The Potential Israeli Solution to War in Ukraine

 

If there has been one constant refrain in the past few years it has been that the strangest events are to be expected. Before Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, attempts at diplomacy were tried by some of the usual suspects. French President Macron tried his hand, Turkey’s leader Erdoğan had an attempt as well, but both attained nothing. Now at what feels like a nadir in Ukraine, it may in fact be quixotic to put much hope in a new entrant to the meditation effort. Attempts to mediate before seem largely to have been scuppered not as a result of any serious failings of the mediators themselves, but of Russia’s insistence to launch this war. Despite that being the case, any hope at alleviating suffering should be grasped at and Israeli mediation provides the single best hope for ending this senseless war.

It goes without saying that efforts to seek peace are reliant on a slew of factors that are completely dissociated with who is doing the mediating. Russia’s ultimate ambitions, impacts of sanctions, the current state of the conflict, all of which are hard to predict and outside the scope of this current piece play the most crucial role. If there is a chance for peace however, Israel will almost assuredly be at the heart of the equation.

As previously mentioned, other potential nations have tried top play a role in preventing hostilities, but most are seen as beholden to one side or the other, and in many cases are too close to the conflict (as with Turkey which despite warm relations with both parties has already had started encountering issues with Russia in the Bosporus). This brings us to the current state of affairs where Israel’s recently crowned Prime Minister Naftali Bennet has just been in contact with both Putin and Zelensky, and notably is the only Western leader to reach out to Russia’s leader since the start of the war. Mr. Bennet clearly has Washington’s ear and the close kinship between the USA and Israel, as well as other Western allies is well-known. Israel’s closeness to Russia may be less so, but the 2 have in fact been closely allied in defence matters, especially in Syria where coordination with Russia is required for Israeli sorties against terrorist elements there. Israel is also vehemently opposed to rapprochement with Iran, and Russia’s seat at the negotiating table for the Iran nuclear deal is a crucial way in which it can exert influence over that process.

It is very early stages and little has happened other than initial phone calls. Prime Minister Bennet is still untested on the international stage and leads a coalition government in Israel that is fractious. Many red lines remain and Putin’s aim of Zelensky’s defenestration or Ukraine’s eternal shunning of Europe are non-starters. Israel itself has to maintain a semblance of neutrality in order to be effective, this will not be easy. Already, Israel’s policy of only allowing 5,000 non-Jewish Ukrainian refugees in (unlimited numbers of Jewish refugees from Ukraine will be granted automatic Israeli citizenship under the “Law of Return) is causing ructions in Ukraine and among some members of Israel’s coalition government. Israel, unlike traditional allies has not imposed sanctions on Russia, but could be under intense to do so again, not least because of internal political pressure. These and many other actions deemed unreasonable by either side make this a very perilous line for Israel to straddle indeed.

There are no shortage of unanswered questions with regards to the potential for mediating out of this conflict. Is mediation even possible? Is Putin interested in ending this war? Does Neftali Bennet has the diplomatic heft to pull something like this off? Still, in these exceedingly strange times a country normally at the centre of outside mediation efforts between itself and Palestine, now finds itself uniquely placed, between a kindred Jewish leader in Ukraine, close security ties with both the West and Russia, as well as just enough geographical and political distance to potentially be effective. For the current suffering in Ukraine, let’s hope this opportunity, no matter how remote, can in fact be realized.

Western Sahara's Thawing Conflict

Avid geography aficionados or those that simply appreciate the joys of examining their world atlas will have come across something unique when gazing at Morocco. Nearly half of the Moroccan landmass has a jagged line crossing through it and with what is labelled “Western Sahara”. This jagged line is encountered among disputed territories in far more well known locales including the Palestinian Territories and Kosovo. But for decades the Western Sahara issue was one that seemed wholly frozen, a relic of little import among the cacophony of global crisis that needed resolving. A central thesis shared among the editorial staff of The Thiébault Blog however (which is always unanimous, an advantage of being a 1 person “staff”) is that frozen conflicts that are allowed to fester invariably bring suffering not only to the residents of international no mans lands, but are also at constant risk of breaking out into greater war. Recent developments in Western Sahara are quickly bringing Morocco and the Polisario Front, as well as their international backers, to a dangerous loggerheads. More than just lamenting this situation however the urgency and clear path for a way forward will also be presented to all of the influential readers of The Thiébault Blog to help resolve the situation.

As is customary for this blog, a brief outline of the situation in Western Sahara will be presented. Western Sahara remained a Spanish colony until 1975 when Spain left. Morocco summarily annexed and claimed the capacious territory as its own, stating its claims predate Spain’s colonization by centuries, while encouraging Moroccans to settle in the territory. The Sahrawi people who make up the majority of those who inhabit Western Sahara formed an armed group called the Polisario Front to rebel against Morocco and fight for their own state, and as a result fighting raged until a UN brokered ceasefire in 1991. The Polisario Front is supported by neighbouring Algeria who house the Polisario Front’s self ascribed “Sahrawi Arab Democratic Republic” (SADR) which is what they call their Western Sahara state. Repeated efforts to organize a referendum on the status of Western Sahara as either an independent state, an autonomous region of Morocco or even fully integrated into Morocco have gone nowhere with myriad points of contention, but the question of who should be eligible to vote and what the  referendum options should be have proven to be the most insurmountable. Yet the conflict has remained largely frozen since 1991 with an uneasy peace holding under the auspicious of UN peace keepers (not to mention a wall erected by Morocco at the ceasefire line, eerily reminiscent of the Palestinian situation and Trump’s border wall). Things have unfortunately deteriorated recently, exacerbated by foreign meddling. 

Similar to the situation in Taiwan, recognition of Western Sahara as a country has a tendency to flip for many nations based on the state of their relations with Morocco. Notably however SADR is a full member of the African Union, while the UN categorizes it as a “Non-self Governing Territory” which in typical UN fashion is a jumble of words entirely devoid of meaning. Western Saharan recognition is of particular importance since in December 2020 President Trump took the belligerent step of completely recognizing Morocco’s claim to Western Sahara in order for Washington to broker a deal in which Rabat restored diplomatic relations with Israel. This incensed both the Polisario Front and their Algerian backers, and President Biden seems loath to reverse this incendiary decision. In response the EU, led by Spain, ensured that they would not follow the US in recognizing Morocco’s claims to Western Sahara. Though in typical fractious EU fashion, France, an ardent supporter of Morocco was not pleased by the decision. While all of this was happening internationally, 2020 was also the year in which the Polisario Front, upset with the lack of movement on a referendum declared it would no longer honour the ceasefire (though mercifully this belligerent action does not seem to have immediately lead to much resumption of hostilities on the ground).

