Rewriting History in Eastern Europe

On June 30, Russia's Prosecutor General began to investigate the legality of the Soviet Union's 1991 decision to recognize the declarations of independence of Lativa, Estonia, and Lithuania, the three Baltic countries now part of NATO. The question, raised by two members of the Duma, is whether the governmental body at the time had any constitutional power to make such a recognition. Although the Prosecutor General is required by law to investigate the inquiry, the premise itself is inflammatory.

(Source: Baltic Travel Services)

Naturally, all three countries instantly reacted with consternation and outrage, having fought to gain independence ever since annexation in 1939. Later on July 1, the Kremlin moved to distance itself from the review, calling it a formality, but also failing to fully condemn it. Unease has existed across former Soviet bloc nations following President Vladimir Putin's comments in 2014 asserting Russia's right to intervene on behalf of Russian-speaking populations in other countries, of which there are significant numbers in the Baltic states.

Overall, this may be a non-story, a request by extreme positions in the Duma blown out of proportion by media reports. The same could be done for statements or positions of an innumerable amount of politicians in the United States. On the other hand, given Russia's recent annexation of Crimea and the simultaneous abrogation of the 1954 transfer of that land from Russia to Ukraine, the request does carry more weight than simply nationalist rhetoric.

Social Media & the Military: Oil and Water

Individual social media profiles are generally bad news for militaries. They eventually lead to trouble. The Israeli army has repeatedly expressed concern and even made efforts to limit social media usage by soldiers. The United States military has had related concerns over access to social media. Simply put, people tend to overshare.

Russian soldiers and separatists have had a hard time keeping social media in check in Eastern Ukraine. The location functionality has repeatedly revealed activity that, according to Russia, isn't happening. Pictures are particularly telling. Recently, a reporter tracked down some specific locations, proving the photos were taken in Ukraine:

(Source: Vice News)

But the problem isn't just for Russia, Israel, or the United States. It's really a problem for all militaries. When it comes to social media, things separate out and float to the top, becoming real headaches in time. Social media doesn't mix well with the military.

No Consequences, Just Lies

Early this morning, news broke that a ceasefire was reached in the nearly year-long conflict between Russia and Ukraine. The four-party talks in Minsk, Belarus involved Russia, Ukraine, Germany, and France, but not the United States. While the agreement is certainly welcome news, it will still take time to uncover whether it has any true substance.

Many observers are concerned that the agreement is solely on paper and that action, particularly on the Russian side, may not follow. Previous agreements to stem the war have failed and the conflict reignited.

Of interest is the clause that arms and troops will be withdrawn to a distance from the area of dispute. As recently as late January, however, Russia denied that its troops were in Ukraine. One can dispute official troops as opposed to other forms of military presence, but Russia's role in that military presence is widely accepted, despite Russia's consistent claims to the contrary. Despite the realities on the ground and their acceptance inherent within the agreement, there are no consequences for these past statements.

Russia has, of course, made the news in other ways this week that do little to help the overall situation and sense of mistrust, including claiming that it will be leasing military bases in Cyprus , which is in the European Union but not part of NATO, and denying a request by Ukraine to restructure that country's debt to Russia.

While the situation in Ukraine is not resolved by any account, there remains the possibility that this ceasefire may lead toward peace. At the same time, past statements that fail to accurately describe intentions on purpose do reflect what the future may have in store.

(Ukraine Crisis Map from National Security and Defense Council of Ukraine via Business Insider Australia)

Note: A neat interactive map of the crisis is also available.

Frozen (in Ukraine)

This has nothing to do with the Disney movie and everything to do with "frozen conflicts," seemingly interminable wars that change little year to year. Russia is a master of establishing them, limiting the countries in its former sphere of influence from progressing or developing without Russia having a significant role.

Russia is succeeding in establishing a new frozen front in Ukraine, complete with a cease-fire that is lightly observed and battlefield lines that spell disaster for years to come. A loss of international focus on the conditions in eastern Ukraine have allowed Russia to control more of the conflict's outcome as well as its narrative. The truce barely exists in name along anymore.

Thinking long-term, ignoring the situation in Ukraine will feel like a mistake. It will serve to embolden governments that trample international norms and human rights. It will limit the progress of democratic movements where they are needed most, in the confines of nations struggling to transform from tyranny and kelptocracy to semblances of democracy.

Press Play

It seems that Russian and Ukrainian leaders are simply waiting around till someone tells them to press play. After a huge row last week over a supposed humanitarian convoy purported to be poorly disguised military support, full-fledged war is occurring in all-but name across Eastern Ukraine. And it seems that the convoy will cross the border after all.

