooperate in joint action against jihadist groups in Syria. Although it would not resolve the main issue of ending the fighting between Assad and opposition parties, but at least it was a first step, that could lead to negotiations on the future governance of Syria.

Also, what the last week has signalled, is that  both these countries may not have as much influence over their respective groups they support, as we once thought. Russia has been unable to persuade Assad to allow access for humanitarian aid, a major point in the agreement. And as for the U.S, trying to make the more moderate opposition groups distance themselves from jihadist, seems difficult.

The question now is how can a new path towards peace be found in a conflict with so many complexities? The recent failed attempt towards peace, has only antagonised more mistrust between the U.S and Russia, and this will affect any future negotiations. What is required now is for both countries to renegotiate a new plan towards cooperation to jointly fight ISIS and other Jihadist groups, without unrealistic conditions. If U.S and Russian forces can fight together against ISIS – at least one element of the conflict could be resolved – perhaps leading towards a political solution in Syria. The main problem or sticking point in the conflict has been the jihadist fighters amongst more moderate groups, which has become a major concern for a lack of peace. Perhaps if extremist forces could be defeated or weakened, Assad might be willing, with persuasion from Russia, to reconsider his role in the future governance of Syria.   

The Race to the United Nations Hotseat

As we are gripped by the Presidential election campaign between Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton, another less newsworthy contest is taking place in another part of the United States, that been in the United Nations Headquarters in New York.

In the past 5 months, the International organisation has been in the process of deciding who will take over from  Ban-Ki Moon, as the next Secretary-General of the UN. All up 11 candidates have put their names in the hat to become the next chief diplomat and administrator of the UN. Six men and five women are contesting for the role–coming from different regions and backgrounds–some have formerly held elected office in their perspective countries or head of UN departments or other international organisations.

The process of choosing the next SG has changed slightly, with each candidate having the opportunity to be interviewed by members of the General Assembly (GA), and hold a live debate. This is the first time that such events have happened within the process of choosing a SG. Some might think that a candidate is elected by all UN members, but that is far from the truth, only the 15 members of the Security Council (UNSC), in behind closed door meetings decide in a number of rounds of what's called  ‘straw polling,’ on who they would present to the GA as their preferred candidate, who then technically rubber stamp the least objectionable person of the Permanent five UNSC members (P5: U.S, UK, France, Russia and China). So in reality the P5, especially the U.S and Russia come to some agreement on which candidate will best suit their own interests, rather than someone who can best manage the UN and deal with current and future crisis or events crippling the world.

Many UN analysts, commentators and the media predicted at the beginning of the process, that Irina Bokova of Bulgaria, the current head of UNESCO would likely become the next UNSG-but the former Portuguese Prime Minister and UN high commissioner for refugees António Guterre is leading the contest, with the most support among the UNSC members, after the first few straw poll meetings. Ms Bokova was seen as favourite, as there seems to be an unwritten rule that regions take turns to have a UNSG, and as a Eastern European has not held this position in the past, that it was time for a candidate from this region, for which Russia has supported this notion. Furthermore, there has also been support for a women Secretary-General.

Although Ms Bokova is well qualified and experienced, along with all the other candidates, but it seems the U.S and other member states are more inclined towards Mr Guterre, as the new UNSG. We must assume that the U.S own national interests lay with Mr Guterre, as a safe bet, rather than obliging to the calls for choosing  a women, and from a Eastern European state, by not considering Ms Bokova. Unless Russia begins to voice an outright rejection of Mr Guterre, and fully commit to having a Eastern European take the position, we will likely Mr Guterre or another male candidate as the next Secretary-General. If Russia does outright reject Mr Guterre, another candidate, Miroslav Lajcak, the Slovak foreign minister, has raced up to second position, and could become the preferred choice, if both the U.S and Russia are still at loggerheads.  

It is a shame that a women candidate could not be in serious consideration for the position, as it is about time that gender not be an issue when choosing the next head of the UN. Ms Bokova is as qualified and experienced as Mr Guterre, but due to past cold war animosities and the current international system, the U.S was always inclined not to proffer a candidate from an Eastern European state, especially Ms Bokova who has irritated the U.S in the past.  

So as it currently stands, a women candidate may have to wait till next time, as either the front runner Mr Guterre, or second placed Mr Lajcak are likely to become the next UNSG, unless no agreement is found over these two candidates, meaning we might get a surprise chose. The announcement of who takes over from Ban Ki-Moon should be made in November, and until then it will be interesting to see how far the U.S and Russia will go to block each others preferred  candidates. But at some stage over the next two-three months a compromise  will have to be made. Watch this space.  

The Forgotten Conflict in Eastern Ukraine

The forgotten crisis in Ukraine has not been fully resolved, even recent events have not been covered or mention in the main stream media.Though the Syrian conflict still makes the headlines, especially when major events occur, but for Ukraine, the two year conflict does not seem to appeal to our western concerns.

