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.

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.

Mugabe’s planned "indigenization" will not help Zimbabwe

It has been a few weeks since the disputed elections in Zimbabwe, where the long standing President Robert Mugabe won a landslide victory over his main rival Morgan Tsvangirai in the nation's presidential election. On top of retaining power, Mugabe’s party Zanu-PF won two thirds of the seats in the parliament, giving him and his party majority rule and the legal right to change the constitution. Although, Mr Tsvangirai’s opposition party Movement for Democratic Change (MDC) have taken the election  result to the constitutional court, as they argue of widespread election fraud.

As the decision to make the election result legitimate or demand are re-election still in the hands of the court, President Magabe has come out earlier this and stated that he will carry on with the plan to make all companies in the country be under the control of the black Zimbabweans. As with the taking over of white farms and given to the black population, the economic control over many foreign or local companies was a major campaign issue supported by many rural Zimbabweans, where much of Magabe’s support comes from.

This policy of "indigenization" I think will have major effects of the stability in Zimbabwe, both economically and socially. Forced eviction of white farmers and companies owned by the white population will further cripple the economy. Also as many companies, especially in the mining industry are owned by foreign firms, this policy of making them be under the control of black Zimbabweans could drive existing and future investment away from the country, as investors may be frightened because of an ant-white agenda impacting their business interests, which would not help improve the poor economy or the standard of living of the people in the long run. In stead of committing the same offences as the former British rulers, and then the white rule under Cecil Rhodes, where land was taken from the black indigenous population and given to the colonizers, the government should work with the white owned companies and farms to improve economic stability and assist in empowering the black population through education, rather then racial alienation. 

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  

North Korea is playing dangerous games

Over the last few weeks North Korea has been playing dangerous power politics with the international community, especially with South Korea (ROK) and the United States (US). Pyongyang has been releasing statements declaring renewed hostilities against the South. North Korea has back up their verbal rhetoric with a buildup of military forces along the border with South Korea and threats to strike at US military bases in the region.

In the past few days, North Korean authorities have further increased tensions with the South by closing the border to South Koreans who are working at the joint Kaesong industrial facilities just inside North Korean territory. About 50,000 North Korean workers and a few hundred South Koreans managers work at this facility, that was set up to foster better relations between the two nations, and to allow the manufacture of cheaper South Korean goods.

These incidents show the same old rhetorics and threats that seem to occur every time there are joint ROK-US military exercises and/or new sanctions placed on the regime, although on this occasion North Korea has stepped up its rhetoric by actively threatening to attack both the US and cross the border into the South. 

Pyongyang have declared a ‘state of war,’ by actively cutting of communications with the officials in the South and amassing troops on the border  the North would be unwise to further the tensions with South Korea and the US, an active conflict would not benefit both the regime and the people of North Korea. 

It seems to me that Kim Jong-un, who has only been in power for less than 15 months, is trying to show the rest of the world and his fellow countrymen  that North Korea are not threatened by the US and its allies and have the will and capability to defend its territory. 

I think that the actions of Kim Jong-un is just verbal rhetoric, even a protest against new sanctions placed on the regime after last year's Nuclear tests and the annual joint military exercise just taken place on their doorstep. It's another case of North Korea barking louder, but a bite is unlikely.

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.                  

The Syrian crises no closer to a solution

The crisis in Syria has taken another turn, with the United States (US) new Secretary of State John Kerry announcing that America, along with other nations are planning to give further aid to the more moderate faction of the opposition rebels to help them overcome President Bashar al-Assad’s regime. Kerry has stated that no weaponry will be given to Syrian rebels, in fear that they may end up in the hands of the extremists, instead armoured vehicles and training could be provided.

As a meeting in Paris is about to take place between Syrian opposition representatives and the international community to discuss giving further aid to the rebels, the fighting does not seem any closer to ending, in a conflict where about 70,000 people have been killed.

Increasing humanitarian aid and providing limited military material to a divided opposition with many different interests is all well for the present situation on the ground in Syria, but long term strategies are needed to prevent further deaths and regional instability. The body armour, vehicles and training been reported to be included in the assistance package could assist in saving the lives of the rebel fighters from attacks on the ground, but would not help them from strikes from the air.

Although I do agree that weapons should not be provided to the rebels, I do however think air cover, in the name of a no-fly zone, similar to the one put in place over Libya by British and French fighter jets, should be provided by the international community. Half the battle would be won, if rebel forces did not have to worry about being attacked from the air, and a no-fly zone could pressure either Assad to back down and negotiating with the opposition coalition or bringing the conflict to a quick military ending.

I acknowledge the fact that Russia as a permanent member of the United Nations Security Council (UNSC) supports the Assad regime and have vetoed past efforts to install a no-fly zone and for foreign military intervention in Syria, arguing that outside military interference will not solve the conflict, but instead inflame the already volatile situation. However, I disagree with Russia’s argument, as over the last 18 months or so, rebel groups have not got any closer to ousting Assad and peaceful negotiations have failed after many attempts. Although the reasons for Russia’s support stem from them having a naval base in Syria, more effort by the international community to persuade Russia to support a no-fly zone over Syria and to pressure Assad to negotiate with opposition forces should be a major priority. 

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.