(Source: AP via BBC)

Meanwhile, a group of refugees fleeing the fighting were hit with "rockets and mortars," causing numerous fatalities and casualties. Both sides blame one another, naturally.

Victories in this war are reminiscent of recently-highlighted accounts of World War I on the centenary of its beginning - opposing sides fighting for mere feet and meters at great cost and little tactical advantage. Even the politics of soccer have been infiltrated, with teams in annexed Crimea beginning play in the Russian leagues.

But perhaps the real concern should be perspective. Everyone became worried for a week and half after pro-Russian rebels shot down an airliner at cruising altitude, but then the airlines and other nations decided they would just not fly over Ukraine anymore and all became well again. Perspective is in how a conflict is described, discussed, and referenced. Perhaps it is no longer appropriate to call it the "Ukraine Crisis," or the "Crisis in Ukraine" (also used by the Wall Street Journal). Perhaps we call it what is - war - because it's quite possible that reality may lead us toward a solution.

The G7 & Russia's Nonchalant Response

So far, this blog has been fairly quiet on the topic of Russia and Crimea (though it did have several previous posts on Ukraine). This hasn't been for any intentional reason, though the topic has been covered in the news fairly thoroughly. It is not trifling to consider that the standoff between Russia and the West contains the hallmarks of future conflict.

This week, the drama entered a new phase when the G8 became the G7. Russia was essentially booted from the G8, to which it has belonged since 1998. It seems unclear whether the expulsion is a disagreement that may be temporary, or if this action is somewhat permanent. Given the severity of the infraction and the tough talk from both sides, even a temporary suspension is unlikely to be short at all. Frankly, Russia does not seem to care.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov's comments are particularly telling. Lavrov didn't even really need to use words. His words echoed his actions, suggesting that Russia felt the G8 was simply an informal club to which it had experienced a temporary visit. It's not that big of a deal to leave after all.

How Russia feels is important if tensions are to calm. Russia has never felt it had an opportunity to lead in Western multilateral institutions. It has long sought to carve its own leadership role in its own institutions within spheres of influence it has much stronger control over - historically, economically, and politically. At times over the past few decades, it has sought to spread that influence, but it has always returned home. In a sense, it is a form of atavism.

The Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) has been Russia's response to NATO. Russia has reassured its allies in this bloc that they are not expected to be involved in any military action related to Ukraine. While full-scale war is far off, it would be significant. If the CSTO does not exist as an alliance, how far from the Soviet Union is it? Other Russian-led institutions continue to build influence over and connections between its former republics.

Ideally, deeper conflict will be averted and solutions to the Ukraine dilemma will be found. At this time, everyone seems to be prepared for a long, entrenched fight, though the West is not nearly as sure of its next move as Russia is. It would behoove Western nations, and the United States in particular, to give the situation some serious consideration. This kind of chess has not been played in a good while.

Qatar's Migrant Worker Problem

With much of the world media covering the Ukraine situation (latest update: Russian troops have taken over Crimea), this post will take a different tact and focus on an issue that is slowly gaining traction: the deadly exploitation of migrant workers in Qatar in the lead-up to the 2022 World Cup.

Back in September 2013, The Guardian issued a scathing article about the conditions faced by migrant workers in Qatar.  That article focused primarily on the conditions of Nepalese workers.  A related article quoted the International Trade Union Confederation in estimating that 4,000 migrant workers would die working on World Cup-related projects by 2022.  Given that Nepal relies on its migrant workers going to Qatar, Nepal was disinclined to criticize Qatar in the wake of those reports.

Migrant workers in Qatar line up to take buses back to their living accommodations (Source: The Guardian)

Last week, the issue was raised once again as The Guardian reported that more than 500 Indian migrant workers had died in Qatar since January 2012.  The downside was that the numbers, which were released from the Indian embassy pursuant to a FOIA-type request from media, did not explain the exact nature of those deaths.  The Qatari government capitalized on this omission by making the dubious claim that the worker death rate was normal, given the number of Indian migrant workers in Qatar (500,000), and claiming that there was a "campaign" against Qatar.