This leads us to the current events of May 2021, where Brahim Ghali, the leader of the Polisario Front flew from Algeria to Spain to receive medical treatment, apparently for Covid19. This enraged Morocco who felt slighted by Spain providing medical assistance without their knowledge to Ghali, who they believe deserves to be tried for crimes, which Spain has somewhat meekly stated it will do. Nevertheless, in retaliation, Morocco let in  around 8,000 migrants into Cueta Spain, many of the unaccompanied minors This adds another layer of complexity since Spain controls 2 exclaves in Cueta and Melilla which are technically a part of Spain but on the African continent bordering Morocco. Spain has taken draconian action in league with Morocco to keep potential refugees out, including multiple layers of fencing, and this provides Morocco with significant leverage that it has just employed. Regardless of what happens next, Spain’s actions to provide medical treatment to Ghali have further conflagrated the Western Saharan situation. 

The above are all important to take note of, demonstrating the international implications of recent events. But while all of this shows how conflict re-emerging in an oft ignored region could have perilous global ramifications, the way forward is in fact less bedeviling than it may initially seem. Too often lost in this are the needs of those residing in Western Sahara, including the indigenous Sahrawi people. A referendum desperately needs to take place. This referendum clearly needs to include the option of an independent state. It should include an appropriately expansive view of those that can vote for self-determination. International pressure should be less based on geopolitical calculations and self-interest and instead bear down on real pressure for both sides to finally hold the referendum in earnest. Recent protests in New Zealand over the importation of phosphate from Moroccan controlled areas of Western Sahara provide the start of a blueprint. Were countries that are investing in Western Sahara like New Zealand, as well as those that hold sway like Algeria, the EU, US and AU to exert real pressure to get to a referendum, the acceptance of the status quo may end and deadlock subside. Though different in many important respects, South Sudan’s successful referendum does have some instructive lessons on how the international community can be involved in a positive way towards a process that would still be led by Western Sahara and its suzerain. The UN Mission for the Referendum in Western Sahara (MINURSO) is established and would play an important role in ironing out a way forward for the referendum and ensuring the process had legitimacy. The Western Sahara conflict is heating up again decades later, it is high time action is taken to finally allow for stability in the wider region and a durable solution for Western Saharans, this is possible, it just requires the will to do it.

A Critical Juncture for the World's Newest Energy Superpower

 

Guyana is oft forgotten. As a middling Caribbean state notable for being the only English speaking nation in South America, as well as one of the poorest countries in the hemisphere, Guyana has rarely received much in the way of global attention. That has rapidly changed. US Secretary of State Pompeo paid the first official US visit to the nation of just under 800,000 people last month. Secretary Pompeo was not there to marvel at the world-class wildlife and nature (which the editorial staff at The Thiébault Blog has long wanted to experience) but was presumably much more preoccupied with Guyana’s 8 billion+ barrels of recently discovered oil reserves (not to mention Guyana’s potential as a bulwark against neighbouring Venezuela).

There is much in to be optimistic about for the future of Guyana. Since 2015, when a consortium led by ExxonMobil discovered that aforementioned 8 billion barrels of oil, the groundwork was laid for Guyana to reach an oil output of 1.1 million barrels by 2030, rivaling the per capita output of the Gulf states. This is the kind of boon that any lower-income country would dream of and holds the promise of lifting hundreds of thousands of people out of poverty, should it not be squandered. The prospect of it being squandered is unfortunately cause for grave concern.

Guyana’s history since Colonialism has been frequently marred by ethnic ructions and violence. These came to a head in the early 2000s but have thankfully been abated in recent history. The discovery of oil and a hotly contested election have however led to some recent spasms of ethnically tinged violence. The two predominant political forces in Guyana see their support largely drawn on ethnic lines. PPP/Civic, which won this year’s election, is dominant among Indo-Guyanese while the outgoing APNU/AFC is generally the Afro-Guyanese party of choice. The election has not been without contention, it took months before the election was finally resolved with a curiously partisan Chief Electoral Officer, election irregularities and suspicious arrests (especially of said Chief Electoral Officer in recent days on complaints of “private citizens”). That being said, the Caribbean Community, along with the UK and US intervened and a recount was conducted, which helped ensure the rightful victor took the reigns and a peaceful handover of power occurred.

The future is fraught however, in recent days three teenagers have been killed in what seems to be ethnically motivated violence. Isaiah and Joel Henry were two afro-Guyanese brothers who went coconut picking and were brutally hacked to death, allegedly by an Indo-Guyanese farmer. In retaliation, Afro-Guyanese protesters ambushed a young Indo-Guyanese man Haresh Singh and beat him to death. This ethnic acrimony, made worse by a hotly contested election and the potential for grand oil wealth is being further inflamed by political leadership. In relation to investigations into this recent violence the Guyana Human Rights Association stated that “the prevailing poisonous political atmosphere has penetrated the society to the point where public trust in an impartial investigation is virtually non-existent.”

So what is the way forward? Guyana does have some of the requisite institutions, violence has largely been tempered the past couple of decades because grievances were dealt with in court instead of through violent clashes. The constitution provides for an “Ethnic Relations Commission” whose express purpose is to promote ethnic harmony. The Caribbean Community also acted admirably in effectively intervening and pushing the smooth transition of power. Still, political leadership needs to do much more to dampen ethnic strife and some institutions need bolstering. Newly elected President Ali has stated that he rules for all Guyanese, much more needs to be done to assuage concerns that this may not be the case.

In addition to the ethnic component, another key election issue concerned the deal inked with ExxonMobil for the rights to drill in the offshore reserves. There are very legitimate concerns that the outgoing government was taken advantage of and negotiated a deal which sees far too little of the money from oil going into government coffers. Secretary Pompeo’s visit seems like it was partially to ensure that Guyana would not try to get any more out of the generous deal for ExxonMobil. While it is true that Guyana needs to demonstrate an investment friendly climate, getting fleeced is not a precondition to this. US involvement has not always been an unadulterated net positive, stemming from CIA meddling in the country’s independence movement in the 1960s. Secretary Pompeo’s lobbying on behalf of ExxonMobil does not appear particularly helpful.

Guyana’s future holds immense promise, its people deserve to see this potential attained. There is the real possibility for the development of a wealthy and harmonious nation with many people lifted out of poverty, let’s hope these benefits are fully realized in the world’s newest emerging energy superpower.

Learning About Mining from Nauru

Nauru is rarely top of mind for most people. If it is thought of at all it is most likely as being the most obese nation on Earth, or perhaps in a slightly more positive light as being the world's smallest republic (though not country, that distinction rests with Vatican City). This blog however aims to take a different tack and glean lessons that are broadly applicable from phosphate mining in Nauru. Phosphate is a critical component in the global food supply. It’s primary use is in fertilizer, but is also important in animal feed supplements. Though it plays a pivotal role in our food supply, the process of mining phosphate can be devastating to the land, leaving it completely unusable.

