Category Archives: Global Affairs

How the land of fire and ice brought Europe to standstill

Leave a reply

With a technologically wondrous world encapsulating our modern society, I often marvel at how people coped with the much more limited and strenuous forms of communication and travel in the past era.

Often travel between two cities even in a small region could prove a tiresome trek, taking literally days if not weeks and much effort. However, with the advent of technology, the world has become exponentially smaller. Nowadays, an incident on one side of the world can cause public stir on the other side within minutes. Or within a matter of hours we can reach new lands, continents and horizons.

However, my natural wonder and inquisitiveness was about to take a turn for the worse. On Thursday, April 15, packed, excited, suited, booted, and ready to leave the front door, I got a call that I thought was a prank. “All flights have been cancelled” exclaimed my sister! I merely brushed it off, and just said very funny. I have a flight to catch and I don’t have time for jokes! However, little did I know that the joke was on me!

My sister called again, and this time with more seriousness and firmness in her voice. The grin on my face quickly evaporated. As I immediately checked the news, it become apparent that a volcanic eruption in Iceland had caused such a colossal amount of ash to drift across the UK that the aviation authorities had no choice but to place a blanket ban on all flights.

I somehow felt unlucky. My flight was a mere 45 minutes after the blanket ban came into affect. However, as the immense consequences of that ban soon unravelled, a sense of relief and “luckiness” quickly sunk in. I hadn’t left the house, and unlike hundreds of thousands of others, I did not find myself stranded beyond despair and out of pocket.

However, I now had the not-so-joyous task of calling my friend to advise that my eagerly awaited trip would not be going ahead. “All flights have been cancelled.” I sympathetically explained. However, to her it probably just felt like a bad excuse or at worse a not-so-funny joke. When she checked the news, she was just as startled. After all, the idea of needing to completely close airspace across all of the UK and much of northern Europe seemed surreal if not a touch apocalyptic. This wasn’t due to a war or a global catastrophe-no, this was due to a cloud. Well, an ash cloud, to be precise.

While it may seem unreal to most, this was an evident and unprecedented reality that cost the combined economies almost $2 billion dollars and brought Europe to a virtual standstill. It left thousands of families, holiday makers, and various passengers stuck en route and with few options.

What was hoped to be a short-term measure dragged on for close to six painful days as European governments came under fierce pressure from various sides. What danger could be so great that it left the authorities with no choice but to issue a total ban on all flights?

This question become more painstaking in the minds of thousands of stranded passengers by the hour. For many, it became an unwanted and unplanned adventure as they sought whatever route they could to go home. Ferries, trains, and other means of transport saw manic demand. Some people literally paid thousands of pounds and took days to get to their final destinations.

With the ashes from the volcano dominating news for almost a week, the Eyjafjallajokull volcano in Iceland–the source of the wide-scale discomfort and the dangerous ash plumes that covered European skies, which scientists feared could damage jet engines–became common knowledge.

As brutally as Eyjafjallajokull resonated and as devastating as its affects on civilisation, it was not the most explosive of volcanoes. However, never in European history has a single volcano had such far-reaching influence on inhabitants.

Iceland, a small island north of the UK, straddles two tectonic plates; as a result, it is home to a number of volcanoes that have made the place a land of potential fire and combustion.

The eruption resulted in tons of ash being released in the air to heights of 35,000 feet. The fine, abrasive particles that form the ash cloud include tiny amounts of rock, glass, and sand that can melt to form glassy deposits upon impact with jet engine instruments that operate at searing heats, resulting in clogging of fuels and eroding of vital metals. In fact, in theory much of the machinery and components of a plane can be affected.

Intent on proving that the whole airspace ban was a complete overreaction and was merely an over-cautious miscalculation by the government, many airlines operated test flights, seemingly without any problems.

So the question on everyone’s lips was how serious was this ash cloud after all, thousands of miles from its source? This question was only exacerbated with the fact that on Tuesday, April 20, the UK surprisingly decided to open all airspace and many European governments quickly followed suit.

The area around Heathrow Airport, normally deafening due to the number of planes and flights in the skies that come as part of the package of being the busiest airport in the world, was strangely quiet. All around, it felt that something was wrong; the mood was too subdued. Therefore, when the first plane touched down on Tuesday night, natural jubilation could be felt as stranded passengers could finally go home.

However, while affects of the ash cloud were devastating and unprecedented in aviation history, the post-mortem may prove more painful and longer lasting for authorities. The decision to open airspace again was due to a sudden recalculation of guidelines concerning levels of ash tolerance and safety after test flights and analysis with engine manufacturers and experts.

The great question remains as pertinent as ever: Was the ban ever necessary? With huge public safety ramifications, in the short term you would have to say yes. Daunting memories of a BA flight in 1982 that mistakenly flew into an ash cloud shutting down all four engines would have played in the mind of officials. However, six days of transport turmoil was unnecessary and steps were too slow to ease chaos with decision-making by the government laboured at best. Finally, as the crisis deepened, the British government even sent Navy ships to rescue stranded Britons. Although not quite a dramatic Dunkirk-style rescue, the people were getting increasingly desperate to get home, and the government was desperate to be seen as assisting its hapless citizens abroad.

With flights, staff, and people in the wrong destinations at wrong times and with thousands of flight backlogs to clear, normal service will take weeks to resume. For the time being, people and aviation officials can breathe a sigh of relief. However, before we get back to taking the wonders of modern technology for granted, the sigh of relief may well be short-lived.