Why, with conflict all around the world, is the situation of migrant workers in Qatar a pressing issue?  Well, for one, the kafala system ingrained into Qatar's economic system is a system designed for worker exploitation.  Under the kafala system, a migrant worker is sponsored by an employer; the employer then has near-total control over the migrant worker's life.  The employer can take the worker's passport, withhold pay, make the worker labor long hours (in the Middle Eastern desert) without sufficient access to water, and keep the worker in squalid living conditions.  If the worker wants to change jobs, there is often no recourse; the employer is supposed to provide an identification card but often doesn't, making an employee who flees an undocumented worker subject to arrest and deportation.  Moreover, there is even an "exit visa" requirement whereby an employer who has a dispute with a worker can legally prevent the worker from leaving Qatar.  This issue gained international attention when a professional French soccer player was denied an exit visa and was forced to stay in Qatar for a year while he negotiated a settlement with his soccer team-employer.  The international soccer player's union responded to this by calling on Qatar to end the kafala system for pro soccer players because it "goes to the heart of respecting their basic human rights."  The fact that a professional athlete was forcibly kept in Qatar by his employer -- and that such a practice is built into the legal system -- is emblematic of the extreme level to which employers control migrant workers' lives in Qatar.

The conditions of these workers is in itself a reason to call attention to Qatar's state-sponsored abuse of migrant workers.  The fact remains, however, that this is now the world's responsibility: by accepting Qatar's assurances that it could transform itself into a host site for the World Cup, the world community must now recognize that it has implicitly blessed Qatar's massive infrastructure development.  And that development is not just stadium-building.  Indeed, the massive project will cost hundreds of billions of dollars and includes building an entire city from scratch.  Moreover, this massive re-shaping of the country, and its attendant migrant worker abuse, is inextricably linked to the 2022 World Cup:

Fifa and the Qatar World Cup organising committee are now tangled in a Gordian knot. The human rights groups that have been pressuring Fifa and the Qataris demand to know whether there will be any meaningful reform to improve the welfare and safety of workers on all building projects. In Qatar itself, where politics has been described as akin to a medieval star chamber, an internal battle is raging. There are liberal forces who want to change the labour laws but are equally aware that sweeping away the kafala system that ties migrant workers to their employers would place huge question marks over its ability to fulfil its "2030 Vision" for the country. 

The dizzying and unprecedented plan to spend hundreds of billions transforming the infrastructure of a country that was largely desert as recently as the 1970s can only be founded on cheap migrant labour. 

Therein lies the dilemma – not only for the Qatari authorities, but for the British, German and French companies that have profited handsomely from the bonanza. 

Abolish the culturally embedded kafala system and with it may go the mechanism for ensuring the almost absurdly ambitious plans to build cities, metro lines, roads and airports from scratch.

Ultimately, Qatar may indeed be transformed into a dizzying spectacle of modernity for all the world to admire, but to do so it will rely on the age-old practice of worker exploitation.  The world -- or at the very least, Fifa -- must decide how far it will go to hold Qatar accountable for these practices.

Stifling Dissent and Thwarting Protests in Post-Revolution States

Protests in Ukraine

The protests in Ukraine have received extensive media coverage in recent weeks.  These protests, which began as an almost spontaneous reaction to President Victor Yanukovych's decision to scuttle a trade deal with the EU at the last minute, have transformed into a massive expression of widespread discontent with the current regime. (The trade deal was more of a spark that ignited protests for myriad underlying reasons.  For a more in-depth treatment of those underlying reasons, see this previous post from early December 2013).

The Yanukovych government's reactions to the protests have varied greatly; the common thread has been their lack of success.  First, three days after the iconic toppling of the Lenin statue in Kiev, the government tried cracking down by forcibly removing protest barricades.  When this proved unavailing, in mid-December the government suggested it would soon sign the trade deal with the EU after all.  It soon went in the complete opposite direction, negotiating a shadowy deal with Russia on December 17th involving a $15 billion loan and large cuts in natural gas prices amounting to approximately a 1/3 drop in prices.  Details of that deal remain unclear, but protesters were suspicious.  In fact, the protests were re-energized in late December 2013.

January 25, 2014: Protesters clash with riot police in Kiev, Ukraine. (Source: Yahoo News)

The government's next move was to pass new laws in mid-January greatly restricting the right to protest and sending individuals who slandered government officials to one year of "corrective labor."  Protesters were undeterred, clashed with riot police, and even took over some government buildings.  Yanukovych then offered the prime ministership and top government posts to opposition leaders, which they rejected.  This past Tuesday, the prime minster and his cabinet resigned and the government repealed the anti-protest laws it had passed in mid-January.  The government also passed an amnesty law for the protesters which was conditioned on the fact that they stop protesting within two weeks; the protesters rejected this measure.

Protests in Egypt

In Egypt, the military government has similarly found itself the target of resilient protests.  Its response has escalated and been even harsher than Ukraine's.  Outlawing participation in protests generally and the Muslim Brotherhood specifically failed to end anti-government protests.  The government then labeled the group a terrorist organization and made mere participation in the Brotherhood an offense punishable by five years' imprisonment.  The protests, as well as arrests for them, have continued into the new year.

