The Last Seminar: Democracy's Fall in Turkey

In reflection, my last seminar was a rather daunting yet enjoyable closure to three years of undergraduate study at the University of Exeter. Indeed it followed a similar pattern to all my contact hours, as very few had read the readings, the presentations seemed to drift over the class, and it ended with a rather broad discussion about democracy. If you do not know the readings just ramble on about current affairs, it works every time.

Equally, when stating my views on democracy promotion in the Middle East I caused a little bit of tension as usual. Brilliant. I enjoy when someone in the class decides to make it their mission to prove that you are wrong, and quite often they do this in a somewhat belligerent manner. However, if I have learnt anything in three years it is that facts can be drawn from many different sources, some truthful and other's simply made up with conviction. If you feel that it is wrong then research it, politics students are adept at making things up.

The question was 'Is it right to pinpoint China as the state to democratise?

Basically, should we be embarking on a global policy or targeting China because we believe that once it falls the rest of the authoritarian world will follow?

There are arguments for both sides -

If we succeed will it be a proper democracy? There is difference between having elections and them being competitive, fair, free, and regular. If we based a democracy on simply elections then Afghanistan, Syria, and North Korea are little fledgling democracies. Only this month Kim-Jong-un won 100% of the votes in his district... he must have a superb campaigns team.

Yet, China supports North Korea economically and under a democracy perhaps it may begin to impose sanctions? This would make the regimes stability very weak and may lead to the end of the current dictatorship. The fall of North Korea would weaken the stability of other regimes as North Korea is seen by the international community as the most repressive state.

And so on....

Could this vital trade recede under a democratised China?

So you are probably wondering what I said to ignite the class in fevered discussion?

Simply, I noticed that democratisation tends to follow where American interests lie. Whether that is in South America, the Middle East, or Central Asia. No one disagreed with that. But, when I added that perhaps democracy does not suit the Middle East due to a different culture I may as well have been in court.

'What do you mean?' they heckled. 'You are simply regressing back to orientalist thought.'

However, yesterday I felt vindicated from this onslaught by the Turkish governments attempt to block twitter and YouTube. The AK party, the Justice and Development Party, was heralded as an example that democracy and Islam could work in the Middle East (or Near East). Yet, after this week many have been left wondering whether this will ever become a reality?

So, do you think democracy can work in the Middle East?

As the war rages in Syria, Egypt is unstable, and the Gulf states maintain their rule with the proceeds from oil, democracy's future has never looked more turbulent.

Is Germany the Key to a Resolution in the Crimea?

Germany could be the main deal broker in the current politics surrounding the independence of Crimea suggests Steve Szabo, Executive Director at the Transatlantic Academy.

Watch this video for a comprehensive overview of the resolution to a possible political solution. It is only roughly six minutes of your life that offers a different view on the crisis. Worth it? I think so.

Does Merkel and the German state present a chance for resolution?

NATO and Tribal Elements in Afghanistan

For the media to portray Afghanistan in a manner easily understood by a wider audience they must inevitably reduce the complexities of the local and tribal relations to broad locations and groupings. For instance, stating that the Pashtuns largely occupy the south of Afghanistan and the north of Pakistan; whilst the Haraza, Aimak, Uzbek, Tajik, and Uzbek occupy the North. This is overly simplistic as shown by this map:

Note the pockets of Pashtun throughout the North (The light green colour if it is hard to see)

(The Pashtun pockets originate from the rule of Amir Abdur Rahman who uprooted many tribal communities with the goal of strengthening the central government and deliberately weakening the tribal system. He was a Pashtun himself but he resettled various Pashtun tribes and subtribes as punishment for rebellion or to use them as counterweights against hostile non-Pashtun tribes or ethnic groups.)

On the one hand, rather than analysing local tribal factors, it is this broad understanding that NATO and Afghan government forces have based their counter-insurgency policy upon. The work of Robert Gonzalez reiterates this understanding as he contends that a misguided focus on the ‘tribal’ features of Afghanistan is drawn from the ‘desperate political situation’ to identify a source of insurgency that may be rapidly resolved – tribes are ‘imagined’ collections of individuals.

Yet, this argument fails to appreciate the patrilineal segmentary lineage systems that operate in these regions for the ‘social structure of communities is based either on the tribe or the locality’ which unites together if faced by an external threat.