The last time Eyjafjallajokull erupted in the 1800s, the eruption lasted not weeks or even months, but years! To compound matters and fears, the real concern for many lies in the neighbouring much larger “brother” volcano, Katla. There is always a danger that Eyjafjallajokull could trigger this bigger volcano. Heaven forbid what impact this would bring.

However, in reality and in addition to highlighting how powerless human beings continue to be against the forces of nature, lessons must be learned and applied fast. I for one will forever appreciate modern aviation that allows me to reach my destination in hours!

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

2008 – A defining year on many fronts, serving as indicator of things to come in years to come

Leave a reply

As we embark on the New Year ahead and reflect on the year gone by, many key influential events throughout 2008, serve to shape the international agenda over the coming 12 months and beyond.

2008 proved a contentious, at times tumultuous and certainly anxiety-driven year throughout the economic, political and social landscape.

Perhaps, most defining of all events throughout this year, threatening to set the pattern for years to come is the financial crisis that has come to dominate many a domestic agenda and has ripped through the global platform at a frantic pace.

The onset of the infamous credit crunch in the US had a ripple affect throughout Europe, the Far East and emerging economies. Brewing fear soon turned to panic amongst many of the world’s largest financial institutions and ultimately the dreaded economic recession that so many governments battled to avoid.

The turn of fortunes on the financial world was dramatic. With a matter of months, oil prices running at record prices of over $140 a barrel plunged to around the $40 a barrel mark. Stock markets around the world tumbled on fears of a greater global recession, with the economic output of many countries rapidly declining.

2009 threatens to be a bleak year for the world economy, and unfortunately no country can escape from this reality. Rising unemployment and a lack of credit, underline a financial crisis unseen since the devastating 1930’s great depression. That same crisis, that accelerated fascists such as Adolf Hitler and Benito Mussolini to the world stage, was ironically only ended with the onset of the Second World War.

The moral of the story is clear. Without an affective economic strategy to battle the financial perils currently experienced, economic troubles could soon see drastic political casualties. How will European countries, such as the UK, the subject of immense immigration in recent years, react when jobs are scarce and “foreigners” compete for all types of jobs and depleted social services?

With the onset of globalisation and an exponentially smaller world, a problem in one part of the world, be it economic or political, has grave consequences throughout continents. Economies and in many ways the foreign policies of key allies, have become entangled. As we have seen in 2008, there is no such thing as a distance crisis. A war, political crisis, insurgency or financial turmoil on the backdoor of one, will almost certainly arrive on the door step of another.

Contention in the Middle East

Middle East has ubiquitously operated as the zenith of transgression and hostility in recent history, and 2008 was no different.

The Arab-Israeli peace that George W. Bush so badly craves before his tenure at the helm comes to an end in early 2009 never came and the Palestinians and Israelis appear as distant as ever from reaching elusive and ultimately lasting peace.

Washington has been quick to point out that key steps have been laid on the Middle Eastern roadmap. However, in reality the situation often takes one step forward and two steps back. When two sides, like Hamas and the Israeli government, have such a gulf of views in between, how can peace ever materialise?

In truth, Israeli feels as threatened as ever. Surrounded by Arab hostility, growing nuclear capabilities in Iran and a new guerrilla type of warfare symbolised by Hamas and particularly an ever-powerful Hezbollah and not forgetting a dramatically higher birth-rate of its disgruntled Arab-Israeli population, it feels the need to strike back more than ever, not just safeguard its present but its very own existence. It remains to be seen if the government of Barrack Obama will afford the same level of direct support as the Bush administration to the Jewish state.

The tentative situation was best summarised, with the recent eruption of violence in the Gaza Strip, with the homes of many in the Gaza Strip shattered along with the peace process itself.

The controversial Iranian government remained under the spotlight, with mounting international pressure on ending Iran’s nuclear programmes resulting in little change to the hard-line policies or stance of the Iranian president. Iran has often been accused of supporting rogue elements in Iraq and Lebanon and has undoubtedly a strong influential hand with their fellow Shiites in power in Baghdad. Iran will continue to be a thorn on the international stage in 2009, and it remains to be seen if US diplomatic efforts will bear any fruit.

Iraq on the surface has witnessed tremendous security gains in 2008 and has signed a new strategic pact with the US that will define relationships from the beginning of 2009. Iraq benefitted greatly from oil windfalls in 2008, but with oil revenues down so drastically, Iraq will now fight an economic crisis as well as a battle on the political front. Many issues that was hoped to have been resolved this year and bring the country closer together, have evaporated all too soon.

Unsurprisingly the referendum scheduled for Kirkuk in July was never held and debate remains rife on many aspects of the constitution including a national hydrocarbon law and clarity over federalism and other stipulations defining the blue-print of the country. 2009, with the onset of provincial elections and the return of full sovereignty promises to deliver much, however if progress on the ground is anything like this year, the government will flatter to deceive.

Instability and disparity still engulf Iraq and none more so than Turkish offensives in Kurdistan Region, where most of this year has been characterised by Turkish bombings and even a mass land invasion in February. Such events have continuously highlighted that no amount of superior weaponry is an adequate substitute for tackling the root of your problems and stretching an arm to your crucial neighbours, as difficult as breaking historical taboos may prove.

Crisis in the Caucasus

Not in many decades, has Russia been placed under such direct international spotlight. With tentative strategic divisions amongst former soviet republics, Russia found itself fighting for regional supremacy and battling literally for influence, when they invaded South Ossetia and Abkhazia, becoming embroiled in a much-condemned war with Georgia, which briefly resulted in the isolation of Russia on the global stage and threatened to damage relations with NATO.