Many countries are resource dependant and the ills of this are well-known. What Nauru provides is perhaps the most lucid example of the benefits and ramifications of resource dependency. Nauru puts into stark relief the huge benefits mining can bring, from when the tiny island nation became fabulously wealthy, as well as the ramifications from environmental catastrophe. To fully understand why this is so, let's look into Nauru's tumultuous relationship with Phosphate.

The benefits of phosphate mining came quickly, and Nauru was in fact the wealthiest nation on Earth for a time. Though these benefits did disproportionately benefit colonial powers, even after gaining independence, significant wealth was derived for Nauruans from Phosphate. In the peak year of 1975, this amounted to AUD$2.5 Billion in today’s dollars, more than enough for generations of the 10,000 odd inhabitants to survive on. Tragically however, much of this was squandered, perhaps most notoriously in a musical that premiered in London on Leonardo da Vinci having a love affair with the Mona Lisa. This musical was helpfully produced by one of the financial advisors to the Nauruan government, who wanted to get into theatre. What was left when the money was gone was a destitute nation. 80% of its landmass was reduced to little more than hulking bleach-white towers. The land was not only wholly infertile, but the detritus prevents the possibility of any kind of building. Promises by companies for reclamation never materialized. In the aftermath, Nauru's economy has turned to the rather sordid business of money laundering and detention camps. The former booming in the 90s as a favourite of the Russian Mafia, while the latter has burgeoned since the 2000s, with Australia currently providing at least 2/3 of Nauru’s revenue for holding would be asylum seekers in the notorious camps on the island.

This is meant to be far more than a fascinating history lesson of Nauru. What Nauru provides is something that is far too often missing from discussions around mining, a stark example of both the benefits and pitfalls. Resource extraction deserves a robust policy response that takes advantage in the immediate-term of a resource, but that purposively plans for the future. Governments often pay lip service to this idea, but the issue tends to lead to entrenchment on the extremes. With environmentalists advocating for no resource utilization and mining advocates wanting to dig without abandon. Pro-mining nearly always wins out, but far too many countries lack a comprehensive timeline for economic diversification. Policy needs to ensure mining windfalls are appropriately invested and that citizens receive tangible benefits. Additionally, prudent environmental stewardship of mining, including enforceable assurances of clean-up and reclamation of mines is paramount. Nauru provides a microcosm which demonstrates the course countries around the globe are destined for with continued complacency during the good times of a resource boom. A pertinent illustration of the need for resource-dependant economies to be awoken from their torpid stupor, and proactively manage their resources. Its lessons should be heeded.

What Nagorno-Karabakh Means for World Peace

Few know the name Nagorno-Karabakh, nor the recent flare up of hostilities that erupted there earlier this year. To provide a modicum of context, Nagorno-Karabakh is a region in-between Armenia and Azerbaijan which was the site of a brutal conflict in the waning years of the Soviet Union. From 1988 until 1994 Azeris and Armenians fought for control of this territory, which is internationally recognized as the territory of Azerbaijan, but has an ethnic majority of Armenians. After massive loss of life and forced displacement of both ethnic Armenians and Azeris, the current untenable ceasefire was mediated by Russia. Armenia controls most of what is now Nagorno-Karabakh with a self-declared Nagorno-Karabakh Republic being declared but not recognized globally. Meanwhile, Azerbaijan has made plain the fact that they do not want to permanently cede any territory, nor have much interest in greater autonomy for this region. Under this backdrop, headway still seemed to be made. In 2009 meetings between the two nations showed Promise, with Azeri President Ilham Aliyev stating “the negotiations can be said to have been mainly completed”. This turned out to be quixotic. In April of this year open hostilities broke out for days, with allegations of ceasefire violations still continuing to this day. Numbers on the dead are hard to corroborate in the fog of war, but dozens of soldiers and numerous civilians were killed.

This conflict in and of itself has important ramifications. From a geopolitical standpoint Azerbaijan is a close Turkish ally, and Armenia relies on Russia as its patron. Massive oil and natural gas deposits in the Caspian Sea means the region plays a vital role for European energy interests. In addition, the human toll this recent resurgence in the conflict has taken cannot be forgotten. However, for all its significance this conflict has been woefully underreported, meaning lessons that can be gleaned from it are less likely to be learned. Thankfully, as the dozens (note this is up from tens) of avid readers of The Thiébault Blog are well aware, this is a blog that is committed to exposing and learning from important stories which have not received their due.

From a global standpoint, this flare up is instructive for what it says about world peace. Nagorno-Karabakh was known as a frozen conflict, one that was on few people’s radar to escalate. Over a decade of ceasefire had led to complacency in the peace process which was in place, as well as from the international community. With more than enough active conflicts which need some resolution perhaps this is understandable. However, the impetus for peace in those places with ceasefires needs to remain. There is some hope, in Colombia the government and FARC guerillas who have been fighting for 52 years, will sign a peace treaty later this month. Elsewhere in the world, seemingly intractable conflicts mired in endless ceasefires remain. Cyprus, Moldova, Korea, Morocco, India and Pakistan, among others, are embroiled in conflicts which to varying degrees are frozen. Despite the scant attention these conflicts typically receive, paroxysm from a dictator, economic instability, or dictates from more powerful allies can quickly result in re-escalation.

Nagorno-Karabakh serves as a sobering reminder of the importance of durable peace for all conflicts, including those which are not currently active. If we forget the importance of constantly striving for peace regardless of the stage a conflict is in, then we needlessly imperil the prospects for peace around the world. 

How the Euro is Destroying the EU

Europe is currently in the throes its most recent crisis, that of the inundation of refugees. This has caused the EU economic crises to quickly fade from view. With another ephemeral deal agreed to in Greece this year, some might even think that the problem is solved. Unfortunately the problem is not solved. It will not be solved in fact, until there is a radical shift in the institutional underpinnings of the EU Monetary Union (EMU, or the Euro currency). There are two options, either the EU is going to emerge into a mega-state with a fiscal union, or the Euro will need to disappear.

The first question to address is why is there a Euro? Where did it come from? It would make sense for there to be an economic rationale behind the introduction of the single currency. In fact, economics had almost nothing to do with it. The idea was to begin the process of establishing a federal states of Europe by creating greater convergence within the EU. Along with creating a Schengen area of free movement, and allowing EU citizens to work anywhere in the EU, sharing a common currency was meant to pave the way for a common European identity that would lead to greater political integration. There are of course some economic arguments for a monetary union. Primary among them is that it decreases transaction costs between countries, which should boost trade and prosperity. Joining a monetary union however eliminates the ability for flexible exchange rates to adjust to external shocks. To rephrase the above, due to the economic jargon: it is a lot easier to trade things and invest in other EU countries when everyone is using the same currency. This is good. However, if a negative economic event effects some countries and not others, the ability to devalue a currency and pursue monetary policy which ameliorates employment is lost. This is bad.