On the other hand, the Taliban use their pre-existing knowledge of tribes, subtribes, and clans to convince the tribes to co-opt and recruit local leaders who can convince their men to fight. The Afghan government has only served to deepen and strengthen this tactic through mismanagement, patronage, and corruption of local strongman not necessarily linked to the quam, a unit of identification and solidarity that could be based on kinship, residence, or occupation.

This is combined with an image of the U.S. and NATO that is at its lowest point since 2001 making the mobilisation of tribes on their side more unlikely.

Ergo, the US and NATO considered the Pashtun as a whole and failed to comprehend the vast web of tribes allowing the Taliban insurgency to rise within the population.

The International Criminal Court: Time for an Update?

Though debate on the use of capital punishment still simmers among some groups in the UK it was formally abolished in 1965. Further, on 18 December 2008 the United Nations adopted resolution 63/168, which is a reaffirmation of its call for a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (62/149) passed in December the previous year. The resolution calls for states to freeze executions with a view to eventual abolition.

However, where do we send all those notorious international criminals who cause the death, mutilation or disruption of thousands of individuals? 

The International Criminal Court (ICC).

However, few have been vocal in asking whether this institution is entirely practical in its role?

Often public services are measured on the premise of quotas, numbers and other forms of comparative study. Yet, it is reductionist to assess the ICC in this format least because there are insufficient benchmarks to compare the ICC’s work. And even comparisons between its work and the ad-hoc tribunals like the International Criminal Tribunal of Yugoslavia (ICTY) or the International Criminal Tribunal of Rwanda (ICTR) is problematic due to their differing structures, features, budgets, and jurisdictions.          

Time for an update?

Inspiration for this article?

I try to begin the day by catching up on the news, first on the BBC, then Reuters, and finally Al Jazeera. I find that comparing different news stations helps to present a more holistic interpretation of the world news. Also, I find the blogs on Al Jazeera offers an in-depth study into a certain niche part of economics, politics or humanitarian issues.

A recent blog on Al Jazeera by Haru Mutasa on whether the trial of Bosco Ntaganda, a warlord from the Democratic Republic of Congo, will make a difference to those terrorised, forms the inspiration for this article.

She questions whether the ICC fulfils its purpose, of discouraging crimes of the gravest manner, as many in the Democratic Republic of Congo realise that ‘the reality is even if he (Bosco Ntaganda) is found guilty and is locked way for the rest of his life, chances are someone will carry on from where he left’

Issues with the ICC

Atrocities are still occurring so it can be infered that the threat of conviction by the ICC does not discourage the leaders of these crimes. This could be because at the time the leader is hopeful that he will prevail and therefore not have to face any charges.

This is combined with the lack of a police force under the ICC’s control making them unable to enforce arrest warrants.  The warrants of arrest for Sudan’s President Al Bashir issued in 2009 and 2010 are unlikely to be enforced by a President against himself.

Formed after the First World War the League of Nations also lacked suitable methods of enforcement.

Hypocrisy?

With Uganda and the Democratic Republic of Congo the warlords have been implicated by the present presidents but the national armies have escaped investigation. Is it fair that one side escapes punishment even though in both states they committed acts of savagery?

For instance, President Yoweri Museveni of Uganda has on various occasions ordered his men to ‘shoot and kill the civilians’.

Focus on Africa

For an International Criminal Court the focus on Africa is hardly 'international'. If you visit the website the top bar is dominated by African states. Other states such as Sri Lanka should be considered further by the ICC.

Africa again? We need a more holistic outlook!

Recommendations

The ICC should:

• Remain independent
• Indict all guilty of crimes within a given state
• Push for major states to ratify the Rome Statute
• Make all aware that only crimes committed after 2002 can be investigated to limit false expectations from the international community
• Involve the Security Council to enforce warrants
• Empower courts in the states to try those of lower note and concentrate on those who conducted the gravest crimes

The ICC is a worthwhile organisation but with these improvements we can hopefully help to reduce some of the most abhorrent crimes. For the people of the Democratic Republic of Congo they need to see changes on the ground, not just a warlord removed and replaced by another.

We Extended Our Hand to Russia, but Instead We Got a Barrel: A For and Against for the Seccession of Crimea

The Crimean referendum on whether to split from the Ukraine and add another little portion of the world to the behemoth that is Russia will to be held this Sunday. Syria has regretfully faded from our thoughts as we seem capable of only focusing on war-torn state at a time (yet, it could be argued that it is Ukraine’s close proximity to our European Union and theoretically our sovereignty that has made this state’s condition such a concern) and the news is dominated by the yellow and blue of a tense Ukrainian situation.