Russia has shown this year, that it will not stand by and become by-passed in political and military standing by NATO, especially in areas it still determines as its historical sphere of influence.  Russia’s determination to wave its fist in the year in the defence of its strategic interests was highly ominous. With debates still lingering over break-away regions of Georgia, the notorious deployment US ‘star wars’ missile systems in Eastern Europe and the quest of some former soviet republics to evade Russian grasp under the confinement of NATO, 2008 may prove a very prominent turning-point with the once world super power and its Cold War nemesis.

Events in South Ossetia, Abkhazia and other separatist regions throughout the world were hardly helped with Kosovo been granted independence in spite of fierce opposition from Russia and Serbia. The ability of the Kosovan’s to attain nationhood with such broad international support has now certainly set precedence for many years to come.

The siege of Mumbai

Events this past year in south Asia, threatened to set the stage for yet another war in 2009. The abrasive siege of Mumbai by a group of hard-line terrorists, allegedly from Pakistan, stole the worlds gaze and shocked the Indian subcontinent. Rarely have such a small group of determined but highly trained terrorists, been able to impose such long-term panic and bloodshed in a major international city. Most terrorists or gunmen aim to maximise damage in a very defined period of time and in a confined area, these groups of young gunmen however, battled hundreds of elite Indian security forces for the best part of 3 days, killing many civilians and leaving a mental-scars on the population.

With the Indian government under intense pressure to react by an angry and stunned population, demands of concessions from their Pakistani counterparts may not bear any fruit but the seed of future conflict.

The attacks in India have demonstrated that one bold attack in one location has drastic ramifications across the world. This was underlined as leading figures from US, Europe and other global powers flocked to avert a highly damaging escalation between nuclear armed neighbours.

The need for unified action

The need for unified international responses could not be more pertinent than at the current time. Global hotspots threaten to entice neighbouring countries into greater conflict. US forces remain stretched in Iraq and Afghanistan, but the battle for global stability and peace has just begun.

Many battles and crisis in Africa continue to evade the world’s attention. Domestic tensions, as well as a number of neighbours on the brink of war, threaten to devastate the African population, at the time when they are most vulnerable.

The West would do well to avoid full-focus on wars and crisis where it has a direct interest and start to look at the bigger picture. The focus on tackling world poverty must not stop, because powerful nations have bigger economic and political fish on their plate.

There is greater onus than ever on the UN to take action to prevent world poverty, promote peace and enforce democratic values.

Gone are the days when the world could choose to ignore the plight of innocent people or observe passively as nations suffered due to strategic ploys of powers with old-fashioned colonial mindsets. The world has witnessed, that a seed of conflict or dispute sown one year, should not be forgotten until it blooms and causes greater carnage in another year.

A breath of fresh

2008 was a negative year in many ways, and 2009 may well continue along that line. However, with the onset of the global economic crisis, growing friction in key parts of the world and general anxiety on the world stage, Barrack Obama, the President-elect of US, was in many ways not just a symbol of change and aspiration for the US but the personification of hope for the greater international community.

Immense pressure may be placed on the already broad shoulders of Obama, but the world in general needs a reminder that adversity can be overcome by sheer determination, belief and working together. For prosperity on the global stage, one can ill-afford to go alone but must strive forward in unity and with shared goals, values and aspirations for sake of greater peace and prosperity.

There is no better example of working together on fulfilling a shared vision of a brighter future, than the need to tackle environmental issues such as climate change with a unified stance.

After all, compounded by a global population that could easily double in the next 50 years, meaning more mouths to feed and more competition for natural resources, if mankind is unable resolve such a fundamental issue that threatens to change our very existence, then no amount of battling on economic and political fronts today may ever really matter tomorrow.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

The Siege of Mumbai

Leave a reply

Debris Starts to Settle After Siege of Mumbai, But Fallout Has Just Begun

As a shocked Indian nation recovers from the numbness of the extraordinary events over the past week, tensions have been inevitably stoked with its long-term nemesis and nuclear rival, Pakistan. As Indian government officials are under heavy pressure to carry out an urgent and decisive post-mortem, frantic diplomatic efforts, spearheaded by the US, have tried to avert further escalation in the crisis.

The nature of the terrorist attacks that occurred last week in India’s bustling financial capital, Mumbai, remarkably spanning sixty bloody hours, shocked not only the local population but stole the world’s attention.

Suicide attacks and the upsurge of terrorism is not a new phenomenon on the global stage, let alone the Indian subcontinent, however the abrasive and deadly manner in which a group of determined youths could wreck such great havoc with relative precision, was hard not to bring a chill down the spine of any on-looking government.

It served as a stark reminder, that even a highly-equipped security force is no match for prepared and persistent masterminds. It only emphasises the importance that no government can rest on their laurels in their battle against terrorism, and that the most affective form of counter-terrorism is not cutting the branch when a lethal episode comes to fruit, but striking the root while time permits.

Mumbai under siege

The bloody attacks began when ten seemingly well-trained and well-coordinated gunmen concurrently attacked several iconic sites across Mumbai. The deadly nature of the attacks and the area of coverage initially raised suspicion that there were at least a couple of dozen gunmen involved.

The first attack was thought to have started at the Chhatrapati Shivaji railway station at around 21:00 on 26th November 2008. What was considered as a typical fleet form of terror, only ended on the morning of Saturday November 29th, after bringing the city to a virtual standstill.

The targets involved symbolic tourist locations and crowded public areas across Mumbai, including Café Leopold, Oberoi-Trident hotel, Taj Mahal Palace hotel and even a hospital, amongst other targets.