On balance however the argument for the EU is clear, a monetary union does not make sense. A monetary union is good when there is a strong central state which can increase spending to areas effected by economic malaise, and there are few impediments to capital and labour flow. The European Commission in Brussels spends a fraction of what member-state governments do. Labour and capital though supposedly freely moving within the EU face onerous restrictions, such as differing languages among EU countries and divergent industrial and employment laws. I am far from the first to notice the unsuitability of the EU for a common monetary union. Milton Friedman, on the eve of the adoption of the Euro, wrote a prescient article on the devastating impact of a common monetary union. As Mr. Friedman said in words that I would not dare try to improve on “The aim has been to link Germany and France so closely as to make a future European war impossible, and to set the stage for a federal United States of Europe. I believe that adoption of the Euro would have the opposite effect. It would exacerbate political tensions by converting divergent shocks that could have been readily accommodated by exchange rate changes into divisive political issues. Political unity can pave the way for monetary unity. Monetary unity imposed under unfavorable conditions will prove a barrier to the achievement of political unity.”

This is not simply a pedantic argument on the benefits of monetary union in the EU, there are real consequences to this policy. Discussions about the Euro-zone’s current economic turmoil mischaracterize it as simply a debt crisis. This is an obscenely myopic view of the situation. One problem is that the EU has a severe internal trade balance. Germany in particular exports far more to the EU than EU countries export to it. This has happened at least partially because Germany has actively engaged in a policy of wage suppression. In a normal situation, the benefits of keeping wages low would be short lived, as the currency would adjust due to those aforementioned exchange rates. In the absence of this, the Euro is advantaging the German policy of excessive exports, while weak demand at home is preventing struggling Euro-zone countries from selling their products in Germany. Without rectifying this situation, the Euro-zone periphery will never recover. Once again, this is an oft overlooked institutional problem that would not exist without a Euro. With no Euro, Germany’s wage suppression policy would not hurt other Euro-zone members. There is meant to be a mechanism in Brussels for addressing excessive macroeconomic imbalances, of which this is an acute case. If the concern was largely economic and technocratic, as is usually portrayed, this imbalance would be a top priority. It isn’t however, and Germany’s political clout make any action on this inconceivable. This once again shows the relative irrelevance of the European Commission in Brussels compared to certain member states, and yet another reason why the Euro is not working.

The remedy that has largely been chosen for Europe’s crisis economies is to slash spending and supress wages (called structural reforms) in order to increase competitiveness. Increasing labour competitiveness would be much more effective with the ability to devalue a currency however. This is the beauty of exchange rates, they compensate for differing economic realities across countries. Unfortunately, with the current situation of a single currency and Germany’s low-wage labour competitiveness, it is almost impossible for structural reforms to work in Europe's periphery. In addition, without the Euro, national central banks would be able to set the interest rate appropriate for their respective countries. Greece desperately needs to get out of a deflationary spiral. Deflation is probably the worst macroeconomic outcome, it increases debt burdens (including of Greece’s sovereign debt), and makes people less likely to spend (because prices will be lower in the future). This would be the perfect time to lower interest rates, and spur inflation. However, in the usual refrain, with a monetary union this is impossible. The EU as a whole is less in need of a rate cut, without the deflationary pressures Greece is facing, and thus Greece will suffer.

Fundamentally the structure that undergirds the entire Euro-zone is unsustainable. Few would say that the monetary union has been successful. In fact, it has been an abject failure. Growth is anemic, unemployment is at stunning levels, and perhaps more tragically, the political project it was meant to propel seems destined to collapse. One of the main arguments for staying in the Euro now is the catastrophic consequences of leaving it, this is not exactly a ringing endorsement of the single currency’s success. In the most extreme case of Greece, this argument does not even hold. Greece has already faced the effects of a financial crisis and bank runs. With these costs already paid, it would at least be worth reaping the benefits of leaving the monetary union.

Friedman, and so many others were right. The Euro has created schisms in the EU that have endangered the entire European project, all because of the erroneous assumptions some European elites made. They knew that the EU was not ready for a deep political union and in its stead a monetary one was created. Now, much less than catalyzing a stronger and closer union, the Euro has simply led to political acrimony. This is the underlying and important story of the Euro-zone economic crisis. Debt, competitiveness, and bailouts are all elements of this story. But ultimately, the EMU structure belies much of the grief that has been endured in Europe. The only long-term solution is an end to the euro-zone, or the transition to what would essentially be one country. With neither of these options on the horizon, all that remains is more despair.

What Israel's Election Means for Canada

An election pitting a long serving right wing prime minister, against a recently resurgent party that used to dominate the political landscape, but had been in a precipitous decline in recent years. With a new face descended from a previous national leader, this left-wing party in many polls seemed likely to wrest power from a prime minister who had served one of the longest mandates in that nation’s history. This narrative applies just as easily to Canada’s election as it does to Israel’s. The parallels are stark, and the lessons to be learned likely are too.

The similarities between the recently held election in Israel and the forthcoming one in Canada extend to politics as well. Prime Minister Netanyahu pivoted away from any talk of his country’s languishing economy to focus squarely on security issues and foreign policy. This led to increasingly shrill calls to ditch any potential peace deal with Iran, and ultimately, renouncing his former position of a two state solution with Palestine. Perhaps the most egregious action was during voting itself when Netanyahu warned of Arab Israelis rushing to vote. Taking extreme measures to obfuscate domestic failure is something Canada’s own prime minister has been resorting to. Sweeping new measures to drastically curtail civil liberties are conjured up in response to terrorism through bill C-51. This bill seems to do very little to counter terrorism, and very much to foment fear and play wedge politics. Speaking of wedge issues, Harper has also decided as of late to tackle niqabs during citizenship tests. These wedge politics, just like Netanyahu’s policies towards Iran and Palestinians can drive votes, especially right-leaning votes. They also do well to gloss over these leader’s other glaring failings. The strength of the primary opposition party in both cases is sorely lacking as well. Isaac Herzog, former head of the labour party and leader of the Zionist Union, had the backing of a family name with his dad being a former president, but was largely out of his depth when it came to the campaign. An allegory is likely for Justin Trudeau.

Admittedly the similarities have been emphasized here, but there are enough of them that Israel’s elections should have insights into the one Canada is likely to hold soon. Those insights are not all rosy. Harper, like his friend Netanyahu has already begun playing crass politics with fear. It worked very well for Netanyahu, despite polls that seemed to put him in second place he still came out the victor. Harper is already using the same tactics, and even polls that put him behind should be analyzed with this in mind. Voters are unfortunately very receptive to fear, despite gains for the left in Israel, fear and a strong showing from a more united right won out. Hopefully Canada will not succumb to the same fate, and there is no reason to be deterministic about this, but there is no reason to be overconfident either. Harper’s tactics might prove more effective than many think, that was most certainly the case for Netanyahu in Israel. 

