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.

Has Iran replaced Saudi Arabia in the Middle East?

America and Iran is meeting today to discuss the latter’s nuclear policy and future relations. This development in the international community is to be honest rather obscure and not a transition many predicted. The main question this article asks is why the pleasantries? What has changed in the region that has made America keen to engage with Iran?

Likely Allies? American and Iranian talks continue.

The Near East/Middle East (yes there is a difference) is evidently a complex web of state relations. A brief overview of the area is practically impossible but I will attempt below to layout the relational history of the states discussed in this article.

America and Israel – Typically strong allies as Israel has been seen as a bloc against the extremism so feared by the Americans. Yet, with the 24^th November 2013 Geneva Interim Agreement, which eased economic sanctions on Iran in return for a freeze on its nuclear program, the relations have worsened between America and Israel. With this second round of talks Israel is watching the development with intense focus.

America and Saudi Arabia – A checkered relationship typifies the relational foreign policy of these two states. The first conflict between the two states centred on the creation of Israel and since then it has been dominated by this issue, oil, and counter-terrorism. By partnering with Saudi-Arabia, America has reduced Arab defiance to the Jewish state.

Israel and Iran – In 1947 Iran was among 13 countries that voted against the UN Partition Plan for Palestine. Two years later, Iran also voted against Israel's admission to the United Nations, and showed tacit solidarity with the Arab states during the 1948 Palestine war. After the 1979 Revolution, Iran severed all diplomatic and commercial ties with Israel, and its government does not recognize the legitimacy of Israel as a state.

However, this is a broad overview. In reality the states all help and work against the other states in divergent ways. For instance, only yesterday an article was published on Israel attempting to sell arms to Iran.

Why Iran?

So why is America courting Iran when Saudi Arabia can provide the oil needed to keep its international dominance?

Simply, it does not have enough. The Saudi oil production is beginning to flatline and thus America is looking elsewhere for oil, mainly Iraq and Iran.

Saudi Arabia's Oil dominance is showing signs of waning.

With Iraq’s security issues, Iran is a tempting partner for American oil interests but is displeasing to Israel as demonstrated by this rather untactful article in ‘The Jerusalem Post’.

Though, Ayatollah, the Iranian Supreme :eader, is not optimistic about the talks today we should not read too much into this statement. After years of opposition it would be strange for Iran and America to become strong allies. Approaching the talks with scepticism simply safeguards the Iranian government against its developments and may help to further reduce the sanctions placed on Iran.

Furthermore, this is the not the first time the Americans have worked with the Iranian. During the Bonn Conference concerning the future of Afghanistan the Iranians were vital to securing American intentions (read After the Taliban: Nation Building in Afghanistan by J. F. Dobbins for an in-depth account of this period).

It is an interesting shift in politics in the region and I look forward to the progression in these talks. It may have a knock on effect for the talks on Syria as well.

Karzai Renegades on Allied Support

Two prisons both central to concerns over human rights. One prison released its inmates against American wishes and one prison holds 166 detainees despite being the focus of an executive order.

What is all this about?

In the news today 65 detainees of Bagram prison have been released by the Afghan government. Bagram has often been described as the Guantanamo Bay of Afghanistan and contains the alleged troop commanders, bombers and other notables of the Taliban forces. With the upcoming Afghan elections on the 5th April it is worth considering why Karzai has done this? It has affected the relationship between the American and Afghani government. So was it all worth it?

Discussion over Afghanistan's future centers on whether the Taliban will regain control of the region. Karzai is aware of the threat the Taliban hold and therefore seems to be edging away from the Americans to secure the progression he has made.

A few factors support this:

1. Karzai has backed away from signing the Bi-Lateral Security Agreement in November as he wishes to forestall it till after the next elections. Yet, this contradicts the Loya Jirga, a grand assembly of elders, who approved of the agreement and asked Karzai to sign it as soon as possible. The rational behind his refusal to engage in this agreement is likely linked to the calls by the Pashtun to take a harder stance against the Americans.

2. Aid is another concern. After skimming through the book 'War Front to Store Front' by Paul Brinkley I was surprised to learn that 60% of the GDP of Afghanistan is foreign aid, 30% is from the narcotics trade, and 10% is economic activity. Drawing conclusions from these figures, I consider Karzai to be concerned about is whether the government he leaves behind will function without American backing. If American backing is pulled from Afghanistan and the government is wholly reliant on it then it will collapse. Karzai is attempting to make the government independent from America to encourage other sources of economic support and growth.