The siege on both luxury hotels was particularly brutal, with burned-out corridors, blood-stained walls and devastated hotel rooms, just a tip of the cold-hearted terror that ensued.

Organised chaos

The attacks were clearly designed to maximise international coverage and send a jolt of fear to the global audience using the immense media attention that would naturally follow.

Whilst India, particularly in recent months, is not a new to suicide attacks, the tactics deployed by the gunmen caught India’s security forces off-guard.

Most terrorist attacks seemingly involve suicide missions, designed to carry out the maximum amount of damage within a defined period of time and space using timed explosive devices. However, the use of frontal assault tactics, a customary depiction of insurgency at more military specific areas, brought fear of a new dawn of urban terrorism in India.

Indian elite commandos, army and policy force desperately tried to end the siege in many hours of fierce gun battles. Remarkably, it appears that the gunmen had been equipped for a siege lasting many days and even intended on retuning to “base” after the attacks using the same inbound route.

Much of the shocked local population saw the unravelling events as a declaration of war on India. The nature and method of carnage, was comparable by many to the attacks of 9/11 in New York in 2001.

The group’s reign of indiscriminative terror left 188 dead, hundreds more injured and a trail of trauma that will long-live in the memory.

A nation left with many a question

As the debris of the carnage still settles, a shell-shocked population has demanded answers from the Indian government.

Many have accused the security forces of negligence and have pointed the finger firmly on the failings of Indian intelligence. The inefficiency of intelligence was further compounded with US security officials claiming that they had sent strong warnings of an upcoming naval attack. Furthermore, vital communication intercepted many weeks before, pointed to likely plots against the luxury hotels targeted in the attacks.

Security forces were widely criticised for their response times and were considered as inept to confront a bold group of armed youths.

The gunmen are believed to have started their journey on 13th November after hijacking a fishing trawler. The source of their journey is still unknown, although heavy suspicion has pointed to the Pakistani port city of Karachi.

The manner in which the gunmen were not intercepted on their journey for a number of days and were able to plan their attacks uninterrupted, added to anger amongst residents.

However, more pressing questions remain and the Indian government is under fierce pressure to provide the answers. The execution of the attacks and the weaponry used, point to a high-level of training. Training, planning and funding of these attacks would have likely occurred over many months if not years. Furthermore, the gunmen had in all probability support of local cells in coordinating such attacks.

The gunmen employed the so-called “fidayeen” technique, witnessed in recent years in Indian-administered Kashmir. However, after thawing of ties between India and Pakistan, there has been a relative if not untenable calm. The gunmen are strongly-believed to belong to the Kashmiri terrorist organisation, Lashkar-e Toiba and hail in all likelihood from neighbouring Pakistan.

All ten gunmen were thought to be in their early twenties. As nine of the ten gunmen were killed, particular significance lies on the account of the only captured gunmen, Azam Amir Qasab, now the investigators main hope of unravelling the network that orchestrated the madness.

Indian retaliation

Much in the same way as the abrasive attacks on the World Trade Centre in 2001 pressured the US into ‘instinctive’ action, India politicians, due to the wide-spread public anger and global attention, are inclined to respond in a determined manner.

The Indian government immediately issued strongly worded statements to their Pakistani counterparts, with Indian leaders vowing to respond in the strongest possible way.

After normality slowly returned to Mumbai, international fear has turned to a souring of ties between India and Pakistan as the fallout continues. War between the two nations is not new, and with both governments at ubiquitous loggerheads, it does not take much to diminish the current fragile stability between both sides.

Growing public pressure and the evident security failings have rocked India’s ruling Congress Party coalition, leading to some high-scale resignations and accusations of inadequacies from opposition parties.

Although the Indian government is likely to show resolve in their response owed mainly to fervent international pressure, Pakistan will not be expected to ‘get away’ lightly.

As a sign of India’s intent to win minimal concessions from the Pakistani government in the aftermath of the attacks, it is fully expectant that Pakistani diplomatic efforts will be matched with a show of faith.

For India, this sign of good faith, has come in the request for Pakistan to hand over twenty of its most wanted men, with India seemingly leaving little room for compromise in this request as part of their diplomatic initiative.

The seriousness of the growing crisis was illustrated with key political figures such as U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice and Arab League Secretary-General Amr Moussa, jetting in to mediate and urge calm and caution. The heat is certainly on Pakistan, and not the mourning nation of India, as global leaders pressure the Islamabad government to back up strong rhetoric with transparent and determined action.

Events indicate that there is much more to give in this debacle and although serenity may be restored in India financial capital, the fallout may have just started.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Russia Solidifies Influence Over Georgia

Leave a reply

Russia’s battle for regional supremacy comes at a price, as ties with West reaches crisis-point

In latest developments, NATO foreign ministers have warned Russia that there will be “no business as usual” unless Russia pulls its troops out of Georgia immediately. The Russian onslaught in Georgia sparked international outcry, but Russian appears determined not to pull rank as the regional superpower while teaching the Georgians a lesson.

The Georgian-Russian conflict in the strategically vital Caucasus region threatened to open a new deadly front on what is already a volatile global stage. 

However, although the conflict which erupted when Georgia attempted to regain control of South Ossetia, a breakaway region technically a part of Georgia but de facto independent since the breakup of the Soviet Union, the tensions have been simmering for well-over a decade.

The provinces of South Ossetia and Abkhazia have long-held separatist struggles with the Georgian government and crucially have been politically and militaristically backed by successive Russian governments.

Further Russian attempts to solidify their influence over both regions, particularly South Ossetia, resulted in more than half of South Ossetia’s estimated 70,000 citizens taken Russian citizenship offered by Moscow. This guaranteed Russia as stakeholder in future affairs.