There are a lot of difficulties with this conflict ranging from nuclear weapons, democracy, and revolution. For America and Europe to allow Russia to attack a state protected under their treaties, particularly the 1994 Budapest Memorandum highlighted by Ukrainian PM Yatseniuk, would demonstrate that America does not have the power to stand against Russia and presents an embarrassing conclusion to a difficult period of US foreign policy. To a lesser extent, Europe would be implicated under similar charges.

Furthermore, any sanctions imposed by the two partners are predicted to affect their economies as well. This is would constitute an unpopular move in our present economic situation; an aspect the UK is apparently well aware of when a picture of an important document urging against sanctions was leaked. How likely that this was an ‘accident’ remains to be seen.

Anyway, so instead of condemning the Russians in line with the present media I am going to have a go at justifying the unification of the Crimea into Russia. If I reach some sort of strong conclusion that it should not then maybe we, the West, should take a step back from the current state of affairs. Yet, if I fail then maybe we can conclude that perhaps the Crimea should remain in Ukrainian hands. 

For

A Whim

The Crimea was originally given over on a whim by the Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev, who was half-Ukrainian in 1954. The break-up of the Soviet Union 44 years later was not envisaged at this time so giving Crimea over to Ukraine was likely to not have been given due thought.

21^st February Deal

When the president fled Kiev, the opposition moved in to fill the power vacuum. But earlier that week, in a bid to calm the crisis, both sides had agreed a deal to restore the 2004 constitution and reduce the president's powers. That deal was signed by Mr Yanukovych and opposition leaders as well as by three EU foreign ministers - but fast-moving events soon rendered it out of date. It was not signed by the Russian official present.

Illegal

With all the discussions of illegal activity on the behalf of the Russian forces in the Crimea we should not forget that the Ukrainian Prime Minister was overthrown illegally after having won a democratic election. The cyclical issues related to revolutions repeating themselves due to being justified by previous successful revolutions.

Little left

Putin can claim a victory, but it will be pyrrhic. Moscow will have gained little it did not already hold: access to the Black Sea and military infrastructure in the Crimea. It stands to loose ties with the Ukraine so gaining the Crimea is hardly likely to benefit them.

Democracy

With talks about Scotland and independence we can see a similarity in the Crimea. If a majority of the region desire to join Russia then surely democratically they have the right to split from the Ukraine.

How long can Ukraine hold out in the face of a strong Russian occupation?

Against

UN security council

The UN security council meeting yesterday was typically a showdown between Russia… and every other state. Lithuania’s Permanent Representative to the UN, Raimonda Murmokaitė, summarised the thoughts of the UN clearly,

‘A referendum had never been set up so hurriedly and in such clear violation of Ukraine’s constitution.  The voices of many other ethnic groups in Crimea would not be heard through the referendum because it had only been planned because the Russian Federation was “fast-tracking” the annexation of Crimea.  As a result, one could only imagine the shudders being felt across the region, she said.  The Russian Federation had repeatedly expressed recognition of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity under existing agreements, yet the its actions violated the very foundations of international law, as well as regional and international security.  Nothing that had been said warranted or justified the Russian Federation’s actions, she emphasized, noting that Ukraine had repeatedly invited monitors in and had nothing to hide.  The crisis was deeply troubling because it had a highly explosive human dimension and risked unleashing the “most dangerous demons” of hatred, she warned, calling upon the Russian Federation to stop its “warmongering”.’

Democracy

The media has often cited the majority of Russians in the Crimea as a reason for Russian involvement. In fact, Putin has also argued that sending troops into the Crimea is to protect the Russian people. However, only 58.5% of the Crimea are Russian… so perhaps that majority is not so conclusive.

Economic sanctions

European leaders appear to be calculating that the damage to Russia would be far worse than to Europe. EU-Russian trade makes up 15 percent of Russia's economy and just 1 percent of Europe's. Although EU countries depend on Russian gas imports, storage tanks are full after a mild winter season. We have the time to hold sanctions in place.

Swings and roundabouts really but I would argue that Russia taking the Crimea makes more sense than the issues surrounding the West Bank.