Bagram is another disagreement between Karzai and America

What makes this situation challenging for Allied Forces is that they are unable to logistically plan for the future of Afghanistan. Do we continue to fight to secure what we have gained or do we except that we have lost the fight and leave it to the Afghan people to dictate their future? Will Karzai's attempt to distance his government from America help weakening his government and enabling the Taliban to gain further control?

Finally, how can America be so committed to removing Guantanamo Bay but then condemn Karzai's decision to close Bagram? Human rights and the hypocrisy we often breed is concerning.

Fallujah? Where's that?

I am about to begin my final term at university and cannot stop thinking about the ominous dissertation. For months I have been unsettled with my topic of ‘International Aid against Localised Aid and its Effect on Conflict Resolution’, partly due to this blog. Evidently, aid is a factor in conflict resolution but I wanted to write a dissertation which could illustrate how to resolve conflict in a state and then maybe the world. Yes, that is a pretty big task (and I am becoming slightly insane over it) but I feel that conflict has a framework just like any other political process. Each community must be assessed on its individual characteristics but most sources and resolutions of conflict will be apparent within its turmoil. Should conflict be resolved? That is a question for another day but it definitely needs answering.

However, with conflict dominating our news channels every day I thought I would have a go at writing a document that hopes to offer a framework for resolving it. It will not be the final answer, but maybe it will offer a step for another to offer a resolution.

So, that is the update on what I am up to, a warning to expect some more articles based on this theme and a plea for any point of views on the matter. All opinions welcome.

To kick start this attempt Iraq offers a perfect example.

Fallujah is Oh So Close.

Recently, the city of Fallujah has been working itself on to every news channel across the world. I know what you are thinking, it is a random city in Iraq that some insurgents have taken over. We have heard it all before. Stop. This city is only one hour’s drive from Baghdad. It is like insurgents taking over Oxford if it was a few miles near to London... that is too close.

Tad small, I would suggest googling it yourself if you are that interested!

The Centre

Utilising Clausewitz’s approach we can conclude that Baghdad is the centre of Iraq and that the centre of a state should be its safest region? It is after all the main residence of government officials and its’security forces. Subsequently, it is worrying that insurgents can strike at Baghdad, with over 19 killed on Sunday in bomb attacks, and occupy the south part of a city an hour away.

‘Mission Accomplished in Iraq’ said George Bush. I think not, as security in the region reaches a new low.

So why Fallujah? And what can be done to resolve the conflict?

Why?

Writing out ‘why Fallujah?' would take some time so succinctly it is the ‘Jerusalem’ of Iraq and symbol of resistance for all Sunni Arabs. Recently, the Shia minority government arrested a Sunni MP in the region and broke up the protest camp in Ramadi, seen as the ‘headquarters for the leadership of al-Qaeda’. This led Sunni tribesmen to begin working with al-Qaeda to bring down the government. So, the government naturally decides that bombarding Fallujah, the ‘Jerusalem’ and the ‘city of mosques and minarets’, is the best course of action.

'The City of Mosques and Minarets'

I spy with my political eye something beginning with... sectarian violence.

It is not a game, it is the conceivable future. Fueling the conflict is a majority/minority divide.

The Shias are the ruling party but before the Sunnis ruled under Saddam Hussein. This change in government fuels a feeling that all peaceful opportunities to effect change and gain a share of the economic benefits are blocked so they resort to violence, particularly as they regard the balance of power within the society as unstable. Violence is currently the language of diplomacy.

It is partly based on the truth and predominately based on assumption.

America

When Iraq is discussed America's controversial war is usually the second topic. However, I am going to be controversial. 

With regard to Fallujah the Americans did something right, in fact they hit it on the nail. Instead of fighting al-Qaeda on their own they fought with the Sunnis against this extremism.  By supporting Sahwa, or Awakening Councils, disturbed by al-Qaeda’s extremist policy and brutal methods, the extremists were pushed back from Baghdad. Perhaps they adopted this policy because Fallujah was the focus of some of the fiercest fighting in Iraq and thus the Americans truly understood the dangers associated with this city. Or they wanted to distract the Sunnis against fighting the Shia. Either way, go Team America!

Fierce fighting in the region gained it particular consideration in American policy.

However, when the Americans left the Shia government stopped supporting the Sahwa enabling al-Qaeda to stir up anti-government resentment and strengthen its position with fighters from the present conflict in Syria. They are almost certainly using non-lethal supplies, discussed in my early blog entitled Syria and the Global Arms Trade, given to them by the West. This is mainly why the West has been reluctant to openly provide arms.