Russian Response

The Russian response was swift and decisive. Although drawing strong rebuke from almost all Western countries for what appeared a disproportionate show of force, the Russian response was designed to send a number of key messages to Georgia, other bordering states and also NATO and the West.

Georgia was never going to be a match for the powerful Russian war-machine, but the Russian response showed that they were unwillingly to relinquish de facto control and influence of South Ossetia and Abkhazia but also primarily to demonstrate that Georgia and many of the old Soviet republics remain within its sphere of influence.

Georgia has close ties with the EU and particularly the US and its attempts to join NATO have been met with stiff resistance by the Russians, overwhelmingly opposed to the eastward expansion of NATO, where Ukraine, another contentious neighbour has also been bidding to join the alliance.

Russians are keen to show that they are still a force be reckoned with, even as the demise of Communist rule took its toll.

Evidently, any eastward expansion of NATO would strike a great blow to historical Russian hegemony over the region. Russia, still suffering from the side-affects of its Soviet past and the new world order in the aftermath of the Cold War, has never quite lost the distrust of its former Capitalist arch-nemesis.

Russian opposition to the proposed US missile defence system over Europe is one example of this. With somewhat ironic timing, Poland and the US announced an agreement whereby a key missile defence unit would be deployed in the Polish state, formerly under the stewardship of the soviet juggernaught.

Although, the US has emphasised that the missile defence system is aimed at rogue states such as Iran, Russia remains unconvinced.

The Russian response at such a deal was sharp and chilling, effectively threatening a potential nuclear strike at Poland. Perhaps it was just a war of words, and emotions getting the better of politicians. The cold war, on the brink for so long, was dramatically avoided, so now the idea of a greater Russia-Europe battle is surely unthinkable.

This may be the case but certainly Russian rhetoric and the bullying tactics seen in Georgia sent a chill down the spine of Europe.

Russia, is also heavily reliant on the West to sustain its historically fragile economy, any show-down with the West would not serve any great long-term gains. However, with proposed expansion of NATO and Russia ceding influence in the region, it threatens to become isolated but also lose strategic significance.

Battle for Energy

The Baku-Tbilisi-Ceyhan Caspian oil pipeline, built by Western oil majors at a great cost was never going to hit the right cord with Russian paranoia.

Russia controls a sizable proportion of oil flowing to mainland Europe and an effective dominance over European gas supplies. The Caspian oil-pipeline was designed to over-ride the heavy European reliance on Russian natural resources.

With Russian controlling the taps to the European market, it also controls a political wild-card. Only recently, European gas supplies were severely affected when a Russian dispute with Ukraine on transit taxes for the pipeline exporting gas through Eastern Europe, threatened mayhem on European markets.

Russian Withdrawal

After Russian occupied much of the key cities and entry points into Georgia, effectively threatening to strangle Tbilisi, EU and US representatives put tremendous pressure on Russian forces to withdraw.

A six-point ceasefire agreement was then brokered by the current EU president, Nicolas Sarkozy, however, it has taken many days to witness the first signs of Russian withdrawal, and for NATO ministers this was simply not enough.

Russian has been employing the terms of the ceasefire reluctantly and at a leisurely pace. Russians still control entry and exit points of many key roads and some forces are still reportedly stationed in Iqueti, near Tbilisi.

The notion of Russian withdrawal from Georgia is itself open to interpretation, with a vague ceasefire deal leaving uncertainty.

Russian forces were already deployed in Abkhazia and South Ossetia under a peace-keeping mandate. Agreement to withdraw from Georgia will certainly not mean withdrawal from these provinces under Russian influence.

Furthermore, Russia will likely keep a buffer-zone into Georgian territory around South Ossetia as part of any compromise agreement.

Western Pressure

The US has been particular tough on its response to what it has labelled a disproportionate Russian response.

US president George Bush warned his Russian counterpart that bullying and aggressive tactics did not belong in the modern era.

The EU and US threatened isolation but increased their pressure in the face of a slow-Russian willingness to abide by the terms of the signed agreement and withdraw quickly.

This week U.S. Secretary of State, Condoleezza Rice urged Russia not call its trust into doubt.

In a further rebuke, the US administration warned that such actions put Russia’s reputation as a potential partner “in tatters”.  While the EU warned of “serious consequences” if Russian do not bide by the terms of the cease-fire.

NATO secretary General Jaap de Hoop Scheffer warned that co-operative programmes with Russia would soon be at risk.

Future status still unclear

After the debris from this current stand-off has settled, the situation would not have changed a great deal, other than becoming more emotionally charged than ever.

It is now very unlikely that South Ossetia and Abkhazia would ever rejoin Georgia proper. Emboldened by Russia, the leaders of both break-away regions will seek new solutions to the crisis.

Whether they will be granted independence or if they choose to be annexed with Russia is open to question. What is clear is that question of right to intervention makes future conflicts evitable, unless lasting settlements can be achieved.

Both provinces contain a large proportion of Russian citizens, and that itself is a sure guarantee that Russia will not walk away all too easily.

Georgians aim to strike conciliatory tone

The media campaign from both sides has been fierce. In heated exchanges, both the Georgians and Russians have accused each other of ethnic cleansing and genocide.

However, while Georgia President Mikheil Saakashvili, demanded full Russian withdrawal, he also tried to strike new conciliatory tones, Russian Dmitry Medvedev on the other hand warned that any aggression against Russian citizens would face a “crushing response”.

Russian immediate objectives achieved?