The Spread of Buddhist Extremism

Avid readers of this blog (now maybe numbering in the tens) will know that these posts tend to be extremely pessimistic. That being said, even the most quixotic analysis of unfolding events in Burma and Sri Lanka would find little to be positive about, especially in light of the new agreement recently signed between two Buddhist supremacist groups in Asia.

Before getting into the details, as always some backstory is required. This piece largely builds upon one of the inaugural Thiébault Blog posts concerning “Burma’s Muslim Problem” or the persecution of Muslims by Buddhist extremists in Burma. A brief synopsis of the situation will suffice here. The 969 terrorist organization in Burma led by monk Ashin Wirathu has fanned violence against Muslims in his country, killing hundreds and leaving many more maimed and injured. Wirathu’s tactics and rhetoric, include warning of Muslims who are kidnapping and raping Buddhist women, Muslims who want to overrun and take over Burma, and claiming they are “armed to the teeth and waging jihad” (all of which are patently untrue).

These tactics unfortunately have not gone unnoticed and have been emulated by another group which rose to prominence at around the same time (roughly in 2012), the Bodu Bala Sena (BBS). The BBS is based in Sri Lanka and the name roughly translated means Buddhist Power Force. A relatively innocuous traffic dispute between a Muslim and Bhuddist in Sri Lanka led to a reaction which was incited by BBS’ leader and monk Galagoda Gnanasara. The response was to gather a mob of around 7,000 to terrorize the Muslim community, resulting in several dead (some Muslims were shot by police who as in Burma simply watch events unfold). These events are becoming more commonplace in Sri Lanka as they are in Burma

The similarities between these two groups has not gone unnoticed by them. A few months ago 969 leader Wirathu gave an inflammatory and repulsive speech in Colombo to the BBS. This lead to a formal agreement between these two Buddhist supremacist groups to form an “international Buddhist force”, with the hopes of fomenting other ties with possible future Buddhist extremist organizations.

To say the reaction to these events has been muted would be an exercise in understatement. There are several reasons for this. First, nationally, both countries have Buddhist majority populations and leaders have been afraid that speaking out could be politically harmful. Sri Lanka’s government was mum in response to Muslim and Christian demands (Christians have also been targeted by BBS) to deny Wirathu a visa. Perhaps even more objectionable given her stature as a human rights paragon is Aung San Suu Kyi’s silence on the issue. This again is done on her part for political expediency.

The entire blame does not rest on representatives in these countries however. As has been mentioned before, the narrative of Buddhists carrying out extremism against Muslims does not sit well for Western audiences. First, there is a parochial fixation with Islamic terrorism that does not situate Muslims as victims well, or extremism by non-Muslims well either. In addition, Buddhism has a perhaps unique role among major religions as being venerated as being incapable of violence. Violence is supposed to be anathema to Buddhists. This leads to a willful blindness with regards to Buddhist extremism in Asia. An example that demonstrates this well is satirical online show “The Onion”, last year in the midst of violence in Burma came out with a video joking about Buddhist peacefulness entitled “Buddhist Extremist Cell Vows to Unleash Tranquility on West”. A cursory glance at the comments section shows no mention of the deep irony involved in a video making light of the existence of Buddhist extremism while a violent Buddhist extremist group was wreaking havoc in Burma.

It is almost unthinkable that similar actions could occur, for example from Muslim groups formally working together while simultaneously targeting Christians, or even other Muslims with so little attention. No atrocities deserve to be carried out with impunity, and the deafening silence surrounding Burmese and Sri Lankan victims is unacceptable. These atrocities, and the terrifying prospect of their intensification with this new pact deserve to be focused on, condemned, and combatted by the entire international community. The fear now is that Muslim minority communities in these countries may start retaliating and committing heinous acts themselves, maybe then the world will notice. 

China's Other Restless Region

Though Tibet is unquestionably the most well-known example of regional dissatisfaction in China, it is not alone. The egregiously underreported plight of residents in Xinjiang has been fomenting for decades, and has recently erupted into a horrible raft of violence. This heinous violence has been fuelled by harsh Chinese policy supressing the ethnic Uighurs in the region. Before delving into the specifics however, it is vital to provide some context.

Xinjiang is a province located in the far west of China. It borders Central Asia, specifically Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. This is important because the majority of the population in Xinjiang is ethnically Uighur, sharing much with their Central Asian counterparts. They are Muslim, speak a Turkic language and have very distinct customs from Han Chinese. The region was briefly its own republic before China quashed it and took control in 1949. Ever since, due to their unique ethnicity, language and religion, there has been a Uighur separatist movement in Xinjiang advocating for the establishment of an East Turkestan country.

China has not responded well to Uighur discontent in the farcically named Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region. Decades ago, the initial response to the problem of this restless region was the massive immigration of Han Chinese to the area. This is a page out of the former Soviet Union playbook of Russification, or flooding Soviet states that had independent minded ethnicities with ethnic Russians. In China, as was the case in Russia, it merely feeds resentment and fear of cultural loss. So many Han Chinese have flooded the area that they now make over 40% of the population. The negative implications of this policy are exacerbated by the fact that the gigantic amount of money that has been poured in to boost the economy, has overwhelmingly benefited the Han Chinese minority. Xinjiang has a recently exploited wealth of natural gas, as well as oil. These too usually benefit the ruling Han while Uighurs live in abject poverty. To make matters worse, the Chinese government has repressed Uighur language and culture, and consistently jails even the most moderate Uighurs who speak out against the government.

This sets the background for the current bloodbath in Xinjiang. Heinous attacks from Uighur separatists are accelerating in their sophistication and brutality. In April of this year, the Kunming train station saw 29 killed and 130 injured through indiscriminate attacks by knife wielding assailants. In May, a busy street market in the Xinjiang capital of Ürümqi experienced twin car bombings, along with bombs hurled at a street market which killed 31 and injured another 90. The violence has accelerated since many local governments and schools announced that students and staff would be forbidden from practising Ramadan. More recently the city of Karamay stated that for the duration of a local sports competition, for most of the month of August anyone with a beard, burka or Islamic star on them would be forbidden from boarding public busses. Chinese paramilitary units in Kashgar, considered the heartland of the Uighurs, now have paramilitary patrols who check ids and search through IPods of Uighurs to ensure that they have no Arabic or Muslim music. As for women wearing clothing that is too Islamic, they are assured detention.

The Heavy handed approach by Chinese authorities is making the problem worse. Uighurs in Xinxiang used to be known for tolerance and moderation, repression only ferments extremism and makes the horrific cycle of violence worse. The solution is a tolerance of Uighur rights, more involvement for them in economic growth, and targeting terrorists while respecting dissent. Whether or not the Chinese government will take head of this advice is unclear. Though the world might not be scrutinizing events in Xinjiang as closely as if it were Tibet, China ignores the underlying problems in this province at their peril, and at the peril of all Xinjiang’s civilians. 