Resolution

Resolving the conflict in this region is not easy. If it was it would not have gone on for this long. Religious differences are cited as serving to prolong violence but are often a channel through which people express their disparity with the current government. Religious differences did not prevent the Americans working with the Sunnis to rid the region of al-Qaeda. Yet, the Shia governments marginalization of the Sunnis will not help the matter. Fullujah may be retaken, but at what cost? How many years of violence will be added by another heavy handed approach. Attempting to separate the Sunnis from al-Qaeda presents an option that has a hope of resolving violence for the long-term and pushing the Sunnis and Shias into political dialogue. Rather then targeting the Sunnis they need to engage them politically and push back al-Qaeda from the centre of Iraq.

Boko Haram: Exploring the Terrorist Threat in Nigeria

Recently this blog has focused on conflict in several areas that have regularly made front page news, Syria and Afghanistan. The Syrian conflict has and remains to cause issues for the West as they attempt to appear strong and effective in a conflict which has reached a predictable stalement. Afghanistan, which began with a rapid air campaign and a swift victory, has descended into a drawn out obligation for Coalition forces as they endeavour to fight an enemy they cannot find or discourage. However, I now turn my attention to conflict in Africa and particularly Boko Haram.

Though not front page news, Boko Haram have been involved in countless attacks in the oil rich region of Nigeria. This post will cover who the group are, what effect they have had, and if this troubled region is the next major issue for the West.

Who are they?

• Boko Haram was set up in 2002 and denotes a local Hausa phrase meaning ‘Western education is forbidden’. But, its full title is Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad which means "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad”. I’ll leave the pronunciation of that title to the linguists out there.
• Like most terrorist groups it did not initially start out as a militant group but rather sought to oppose Western education in an effort to safeguard Muslims and their values.
• In 2009 its main objective shifted as it worked to set up an independent Muslim state in Nigeria and consequently peaceful actions turned to violence.
• By 2012 the group had split. We can only infer that some within the group were uneasy with the more extreme actions that Boko Haram had instigated.
• The offshoot was named Ansaru, or Jama'atu Ansarul Muslimina Fi Biladis Sudan meaning "Vanguards for the Protection of Muslims in Black Africa", and has connections with al-Qaeda. They threaten to attack Westerners in self-defence.
• The groups operate out of the desert which lies on the Northern edge of Nigeria and provides a perfect base due to its remoteness and tough conditions.

Map showing the North East part of Nigeria where Boko Haram Operate

What effect have they had?

• According to the UN over 1,200 people have been killed by Boko Haram related disturbances in the state of Adamawa, Borno and Yobe.  
• 48 separate Boko Haram related attacks have occurred since emergency law was introduced in 2009
•  Ambitious 2011 raid on the UN building in the capital, Abuja.
• Gains resources from bank lootings and ransom payments.
• The Nigerian military have been deployed en mass and have blocked the mobile signal in an attempt to prevent coordination between militant groups.
• They have been largely ineffective against the groups as they continue its mission to reign terror and unite Northern Nigeria.

Violence in North-East Nigeria has escalated

How has America reacted?

In November 2013, America designated the two groups as terrorists. So, what does that mean? Surely that is just giving them a label?

Actually it has had extensive consequences:

• Regulatory agencies in the US have been instructed to stop business and financial transactions within the group.
• It is a crime under US law to provide material support to the two groups.
• Face a minimum of 20 years in jail for aiding the groups.
• The use of drones began last year but for surveillance not military ops.
• Accentuates that the organisation have progressed from domestic to international aims.
• Encourages the group to aggressively target US interests in Nigeria.
• Could further radicalise the group and push it towards other international Islamist groups.

Nigeria are unkeen for the US to deploy military forces and drones in anti-terrorist operations but this could be overruled if proven links are formed between Boko Haram and al-Qaeda. Operations, similar to those in Pakistan, could follow from which some Nigerians fear Boko Haram could gain additional support from anti-government propaganda and international jihadists keen to oppose America.

Clashes between Boko Haram and the Government forces have risen.