January 17, 2014: Protesters clash with riot police in Cario. (Source: CNN.com)

In 2013, the government also clamped down on freedom of the press.  It shut down media it deemed to harbor pro-Brotherhood sympathies, with the notable exception of al Jazeera.  The seeming exception for al Jazeera has proven illusory, as the government previously imprisoned several of the media organization's employees and just recently indicted 20 al Jazeera reporters -- eight are in custody while the rest were declared fugitives -- for creating "false" portrayals of the Brotherhood's protests.

The Bottom Line

Ukraine and Egypt are both deeply divided countries struggling to forge their respective post-revolution identities.  In Ukraine, the pro-Western movement saw its 2004 Orange Revolution gains dissipate as Victor Yanukovych -- the standardbearer of pre-revolution, pro-Russian policies -- came to power.  Yet Yanukovych himself took steps toward European integration, and the current crisis is a result of his backtracking on those steps.  In Egypt, meanwhile, the 2011 revolution that led to Mubarak's ouster also led to the electoral victory of the Muslim Brotherhood and, after a year of rule under Mohammed Morsi, a return to military rule after a protest-inspired military coup.  That military government is now struggling to clamp down the persistent protests of the ousted Brotherhood.  In Ukraine, the deep split is over pro-Europe and pro-Russian sentiments (and the split is itself largely divided along geographic lines), whereas in Egypt the split is between secularism and Islamism.  In both countries, however, the current crises of legitimacy stem from the governing group's inability to satisfactorily address that divide.

While the narrative of a deeply divided country is hardly unique, and indeed can be found in many countries throughout the world, what is unique to Egypt and Ukraine in current world affairs is the months-long persistence of protests aimed at bringing down a post-revolution regime.  While many people imagine slow steps forward following a pro-democratic revolution, both of these countries have addressed the protests by clamping down on freedoms of protest and the press.  This strategy might have prevailed in the pre-social media days or even today in a tightly-controlled country ala North Korea, but it has proven grossly ineffective in both countries.  As part of their growing pains, the current regimes will have to learn that to govern means to be criticized; to govern effectively, moreover, might even mean listening to your critics.


Previous Illexum Posts
Ukraine: Overlooked, Underreported
Ukraine Protests Grow, Government Wavers, World Begins to Take Notice
Egypt Update: Muslim Brotherhood Declared Terrorist Organization

Ukraine Protests Grow, Government Wavers, World Begins to Take Notice

Evidence of a split within the Ukrainian populace has not felt so clear as it does during the current protests in quite a while. Even government officials are failing to keep a coherent front, with differing claims of a complete lean toward Russia and a continued lead toward Europe. Moreover, pro-government protesters are being bused in from the East and South, which may only lead to further societal divisions. No matter - the faux protests are no match for the 200,000 rallying of their own accord.

Meanwhile, under all the protests, what comes next is still a question. Foreign Policy points out the waning influence of Russia's geopolitical energy strategies. This has been a concern for several years now, as Russian oil production has begun to collapse and its natural gas strength challenged by the early development of an international market (led by new technological development out of the United States).

Russia has not really developed a mixed economy, so were its geopolitical arsenal to weaken, it could become increasingly unpredictable politically. Has Ukraine become a battleground? Well, there's little other reason for current United States Congressmen to be addressing Ukrainians in Kiev, is there?

Ukraine, Overlooked, Underreported

It's interesting to read about the ongoing protest movement in Ukraine and then examine the lack of coverage in the United States. Throughout the 2000s, color revolutions were widely praised and reported on. They were viewed as clear indicators that democratic progress could not be halted and was organic to populations throughout the world. However, the 2010s brought out the Arab Spring, which has led to a more convoluted environment in the Middle East than anyone can truly outline. Moreover, those color revolutions, in many senses, only half-panned out - democracy, where it was itching to flourish, has stagnated.

In case you were wondering, this is going on in Ukraine:

    (source: Sergei Chuzavkov/AP via Guardian)

What is that, you may be asking? Those are opposition protesters toppling and destroying a statue of Lenin that has stood since 1946, a la the famous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein (more photos via the previous link). Shortly thereafter, a European Union (EU) flag was raised where the statue had stood. These protesters are not yet at "revolution status," but they sure are making a point.

That point is that Ukraine is a deeply divided country, politically, linguistically, and, to an extent, culturally, though outsiders often ignore this. Though Ukraine is one nation-state, it is surprisingly evenly cut in half between East and West.

One part of Ukraine wishes to align itself with Russia, which is gradually building up its own outsider-EU political superstructure via the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the more recent Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Both historically, and in present day, Russia has wielded extraordinary influence over landlocked regions of Eurasia. Russia has served as an outlet to both West and East, and as a protector of limited sovereignty to those who follow it.