Bhutan's Forgotten Refugees

If the mention of the small South Asia nation Bhutan brings any reaction to the reader, most likely it is a positive one. This is deservedly so, the country has been at the forefront of Gross National Happiness, an alternative to standard measures of GDP to indicate how well a country is performing. This has brought much scholarly intrigue and importantly examines the limitations of strictly using GDP. Bhutan is also seen as a paragon of transition from absolute monarchy to flourishing democracy. These are all things which deserve to be commended.

Unfortunately, Bhutan also has a more sinister history. This regards the much less publicized plight of its refugees. These refugees largely consist of people from the south of the country known as Lhotshampas. These are people of Nepali decent. They started crossing into the porous border in the late 1800s with large immigration throughout the 1900s, largely coming to Bhutan to work in low skill jobs. To stem the tide of immigration the government passed a law in 1958 claiming that only those who could prove their presence in Bhutan at least 10 years prior could become citizens, while also closing the border to all new Nepali migrants. This was massively ineffective and numbers of Lhotshampas swelled with a government that maintained little interest in actively policing the inflow of migrants. Things started to change in the late 1980s however. The beginning of the “one-nation one-people” policy marked this shift. This started when the first census in Bhutan, carried out in 1988, showed how large the Lhotshampas numbers were. They accounted officially for 28% of the population, unofficially numbers were likely as high as 30-40%. The reaction to this information was swift. Most Lhotshampas were labeled illegal immigrants according to the aforementioned 1958 law being applied to the information from this census. The government instituted efforts at targeting Lhotshampa culture in line with the “one-nation one-people” idea. Mandatory wearing of the Driglam Namzha, the national dress code that is used by the Bhutanese majority in the north, but was alien to these southerners, was instituted. In addition, schools were no longer allowed to teach in Nepali and replaced it with Dzongkha language which most Lhotshampas could not understand. Mass deportations then ensued. All this was met by violent ethnic unrest, and the calling for democracy and respect for minority rights on the part of the Lhotshampas. Brutal ethnic violence on both sides continued until 1993, with the Bhutanese army often forcing Lhotshampas to sign “Voluntary Migration Forms” stating their willingness to leave or coerced videotapes to the same effect to avoid international backlash.

These refugees largely settled in refugee camps in Nepal. These camps ended up taking over 100,000 refugees in, equivalent to 1/6 of Bhutan’s population. On a per capita basis this is one of the largest refugee populations ever. Nepal, despite stoking the violence and calling the violent Lhotshampa groups freedom fighters, refused to allow refugees to settle in Nepal, and was hesitant in even establishing the camps. Bhutan refused to take them back viewing them as non-citizens. Years of bilateral discussions between these two countries got nowhere. In 2001 this was meant to be rectified when Bhutan said it would take some refugees, but to this day not a single refugee has been repatriated to Bhutan. Bhutan’s unwillingness to take back their refugees, despite the rhetoric is clear. The process has been so slow that even the UN, notorious for inefficiency and a glacial pace, decided that another option would be needed. In 2008 the UNHCR (UN High Commissioner for Refugees) elected to start third country resettlement, largely to nations such as the US, Canada and Australia.

At the beginning of this year only around 34,000 refugees remained in Nepalese camps, the rest having been resettled. Though even there concerns remain. A recent report by the USA Center for Disease Control and Prevention noticed an alarmingly high suicide rate among Bhutanese refugees. Reasons for this include language barriers, worries about family at home and alarmingly high levels of PTSD, depression and anxiety. One thing is clear, whether it is the initial deportation, Nepal’s unwillingness to allow these refugees to reside in Nepal, or the West’s need to provide considerably more support, blame is widespread for the plight of these oft forgotten people. Lhotshampas have not benefited from the very democracy in Bhutan they first called for decades ago, nor, unfortunately, do they appear to have been calculated in anyone’s definition of Gross National Happiness. 

Surrendering Morals for Natural Gas in the EU

With tensions between Russia and the West at stratospheric levels not seen for decades, many questions arise. One of the most pertinent from the perspective of EU countries is how to replace Russian energy supplies, primarily natural gas and oil. The main weapon that Russia wields against the EU is in the form of gas exports. The Baltic Countries (Estonia, Lithuania and Latvia) and Finland currently rely on Russia as the sole supplier of their natural gas. While not all EU countries are forced to receive 100% of their natural gas from Russia, for many nations Russia dominates as an energy supplier. Countries within the EU as disparate as Greece, Poland, Austria and Slovenia count on Russia to supply over half of their natural gas needs. Even economic powerhouse Germany is in the unfortunate quagmire of needing Russia to supply gas, while simultaneously condemning Russia’s strong-arm tactics in Ukraine.

So in an environment where Russia is seen as increasingly hostile, and has been known to turn off the gas before (to Ukraine in pipelines that continued on to Europe) the search for alternatives is quickening. The solution will largely be Turkmenistan. It is unlikely you have ever heard of this country or know its workings in any depth. Its relevancy for energy is huge however. It has the fourth largest proven natural gas reserves on Earth (two of the biggest are Russia and Iran both of which are problematic). It is already China’s largest gas supplier. In addition, Turkmenistan’s recently opened Galkynysh gas field is the second largest in the world, eclipsed only by the South Pars Field in the Persian Gulf. The EU has already made moves to embrace Turkmen gas. Last November the head of the EU Mission in Ashgabat (Turkmenistan’s capital) confirmed that among the myriad pipelines the Turkmen’s are building, the Trans-Caspian pipeline from Turkmenistan to the EU was being finalized. This is an integral part of the EU’s “Southern Corridor” plan to supplant Russian gas with gas from Central Asia (primarily Turkmenistan) the Caucuses and the Middle-East. In addition to an abundance of natural gas, Turkmenistan also has oil, the other resource which Russia controls over the EU. Oil has developed more slowly than natural gas largely because of maritime disputes with neighbouring Iran and Azerbaijan. Still, there is the potential for up to 700 Million barrels of recoverable reserves, in addition to the 200,000 barrels a day that Turkmenistan currently produces.