Russian immediate objective from the military confrontation was to achieve the overthrow of Saakashvili’s and deal a deadly blow to the Georgian army.

In this light, some critics have claimed that the Georgina army escaped without serious fatalities or military damage. In some Russian quarters the invasion would even be labelled a defeat as the strategic aims were not achieved.

On the contrary, this may create political pressure within Russia itself. The economy will undoubtedly take a hit in the face of possible Western sanctions.

More importantly, Georgia could witness a strengthening of ties with the US and more economic investment and support. US and its allies my well bolster Georgian military in the background, and future Russian offensives may not only be met with a war of words between the West and the Russian hierarchy. An express application to NATO can not be discounted for Tbilisi.

In the short-term, Russia will certainly have subdued Georgians and made their mark, while almost guaranteeing influence over South Ossetia and Abkhazia, but at what price remains open to question.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

G8 Leaders Meet in Japan

Leave a reply

G8 Summit gives world leaders much food for thought

The current global economic crisis, with runaway inflation, dominates 3-day annual summit of world-leaders.

The leaders of the world’s self-appointed steering committee, the G8 group of countries, commenced their annual summit this week in Japan. Previous summits including the last one held at Heiligendamm in Germany have proved contentious and have often been marred by anti-globalisation protests and civil violence.

This meeting was sparred the violence, perhaps only by its remote location on the island of Hokkaido.  The leaders of Britain, United States, Canada, France, Japan, Germany, Italy and Russia, could perhaps feel the global pressure and public fear in the ambience of their surroundings. 

Indeed, a year can prove a rather long-time, with the world changing much since the last summit.

At the head of current international concerns is the global economic downturn and rising inflation, threatening the onset of a damaging recession in US, Europe and beyond. In the advent of globalisation, the world has become exponentially smaller. With world markets intrinsically tied to one another, one economic downfall can have large ramifications throughout the world.

The US, with the world’s largest economy, is a prime example of this. The Federal Reserve has been desperately trying to ward off economic recession in the country. With a lack of money in circulation, particularly between banks lending to each other, this has led to a credit crunch that was immediately felt in the UK but also sent shivers across other dominant markets.

At the fulcrum of the current headache is without a doubt the runaway oil price. With oil prices reaching a record $140 a barrel, remarkably this means that prices have doubled since Heiligendamm a year ago. With a major reliance on fuels in the US and Europe, not to mention the fuel-thirst of fast developing economies such as India and China, the huge rise in oil prices has had a significant bearing on spending and economic confidence of the general public throughout the continents.

With prices threatening to reach $200 a barrel any time soon, there has been a major pressure on world leaders to work on ways to control prices and promote alternatives to carbon-fuels. Almost inevitably, OPEC have been pressured to increase supply of oil reserves, with Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other major oil producers benefiting greatly from the oil-surplus in their accounts.

More worrying than fuel perhaps, the price of rice and other grains has seen massive raises, threatening stability in Africa and Asia, and serving a massive blow to the much-publicised G8 commitment at tackling world poverty. Ban Ki-moon, the UN secretary general, claimed that high food prices are “turning back the clock on development gains”, under-pining fears of major powers.

Rising food prices has led to an increase in malnutrition in poorer countries and even in public protests by beleaguered citizens. There have been calls for doubling of food production in Africa, creating world stock-piles of food and increasing shipment of supplies to worst-affected areas.

However, often economic measures are beset by trade-offs. Lower oil prices, will undoubtedly run counter to reducing carbon dependency and tackling the greater issue of climate change.

In turn an energy crisis, may counter the drive against nuclear proliferation.  The much touted need for bio-fuels, conversely results in less land for food production, which will only increase food prices.

The so-called richer countries are determined to prevent economic recession, seemingly over their aim of tackling rising inflation. This trade off is a corner-stone of the functioning of regional economies and the global economy, and the balancing act is at best delicate.

Nonetheless, when that “balancing act” from the G8 countries and other global powers has such wide-reaching implications, such as inducing potential hunger in Africa and Asia, then the tables are turned. However, commitments and mere talk by major powers to help more vulnerable nations is not new and not enough. Some have warned that even development goals for the poorer countries set three-years ago by the G8 are at risk.

The current food and fuel crisis is augmented by the all-frequent motion of reducing carbon emissions. The final day of the 3-day summit, was dominated by carbon emissions and global warming. In addition to the 8 majors, the worlds other biggest emitters were invited to the table for discussions. The Kyoto Protocol, which expires in 2012, has been marred by controversy, with the world’s largest emitter, the US, reluctant to commit to CO2 emission targets. Amidst pessimism and criticism at the lack of genuine action, the G8 have reaffirmed their common vision of reducing carbon emission by 50% by 2050.

Here comes further trade-offs and economic-mongering that makes agreements and global targets so difficult to set, China and India, the most worrisome of emerging countries in terms of carbon emissions, will unlikely go beyond even verbal commitments without a return of money or incentives from the West.

The stance of India and China is clear, they will not sign-up to an inequitable method of dealing with current atmospheric problems, which was largely caused by earlier industrialisation. Why should their own much-delayed developments suffer, just because the Western belly is now full of industrialisation and advancement?

The cyclic dilemma intensifies as the US is unlikely to commit to emissions targets, if rapidly emerging economies are left to develop at will.

Clearly, the next year is a delicate period for the G8 and other major countries. Not dealing with such economic shortfalls can conceivably lead to a much more serious global crisis across the world. Therefore, it is understandable why runaway fuel and food prices have dominated the global agenda.