It would be obvious to conclude that this is a delicate matter for America and Nigeria to handle. However, it is delicate foreign policy, not forthright American homogeny, which is needed to prevent Boko Haram becoming a larger and more potent force in Sub-Saharan Africa. With the attack yesterday on Bama military camp this has become a pressing issue as the Nigerian government wishes to extend the emergency law by six months to complete its objectives. Nevertheless, it must be Nigerian forces that defeat Boko Haram, the deployment of American forces will only strengthen the groups resilience as international jihadists flock to its banner.

Syria and the Global Arms Trade

In the run up to Christmas we are all frantically buying presents for loved ones, ensuring deadlines are complete so we can avoid thinking about them, and becoming a little more focused on ourselves and our families. 

There is nothing wrong with that. In fact we deserve a break! Or certainly I will admit I need one!

But, as we prepare to celebrate another Christmas and hunker down it was strange to hear that yesterday the BBC launched a series of reports on the Syrian conflict to mark its third year - almost like a birthday? Oddly it seems like only yesterday that fifteen children in Deraa wrote anti-government graffiti and the subsequent violence started.

After three years of fighting, what can we infer from the situation? 

Well it is rather stale… in fact it is a stalemate.

That does not mean that fighting is not occurring but rather that rebels will take one area for it to be only retaken by government forces and vice versa.

Sustained firefights on the streets of Aleppo. Credit: James Lawer Duggan

Concerning the BBC report it concluded that the influence of external powers will be the deciding factor in this conflict; an observation that could be drawn from most, if not all, armed conflicts in this present age. Cheers for that BBC… we do indeed live in a globalised world so external powers are bound to take an interest and have an influence.

Conversely, in  studies on the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) major scholars in democratisation such as Diamond, Linz and Lipset (1996) exclude the MENA  states from their studies as they “lack much democratic experience, and most appear to have little prospect of transition to even semi-democracy”. This lack of democracy simply makes this region even more interesting to external powers as it is so volatile. Volatility means vast amounts of money and where there is money there is bound to be trouble.

So, let us have a quick look at how have the external powers influenced Syria recently?

• They have given non-lethal aid to the Free Syrian Army (FSA) but due to the Islamic Front taking FSA bases in Bab al-Hawa the aid has stopped to this region.
• Aid for refugees and those suffering from the now crippling winter has been provided. Though it is risky for aid workers to complete their jobs.

This aid seems rather cautious and concerned with the people of Syria’s welfare. However, underneath this bubble of aid lies a more sinister trade, the arms trade. If external powers are not involved in this then… well we all know they are.

So what makes weapons profitable?

• Their durability.
• The ease with which actors can locate ammunition. Obviously finding ammunition for an AK47 is easier than another rarer or outdated rifle. 
• They are fungible and interchangeable.
• They retain their value
• Conflict seems to be a constant at this present moment so someone will always want to buy them

Read this article here for a more in-depth understanding and an overview of the arms trade.

Vast stockpiles of weapons in unstable states. See this article on the arms trade in Latin America.

Who is supporting who?

• Russia and Iran are supplying the Assad regime
• External powers such as America are not explicitly trading arms but are facilitating the transfer of arms from Libya to Syria rebels. The logic is that the more weapons fired at Assad means fewer weapons in the hands of militants in North Africa. Sound logic.

Furthermore, if you watch ‘Holidays in the Danger Zone - The Violent Coast: Liberia and Sierra Leone’ by Ben Anderson (I would recommend his documentaries) about sixteen minutes in he finds an RPG-7 provided by a British Arms Manufacturer despite the arms embargo on Liberia. Thus, as Western powers attempt to reduce conflict in developing states it is worth considering how they might be sustaining them or profiteering from them.

Nonetheless, they are playing a game which all foreign powers play from Pakistan to China to Russia and consequently for them to be involved, no matter how irresponsible, might help to prevent certain powers from dominating the international sphere.

I would argue that all should be aware of this practice but that preventing the arms trade presents a conundrum needing international cooperation. Calling for the West to stop trading arms could lead, however inhuman this appears, to worse atrocities. If both sides are armed then a realist state of deadlock may emerge. Though, if this is broken after sustained vertical proliferation, and with more weapons available, the conflict could be prolonged. It is a difficult situation.  

Therefore, as we spend Christmas buying lots of presents lets us take a minute to think about the way in which armed forces throughout the world are able to buy their ‘presents’ this Christmas. I urge you to consider the arguments, research the subject and form your own opinions on this important matter.

Resources used (if not already linked):

Diamond, L., Linz, J. J. and Lipset, S. M. (1995) Politics in Developing Countries: Comparing Experiences with Democracy. Boulder, CO: Lynne Rienner.