Those expecting little more than an analysis of a future EU energy supplier as part of a pivot away from Russia will be disappointed. While the President of the European Commission happily visited Turkmenistan to discuss energy imports while ignoring Turkmenistan’s totalitarian regime, this blog believes that moral obligations are not so easily ignored. Which leads into a brief explanation of life in Turkmenistan. It is one of the most repressive countries on Earth. Its former leader “Turkmenbashi” (Father of the Turkmen) maintained an intense cult of personality often compared to that of Kim Il-Sung. He had complete power and participated in frequent arbitrary policy changes, for example closing all hospitals and libraries outside the capital. His sudden death in 2006 led to absolute control being seized by Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow. This gentleman’s unpronounceable name did not ameliorate the situation. Travel is tightly controlled, people are often arbitrarily forbidden from leaving the country. Independent media is non-existent and Turkmenistan is ranked 177^th in the Press Freedom Index, only North Korea and Eritrea score worse. One person who had the gall to talk to Radio Free Europe (who are constantly harassed) woke up the next morning to a bloody sheep’s head. Internet access does not exist, only access to “Turkmenet” is available. This is a strictly controlled Government censored version of the internet, which can only be accessed at Government run computer stations after surrendering a passport. Even the UN is not allowed in, many UN officials have been waiting for visas that have been put on hold indefinitely. Relatively benign acts are often punished harshly. Two popular musicians who appeared on a Turkish talk show were sent to prison for 5 and 7 years for their music and being on international TV.

Admittedly resource rich economies are notorious for authoritarian regimes. No one will allege that oil from Saudi Arabia or Venezuela is coming from an especially free society. That being said, even in the company of resource rich states Turkmenistan still stands out as especially deplorable. The EU prides itself on conveying a strong sense of ethical standards. This is likely why it was banned from negotiating a partnership agreement with Turkmenistan since 1998, which has recently been reopened without any need for human rights improvements. This is all abetted by a public which is largely uninformed concerning Central Asia’s “Stans”. An increasingly pressing need to diversify energy imports away from Russia cannot result in the total disregard for the plight of millions of Turkmen. Unfortunately, dealing with an obscure country which can open up a natural gas bonanza makes ignoring human suffering so much easier. 

Italy's House of Cards

First, let me note that for anyone who has not finished the second season of House of Cards, I recommend you stop reading here as there are spoilers in this piece.

Italy has a fresh face as Prime Minister. Matteo Renzi’s meteoric rise to power vastly exceeds the fictional one of House of Cards’ main protagonist Frank Underwood, in both the speed and cunning with which he reached the highest position in his nation. Those who chastise the writers of House of Cards for being unrealistic in their portrayal of a whip so quickly ascending to the role of presidency, would be advised to have a look at the very real events that occurred in Italy.

Mr. Renzi was a relative unknown not so long ago. He was the mayor of Florence since 2009 (relinquishing this post just a few days ago) and became Secretary of the Democratic Party (Partito Democratico or PD) in Italy last year. This national party also happened to be the party of the former Prime Minister Enrico Letta, who was recently ousted. This does not appear to make much sense on first glance, how did this obscure Mayor of Florence replace a Prime Minister from his own party? Mr. Renzi was very busy upon assuming his new position within the PD, with his first order of business was to mercilessly criticize the sitting Prime Minister from his own party, Mr. Letta. Unlike House of Cards, where almost everyone surrounding Frank Underwood seems to be uniquely predisposed to manipulation, Mr. Renzi’s blatant gambit for power did not go unnoticed. Everyone knew what the the young ambitious politician wanted. Mr. Letta did not go quietly, but Enrico Letta was never a good politician, and lacked the charisma that the man who took his place has in spades. Mr. Renzi got the support of the majority of the PD to oust Mr. Letta, and formed a coalition within the parliament enacting him as Prime Minister on February 22 of this year.

This move was never popular with the public, and opinion polls after these political machinations clearly show this. That being said, Italy is currently in crisis with unbelievably high unemployment and a deep recession. Enrico Letta, and Mario Monti before him, were both Prime Ministers of a more stale and technocratic nature, and not much seems to have improved concretely in the lives of ordinary Italians under their watch. This explains why in the last election voters turned out in droves to vote for Beppe Grillo, a comedian who seemed to offer something radically new. This also elucidates why Italians, despite not liking the method with which he got to his position, are willing to give their new Prime Minister leeway in his ambitious proposals to remedy Italy’s numerous ills. That being said, Mr. Renzi does not seem to see the need to go to the polls until his term is up, and by his term we really mean the term he ruthlessly seized from Mr. Letta.

Italy has had its fair share of interesting politics, and that is not meant to be a positive statement (Mr. Berlusconi’s failure to leave politics still casts a pall on Italy). This however, takes it to another level. Desperation for new blood should not result in one man being above requiring a democratic mandate, even being elected as an MP would be a good start. Getting insiders within his party to support him does not count. Mr. Renzi is the youngest Prime Minister since Italian unification in 1861, and is the first person to become Prime Minister without having been elected to the national parliament. These are accomplishments the fictional President Underwood could only have dreamed of. Back-stabbing politics, blind ambition, and a disregard for the democratic process are not qualities that should be encouraged however. They make for great TV, but horrible politics. 

Iran and Iraq: How America Turned Foes Into Friends

Zhou Enlai, an instrumental force in Communist China under Mao is reputed to have stated “it is too early to tell” when asked about the ramifications of the French Revolution (which had happened over 200 years prior). As a master of foreign policy and diplomacy during a time when China was routinely embroiled in international disputes, perhaps he could have offered some sage advice to the United States in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, and the ultimate consequences that conflict could end up having.

To prevent this post from becoming overly esoteric let me clarify that I am referring to reports today of a deal for Iraq to buy weapons from Iran. This contravenes the UN Security Council embargo on arms sales from Iran, which are part of sanctions against Iran due to its Nuclear Program. According to sources in the Reuters report, Iraq’s President Nouri al-Maliki made the decision after frustration with the reluctance from the US to provide munitions to Iraq. The irony in this is that many in the US were hesitant to provide weapons to the Iraqis because of fear that they were growing too close to the Iranians. By withholding the arms it appears that only pushed Iraq closer to a new Iranian ally. This will clearly have an impact on negotiations between Iran and Western leaders on Iran’s nuclear program. The West is counting on effective sanctions to force Iran to make broad concessions in a final deal on its nuclear program, this hampers that desire. More fundamentally, the entire region, including Israel and the Gulf, both of whom are weary of Iran’s growing influence, is changing with this deal that consecrates the relationship between these two countries. While there are many implications for the Middle East and the globe in the arms agreement, the purpose of this article is to examine the historical context of this deal, as will be done below.

Relations between Iran and Iraq were frosty for a long time. When the Shah came to power in Iran through a US sponsored coup, he was distrustful of both the Socialist government and Arab nationalist Baath party in Iraq. A major dispute over a waterway led to Iranian warships being used to intimidate the Iraqis. In addition, Iran under the Shah, along with close ally Israel, concocted an elaborate scheme to provide weapons to Kurdish rebel insurgents in Iraq by using Soviet weapons captured by Israel. The relationship did not ameliorate with the 1979 revolution that overthrew the Shah that culminated in the Islamic Republic of Iran that is currently in place. Saddam Hussein who ruled Iraq with an iron fist and as a Sunni was worried that the majority Shia (Sunni and Shia are both different sects within Islam) who had been repressed in Iraq would see the Iranian revolution as a model. This launched the Iran-Iraq war, 8 years of brutality marking the longest conventional war of the 20^th century and longest sustained campaign of chemical weapons.