Yes, the fighting and death toll has decreased dramatically since the middle of last year, especially since the German/French brokered Minsk Protocol was agreed to by Ukraine, Russia and the separatist in February 2015. The Minsk agreement has set out a path to peace and stability in the eastern part of Ukraine in the Donetsk and Luhansk regions (collectively known as the Donbass). It called for a full ceasefire, local elections,withdrawal of heavy weapons and release of prisoners, etc. As stated earlier, reports suggest that until June this year, the fighting had subsided with just a few daily skirmishes between Ukraine and separatist forces. Though in the last two months, the fighting has become more tense and reports of casualties has increased, leading to the UN Human Rights chief condemning both sides, for 69  civilian casualties in June and 73 in July.

The situation on the ground seems volatile and could spark renewed heavy fighting by both sides, especially since further steps have not been put in place to meet the requirements of the Minsk Protocol. What should have happened already was for a plan to hold local elections, but the Ukrainian government have not been able to past legislation in Parliament, and the ceasing of fighting, including the withdrawal of heavy weapons and for foreign soldiers or mercenaries to leave Ukrainian territory, though there has not been enough progress on any of these issues.

On the issue of foreign soldiers and mercenaries fighting mainly on behalf of the  separatist forces, but also Ukraine, is a contentious point in the conflict, with Moscow denying that any Russian soldiers were officially fighting alongside separatist forces, until end last year, when President Putin announced that some specialist military intelligence personnel have been present in Eastern Ukraine. Although Putin has stated limited military support for rebel forces, evidence suggest that regular Russian military personnel have been fighting along with Pro-Russian forces in Eastern Ukraine.

The presents of Russian armed forces or other military support will not allow for a situation of stability, it will rather add more fuel to the fire. This also goes for NATO’s military support for Ukraine. The best thing that Russia and NATO members could undertake is to assist in bringing peace and stability in Ukraine, by agree to a reduction or even a full withdrawal of support to either side of the conflict. Though in reality, such actions will unlikely transpire, as the conflict in Ukraine goes beyond the situation on the ground. The battle is more like Russian sign of  dominance in the region, and western counter action, rather than events in the Donbass and the Crimean Peninsula.     

As the representative of the separatist, Denis Pushilin, has announced in recent days, that unless Ukrainian forces withdraw from the ‘contact line,’ there could be a resumption of the fighting. The Ukrainian government have also claimed various violations by Russian backed rebels. So as it currently stands, progress towards future stability and long term peace in Eastern Ukraine seems to be in jeopardy, unless all the measures of the Minsk Protocol are met. What needs to happen now is for both sides to withdraw their forces, especially heavy weapons from the ‘contact line,’ and cease the targeting of civilians.

As for the Ukrainian government, constitutional reforms and planned local elections in the Donbass needs to be put in place, giving some autonomy to the region. Though, as the current situation stands, many politicians in Kiev are unwilling to agree to these constitutional reforms, which is just fuelling renewed fighting in the region. Without an agreement in the Ukrainian Parliament, the long term future stability of Eastern Ukraine will just spark continued civil conflict between pro-Russian and Ukrainian sections of the population.

To end the two year crisis, firstly, full implementation of the Minsk agreement must occur and be respected by both sides, and secondly,  outside influence must change tact from power rivalry to assisting towards a solution of stability and peace in Ukraine.

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.       

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.  

What a Mess in Crimea

The situation between Ukraine and Russia is becoming messier day by day. Both sides seem to not want to back down on their positions on the future of Crimea, but are causes not to inflame into all out conflict, which would not benefit either country. The issues that have deepened the ongoing political divide has turned from Ukraine removing its former pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych in February, to an almost invasion of Crimea, a sovereign area of Ukraine by Russian forces and more recently a referendum on the future of the Crimean peninsula.

The referendum held on Sunday was a convincing coup for Moscow with almost 98 percent of the 1.8 million eligible voters deciding to break away from Ukraine and rejoin the Russian Federation. The only problem now is that Ukraine and its western supporters have declaired the referendum and outcome as illegal and that the international community will not recognise a independent Crimea or reunification with Russia.

Since Sundays vote, the United States and the European Union have placed economic sanctions on a number of key politicians and other individuals from both the Ukraine and Russia, in a bid to punish and put pressure on Moscow. In a statment from the White House which stated, "Today's actions send a strong message to the Russian government that there are consequences for their actions that violate the sovereignty and territorial integrity of Ukraine, including their actions supporting the illegal referendum for Crimean separation.'' All is well that sanctions have been placed on some Russian politicians, but there effects on resolving the political and military stalemate I think will not succeed. Although some key members of Russian politics have been targeted, the major decision makers in Moscow including President Putin have not been punished. These sanction, I think are just a token gesture of support for Ukraine and a limited act in a changing global power shift. The US and it European allies have shown how powerless they are in resolving the situation in the Ukraine and Russia know that their actions will probably not face any major consequences.

As to date, the people of Crimea have decided that they want to be part of Russia, and Moscow supports this action. From the view of the international community, I think that they are not in a position to confront Russia or prevent Crimea from gaining its independence. At this stage, to much is at stack for many European states who have economic and political interests in Russia and would likely prevent any further action other then what is in place.