Economic concerns masked other global political unease such as dealing with the controversial governments in North Korea, Iran and Zimbabwe.

This entire global economic conundrum, begs the question whether this current crisis could have been anticipated, avoided or at least in part mitigated?

Although the doubling of prices and food shortages has caught the majority of analysts and world leaders by surprise, key factors indicate that this was brewing and may yet dominate the world scene for decades to come.

The global population is largely expected to reach a remarkable 9 billion by mid-half of this century. The current booming population has created a tremendous pressure on the limited resources of the world. With a growing population come more mouths to feed, the need for more land and the need for more fuel.

This need by a booming population is exasperated with new significant and rapidly expanding economies in India and China. This pushes what were already stretched global reserves to breaking point and only worsens global warming onset by the global powers before their time.

As the world has grown, the fight for reserves has become more crucial. In turn, it has made the delicate balance of maintaining a world order ever more difficult and with increasingly graver consequences.

If the current world population, excepted to grow by almost 50%, is unable to sustain stability today, then the generation of tomorrow, which will suffer from even-more depleted natural resources, less land for agriculture and greater demand for food, may reach critical a breaking-point unless significant motions are set in the years to come.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

Kosovo Marks Further Double Standards in the Application of International Criterion

Leave a reply

“What is good for the goose is good for the gander” English Proverb

On Sunday 17th February, the parliament of Kosovo unanimously approved a declaration of independence from Serbia, marking the end of the dissolution of Yugoslavia and with it the realisation of one Europe’s worst kept secrets.

Despite strong objections from Serbia, Russia and a handful of EU countries and vitally a lack of a UN resolution, it was long anticipated that Kosovo would declare unilateral independence in early 2008.

As the streets of Pristina were overfilled with joy and excitement, just across the small province, the Serbian dominated parts witnessed much violence, anger and upheaval.

The controversial motion sets an ominous precedence for separatist movements across the globe, in spite of EU claims that Kosovo was a ‘special case’. Serbia withdrew ambassadors to a number of countries that supported Kosovar independence and denounced the proclamation of a ‘false state’. Serbia was adamant that the sovereignty of Belgrade over Kosovo was guaranteed by UN and international law.

Clearly, the example of Kosovo shows that statehood can be achieved with the support of key countries across the world. Even without the advent of a UN resolution and particularly support from Russia and China, fervent US support was all that was necessary.

Russia accused the EU of encouraging global separatism and was equally vocal in its criticism of the US in proceedings.

Unsurprisingly, the UN Security Council could not agree on a response to Kosovo’s proclamation but declaration of independence was quickly recognised by US, Britain, Germany and numerous others.

With their own separatist headaches, a number of countries including Russia, Cyprus and Spain refused to recognise the newest member of the European family.

Apprehension by those opposed to the unilateral pursuit of statehood is understandable. After all, the definition of a credible separatist movement from those seeking unlawful division of a sovereign country is proving a very fine line.

Perhaps the most ironic recognition of Kosovo was by Turkey, who was never an avid supporter but its ‘thumbs-up’ to the new state was symbolic nevertheless. Undoubtedly, Kosovo has paradoxical implications for Turkey. On the one hand, it strengthens their claim on the rogue state of Northern Cyprus which they have held by force since 1974 despite no official international recognition. On the other hand, it undermines their bloody war with Kurdish separatists that they have relentlessly tried to quell and have even invaded a neighbouring country under the banner of preserving national security.

The old saying, ‘what is good for the goose is good for the gander’ cannot be discounted.   The situation begs a critical question, as Kosovo and by Turkish implications, Northern Cyprus are justified separatist causes then how can 15 millions Kurds with a rich culture and history dating back thousands of years in the same region be classified as terrorists by the same brush?.

It only goes to highlight the importance of perception. Kosovar independence was endorsed by the US and other powers because its people ‘deserved’ freedom and unmolested sovereignty and by virtue that Serbia had forfeited the claim to the province after a highly-publicised genocide that was conducted in the late 1990’s that culminated in the region becoming a UN administered zone, protected by NATO.

However, the similarities with the Kurds by that same token stretches even deeper. As Kosovar’s suffered under a dictatorship, so have the Kurds for many decades under multiple regimes. Kurds form a great minority in Turkey, Iran and Iraq as Albanians do in Serbia, Greece and Macedonia. Kosovo Albanians also border their ethnic brethren as do the Kurds in four adjacent countries.

However, whilst Albanians already have a country of their own (Albania), the Kurds have nothing. The struggle to establish a ‘Kosovar’ identity in the aftermath of statehood is well documented. Kosovar’s have yet to build a distinctive national image with a lack of an official flag, army and national anthem. After all, it was the greater Albanian flag that was ubiquitous on every corner of Pristina.

The tale of double-crossings and double-standards has been the bane of modern Kurdish history. Forcefully divided, a national of 40 million with its own flag, language, history and distinct national identity has never received the support of global powers.

If the principle of self-determination as touted by former US president Woodrow Wilson or the modern model used for Kosovo is applied equivocally then Kurdistan would have been independent long ago.

The key issue is not whether the Kurds deserve independence (in the same manner as Kosovar’s obviously do), anyone in their rightful mind will not doubt this, even the strongest of foes but it is the loss that some global powers would have by employing these same principles to the Kurds.

For one, the Kurds have masses of oil which was a precursor to their separation in the first place. However, it is the imperialist ploys of the past that continue to make mockery of the new world order.

Unfortunately, the political chess board is full of loop-holes and shallow interpretations. Each pawn will only move in a way afforded by other seemingly superior pieces. Whilst the Kurds advocating even cultural rights are deemed terrorists for defending their identity, other groups are endorsed in the same quest.