Meanwhile, the other part of Ukraine wants to continue its ongoing, lengthy process with the European Union. Eventually, this groups wishes to break free from Russia's grasp and join the European Union outright. This would greatly extend the borders of the European Union and the extent that those borders parallel Russia's.

And that's where the trouble started. Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovych, who has kept his opponent from the previous election Yulia Tymoshenko languishing in jail on largely dubious grounds, and his government elected to halt discussions with the EU and instead lean toward Russia. Part of the wedge is the jailing of Tymoshenko, which Western nations feel is unjust and illegal. The rest is a nation still feeling its way out of the shadows of the USSR, all these years later.

Perhaps this won't be a color revolution, but a real revolution, unlike those seen since the 1990s. 100,000 protesters can't be a quiet voice. Then again, this could all the same tear the country in half, an effect that has been brewing for decades.

Disarming a nation's WMD: not as easy as first thought

Syria's "voluntary" acceptance to give up its chemical weapons arsenal in light of horrific video showing the effects of a gas attack on its own population is, by all means, an unprecedented solution. Even the United Nations admits to as much. It will take well into 2014, at best estimates, to complete the process; even though it is unclear how much WMD Syria even has. One major unknown is that both sides remain locked in a civil war, so there is a disarmament process within a country still at war. Giving up the chemical weapons is certainly a much brighter prospect than being ground zero for the next major international conflict, but in the end, does it solve the problems in Syria, or even help lead to their resolution?

Disarmament is a tricky process. Germany was, in many senses, disarmed between the world wars - that didn't end too well (World War II). The list of nations that have successfully dabbled (armed, not just researched), peaceably disarmed, and then integrated into  international community norms is short. You could make the case for South Africa, but its disarmament was tied to significant sanctions because of apartheid. It was apartheid's end that really brought South Africa within norms. You may say Libya; however, similar sanctions decimated the entire economy (and the energy industry in particular). In addition, Libya under Gaddafi still came toppling down years later. Three former Soviet states inherited WMD (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine), but all returned them, having no ability to maintain them long-term and limited capacity to use them. Iraq? Well, that went south years later. No great example exists.

In many senses, Syria is a test case. What will be the effect on Assad's government? How will this affect the Syrian Civil War? What implications exist for the greater Middle East? These are all unknowns that rest on the progress of the chemical disarmament.

Previous Illexum Posts on Syria:

• Unthinkable? No. Unprecedented? No. Ignored. Yes. - Syria Today (September 5, 2013)
• UN good at counting; everything else - not so much (June 13, 2013)
• Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
• Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
• The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
• Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
• Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches? (August 2, 2012)

Opposing Soft Diplomacy

The Economist makes the case this week (Nul points: http://www.economist.com/node/21555919) against overlooking domestic oppression in the selection of international contests. While Eurovision is at the heart of the argument, the article also touches on the upcoming EURO 2012 championship, which a number of European leaders have pledged to not attend in light of Ukraine's treatment of its former Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko, who is jailed under dubious charges.

It seems funny that this, albeit short, article fails to mention international contests that cross European borders. For instance, the 2018 FIFA World Cup was awarded to Russia, a bastion of regression towards authoritarianism and international malaise over the past decade. 2022 was awarded to Qatar, which recognizes neither gay rights nor Israel. Brazil, home of the 2014 Cup, is little better, having improved democratically in recent years, but continues to undermine human rights by forcibly removing settled populations for construction and aesthetics. Another event subject to controversy is the Formula One Grand Prix, most recently in Bahrain, where human rights concerns have been raised regarding the government response to protesters. Even the biggest international contest of them all is no stranger. The 2008 Summer Games were held in China. 2016 - Brazil. 2014 Winter Games - Russia.

One aspect nearly all of these contests have in common is the fact that they are awarded by committee. The sole exception is Eurovision, which automatically transfers from country to country based on the victor. Perhaps that unique aspect of Eurovision gives it some semblance of fairness that other international contest selections lack. Instead, countries should not only pledge to politically boycott awarded games, but sometimes a more thorough boycott is needed. For example, how would Ukraine have responded under threat to move the games out of Ukraine (Poland's neighbor Germany seems to have some recently-built soccer stadiums). Despite claims, politics and sports are not separate. Sport is often used to divert attention, build loyalty, and promote populism. Does it do more to make international contests seem inclusive, so long as one has the ability to fund them, whether that funding comes from economic success or economic subjugation, or does it do more to make international contests exclusive, reserved for only those nations who agree on certain basic principles, such as human rights and representative government?