I think that the only way to resolve the current situation is for the international community and Ukraine to allow Crimea to break away from, as been decided by majority of the population. Although western government will need to booster support for Kiev in a bid to strengthen the economic and political relationship between Europe and Ukraine. Where for the best interest of Russia, they should take the vote on Sunday as a victory and remove all its military forces, as well as stop meddling in Ukraine's politics.

What a Shambles the Sochi Games have become

Only a few more days till the opening ceremony of the Winter Olympics in Sochi, Russia, with thousands of athletes and spectators arriving in mass to compete and watch the games, that have been criticized by many, both in Russia and globally.

These games have been reported to have cost around 30 billion pounds, although the exact amount has not been officially released by the organizers. If it’s true, the games in Sochi would be by far the most costly; even three times the amount London paid to host the 2012 summer games. That is a lot of money for a country that is still trying to develop into an economic powerhouse, where large sections of the population still live in conditions much like in the old Soviet days.

Apart from the huge cost of holding the games, reports of corruption and abuse against the tens of thousands of foreign workers brought into construct the venues for the games has shown the world what a shambles these games have become. Some of the International Olympic Committee and others have concerns that billions have been pocketed by developers close to President Putin and other key officials. On top of the reported corruption, abuse and non payment of foreign workers have highlighted the lack of respect for human rights that Russian officials and game organizers have.

The number one concern just days till the event kicks off is the threat of a terrorist attack, from a number of possible groups or individuals with grievances against the Russian state. At this event Al-Qaeda are not of concern, but more home grown terrorist threats are. Sochi is only a few thousand miles away from the Chechen border, where Russia has been fighting a brutal guerrilla war against separatist rebels for a number of decades. Various groups from Chechnya and others have threatened to target Sochi and the games. Earlier bombings in other cities nearby in December and January have shown what threat these games are under, even with such a large security presence.

President Putin and the organizers can not take all the blame, the IOC has also some criticisms concerning how bidding cities and countries are granted hosting rights. I do wonder at times how certain cities and countries are selected to hold major sporting events. Much like FIFA’s granting of the 2022 World Cup to Qatar (a country with a bad human rights record, especially against foreign workers, and weather conditions not suited to holding a football event during a northern summer), Sochi is also a bad choose for holding a Winter Olympic games. As mentioned earlier, Russia does not have a good human rights record, corruption has been rife through out the seven years since been granted the games, there are major security concerns due to the close proximity to the Chechen border, and on top of this there is not enough snow fall in Sochi, compared to past winter Olympics.

This is not the first Olympics that the IOC has granted to a county been accused of major human rights abuses and perceived inability to stage an international sporting event. In 2001, the IOC granted the 2008 summer games to Beijing, China, for the first time in its history. Although, the games went without any major security or other incidents, except for the pro Tibetan protests during the Olympic flame relay, the games were some what overshadowed by China’s bad human rights record, corruption during the organization of the games, and restrictions placed on  the international press and spectators.

Perhaps the IOC and other international sporting associations should consider more carefully which cities and countries will host major sporting events in the future. I do acknowledge that all courtiers have the rights to hosting these events, not just a select few, but stricter criteria perhaps should be placed on a bidding nation. I think that this would further encourage perspective countries to address issues of security, human rights and corruption concerns, which many of the recent major sporting events have experienced.       

The international community will probably never know the exact  extent of corruption or human rights abuses, but already the Sochi games have shown what a shambles they have become and show signs of continuing on this path, although I do hope for the athletes sack, who have been preparing for four years, and travelling spectators that all goes well.

Ukraine would benefit more if it signed the European Union agreement

Since November 2013, the Ukrainian capital Kiev and other city across the country have become almost war zones with hundreds and thousands of people protesting against President Viktor Yanukovych and his government. In more recent protests, a number of people have been shot by security forces, with many police and other protesters been injured.

The reason for large parts of the Ukrainian population rallying against  Mr Yanukovych and his government, is over his decision last November to join the Russian customs union rather than sign a European Union  partnership agreement been negotiated over the last few years. It seems many people in Ukraine wanted the country and its leaders to become closer to the EU block, rather than with their former Cold War allies Russia.

If Ukraine had signed the EU agreement, it would have, in my opinion, had a much brighter future, and would have opened up more opportunities to integrate with the rest of Europe and the international community. Now the deal with Russia will further isolate the former Soviet state, and weaken its economy even further. Although Russia has offered a range of economic sweeteners, from debt relief and investment, in the long run the deal will probably benefit Russia, rather than help develop Ukraine and its economy.

Putin’s plans for a re-emergent Russia on the international stage became a step closer with this deal with Ukraine, the largest and most populous nation from the former communist block. Keeping Ukraine and other former Soviet countries like Moldova, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan and Georgia within its sphere of influence has become an important priority for Putin and the Russian state, with counter negotiations for these countries to join its own customs union. Armenia, for example, has rejected the EU deal and has signed on to the Russian customs union, with Moldova and Georgia still negotiating with the EU on a similar partnership agreement rejected by Ukraine.

Let’s hope that other former Soviet states look beyond pressure from Russia, and sign up to the EU agreement, which will benefit their economies and people in the long term, rather then any deal that Russia can offer.                 

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.