Whilst global powers rushed to assist a population of 2 million in Kosovo, millions of Kurds have been the victims of brutal persecution and chemical gassing, while the same advocates of a righteous world turned a blind eye – seemingly to quench their strategic thirst that made the Kurds indispensable by-products.

At least Iraqi Kurdistan can take some heart for the new benchmark set by Kosovo and perhaps even a few tips on Kosovar marketing and systematic approach to achieving their goals.

However, even in the days of so-called equality and globalisation, out dated colonial philosophies are widely in circulation. If Kosovar’s are worthy of independence and freedom then based on what international criteria are separatists in Romania, Georgia and Spain classified as any different?

Obviously, not every nation or group without merit can simply demand independence, this would amount to absolute anarchy across the world but it just goes to show the vague and ambiguous international criterion for assessing the eligibility of statehood. In essence it is simply derived on factors determined to suit the parties around the table.

Ironically, with Kosovo now inhibiting a population of 10% Serbs, the seeds for future conflict and instability have already been sewn. Almost immediately following celebrations in the Kosovar capital, angry Serbs ransacked two border crossings linking Kosovo and Serbia with NATO forces subsequently cutting off Serbs in Kosovo from mainland Serbia.

Remarkably, what is now emerging on the ground is nothing short of a second Kosovo. So what if Serbs in Kosovo were now ethnically cleansed and systemically persecuted, what would the international community then do?

In the case of the Kurds, due to their rich lands and strategic position, independence would only have the same support if global powers would make particular benefit from such a move.

When the newly created state is more strategically significant than its former occupier, former occupiers would be simply powerless to stop the state attaining independence.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Peyamner, Various Misc.

As Kosovo Moves Closer to Independence, Struggle for Self-determination Takes a New Twist

Leave a reply

The Serbs have long-considered Kosovo as a cradle of their heritage and nationalist struggle. However, it is ironic that as the legend of the Serbian defeat against Ottoman forces in 1389 in this small province gave it almost a mystical significance to Serbian nationalism, the recent drive towards full independence by Kosovo Albanians, marks the distinct end of the old Yugoslavia and Serbian imperialism.

In a further twist of irony, it was in Kosovo where the seeds for nationalist bloodshed were planted by former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic, resulting in a costly ethnically- enthused civil war and the disintegration of Yugoslavia in the 1990’s.

Under UN administration, since NATO bombing halted Serbian forces brutally quelling an insurgency in 1998, the Kosovo independence motion has gained firm momentum. 

This week after a deadline for international mediation efforts passed, the EU announced virtual unity on Kosovo. Crucially supported by the US administration, it is widely except that leaders of Kosovo’s Albanian majority would declare independence before May 2008 or even sooner.

Serbia, supported by Russia, has vehemently opposed independence. This week Russia warned that unilateral declaration of independence (UDI) could set off a vicious ripple affect across the Balkans and beyond.

However, calls for more discussions were seemingly deemed pointless by EU and the US. Mediators from the United States, European Union and Russia announced in a report to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon, that months of talks had found no compromise on whether Kosovo should be independent or just self-ruled. The outcome was to virtually place the matter in the hands of the EU and crucially not the UN, making a resolution unlikely.

This paved the way to implement a roadmap orchestrated by United Nations envoy Martti Ahtisaari, which proposes a scheduled transition to independence.

Doubters fear that such a movement will only add venom to separatist campaigns across the world. After all, no resistance or national movement is launched without a solid basis or popular support. Why should the situation of a couple of millions Kosovo Albanians be any different?

Russia is dead-against the motion primarily as it would ignite tensions in Chechnya and other volatile restive provinces in its borders. Georgia is watchful over Abkhazia, where Cyprus, the main EU country to oppose independence, is deeply concerned fearing that it may promote a degree of legitimacy to the rogue state of Northern Cyprus.

Serbia may well launch a campaign to annex the Serb province of Bosnia-Herzegovina and Albania or Macedonia may attempt to form a union with Kosovo. The unpredictability and potential instability this brings to the region can well be off-set by the carrot of future EU membership for the likes of Serbia, however beyond the region, no country as much as Iraqi Kurdistan will be looking at the situation more avidly.

After all, Kurdish culture, history and heritage run thousands of years before the Kosovo Albanians. The population of the Kurds in Iraq alone is 6 million and close to 40 million beyond. With all the markings for a state of their own, Kurdistan was selfishly carved amongst highly oppressive regimes and the Kurdish question was left to rot like an unwanted corpse outside the United Nations and left to linger in the streets of international diplomacy.

Perhaps, double standards were common and almost excepted in the days gone by. However, this is a new age and Turkey in particular, remaining suspiciously quite over the Kosovo debate, will be taking firm notes.

If the United States and the EU can endorse and encourage a nationalist movement to safeguard the security of a minority then it should have no choice but to support a Kurdish state, oppressed on a much larger scale. Clearly, any logical and wise observer can see that the time is not right to declare independence in the age of such great hostility by the Turks, Persians and Arabs, but the international community should at a minimum champion the right of the Kurds to statehood and crucially setup and implement a similar roadmap it has so passionately supported in Kosovo and Palestine.

At a minimum, looming Kosovo independence sets a yard-stick for political struggles and adds a new dimension to the right of self-determination.

The Kurds around the world should take great heart form this debacle and celebrate Kosovan independence as much as the Albanians.

First Published On: Kurdish Globe

Other Publication Sources: Hewler Post (Kurdish), Peyamner, Various Misc.