The war’s end in 1988 did not result in a thaw or sudden good will between the two countries however, but the US war in Iraq would take care of that. With the overthrow of Saddam Hussein the road was paved for democratic elections and a horrific civil war between Sunni and Shia. The pendulum shifted in Iraq and Shia leaders came to dominate government with Sunnis being relegated to second class citizens. This led to a gradual, and perhaps unsurprising shift towards Iran as a fellow Shia controlled nation. Iraq is finally finding itself as a nation that is run by Shia and finds one of its few natural allies in Iran. Iran too, ever since the Islamic Revolution has faced a dearth of allies and a strongly hostile environment. This helps explains Iran’s unyielding support for Syria’s tyrannical government as one of its very few close allies in the region.

This is not the first case where Zhou Enlai’s words of wisdom have applied before, but this is an important example. It is almost certain that the “Coalition of the Willing” in Iraq did not envision that their war to drive out Saddam would result in the creation of a powerful Iran-Iraq nexus in the Middle East. This is not to say that international interventions should never be considered, but actions should be considered with caution as the long-lasting implications can rarely be ascertained with certainty. In turbulent Iraq today it is still “too early to tell” what the result of the US invasion will be.

Goodbye Unions, Hello Inequality

There has been a trend of union berating that has been present for decades now. It is especially prevalent among conservatives, which is unsurprising, but in my experience also widely held among the mainstream. At the same time there is also a welcome concern about income inequality which has seen dramatic increases. The culprits of rising inequality are numerous and include everything from tax regimes that favour the wealthy, to the effects of increased trade liberalization. Paramount among these however, as well as the focus of this entry is unionization. It is not an accident that declining unionization happened concurrently with increasing inequality.

It may not be initially intuitive why unions contribute to greater equality. As a result of their ability to collectively bargain on behalf of their workers for higher wages, unions have had a strong contribution on maintaining a middle-class. The same middle-class whose gradual demise is lamented today. In fact, union’s representation is heavily concentrated among middle-class workers. This has positive spillover effects for entire sectors, even for non-unionized employees. When unions at one workplace secure higher wages and better working conditions, competing companies are pressured into matching this to ensure they do not loose workers and to discourage their own workers from unionizing. Critics of unions, foremost among them economist Milton Friedman retort that while resulting in higher wages, unions have the deleterious effect of fewer available jobs. It is also widely believed that much outsourcing can be attributed to unions which increase the cost of domestic labour, and make labour abroad for everything from call centres to computer programming more appealing.

There is no question that unions are not perfect. Economic doctrine establishes that there are trade-offs and Mr. Friedman might have had a legitimate claim that unionization has led to less jobs. Having full employment by sending workers to poor conditions might not be desirable either however. To use a brief example, many recent jobs have been created by retail goliath Wal-Mart. Wal-Marts in Ohio held food drives for their employees for thanksgiving because wages were too low for most employees to be able to afford holiday Turkeys for their families. Wal-Mart unsurprisingly has been a flash point for unionization with the company determined to ensure that workers do not unionize. I think many people would argue that these are not the types of jobs and working conditions that should be encouraged. Again, unions are often subject to bad management, ineffectively representing their workers, and are only representing their own interests. When large American unions support the Keystone XL pipeline they are not taking into account the environmental implications, they are simply interested in the jobs it could lead to for their employees. The flip side is that companies repeatedly suffer similar problems but no one advocates for the elimination of corporations. The fact that unions sometimes have problems does not circumscribe their important role in worker representation and helping in an economy-wide manner to greater equality.

While it is difficult to ascertain exactly how much of the upswing in economic inequality is the result of decreasing union presence, researchers at Harvard have tried to quantify this. They used data from the population survey from 1973-2007 in the US, during which time union membership collapsed from 34% to 8% of private sector employees. They conclude that a fifth to a third of growth in inequality during this timeframe was determined by the decline in organized labour. The trend to decreasing unionization has been slower in Canada but like our neighbours in the USA and UK the development has been ever-present. Perhaps one of the most striking visual representations of this trend and its economic effects are found in the following graph from the Economic Policy Institute, a think tank in the US.

The question is why this is happening? And while once again there are several factors, government policy is a significant reason. Instead of taking serious steps to tackle excessive levels of inequality which should include a healthy organized labour movement, policy has been routinely anti-union. Scott Walker the governor of Wisconsin might be the most famous anti-union activist. He is not alone however, so called “right to work” legislation is spreading in the US. The tenants behind right to work are enticing. Most workers do not particularly like having part of their salary taken away in the form of union dues. If workers have the option of opting out of their union as this legislation enshrines many will choose to do so. This law is pernicious because it undercuts the union’s bargaining position and effectively guts all unions in the states which have this law enforced. Canada is not immune from Ideological laws that hamper the middle-class by attacking unions. Russ Hiebert a little known conservative MP from White Rock has introduced bill C-377. This bill had the support of the Conservative caucus but is mercifully being held up and gutted in the Senate. This represents one of the few moments the Senate has been anything other than a wasteful repository for partisan faithful and actually served a purpose. This bill apparently aims to make unions transparent. This sounds great, but is terrible. It imposes extremely onerous requirements that apply to unions and no one else. These include a minimum of 24 different detailed statements, including reporting any transaction over $5,000. These extremely costly requirements would place more burden of “transparency” on unions than any other group in Canada including companies, non-profits, even government departments themselves face less requirements. The fact is this bill is not necessary, by law unions must make annual financial statements to their members and provide necessary financial disclosures publicly, as well as being democratically accountable to their members. Mr. Hiebert ostensibly states that the reason for this bill is because unions receive public funding. Shockingly we are still awaiting the announcement that oil companies and agri-business that receive millions in government subsidies will be under the same scrutiny.

Unions are increasingly under attack accelerating the decline of organized labour that has been taking place for years. Many still view unions as antiquated and archaic, if that is the case than apparently adequate economic equality and a thriving middle class are antiquated as well. 

The Olympics and Russian Crimes in Chechnya

Russia has been in the spotlight recently over a myriad of issues, many of which have been heightened due to the upcoming Olympics in Sochi. This is important, Russia has many human rights abuses to atone for under the present leadership. Russian President (for life) Vladimir Putin is under intense pressure and has released many political prisoners. These range from Greenpeace activists to a former Russian oligarch who fell out of favour with Mr. Putin. While many political prisoners have been released in the past weeks, too many still rest in Russia’s prison archipelago. The Olympics have also put pressure on laws contrary to homosexual rights, more explicitly legislation banning “homosexual propaganda”. While perhaps less directly related to the Olympics, Mr. Putin’s persistence in maintaining Syria as an ally in the face of horrific atrocities has been widely criticized. Finally, a subject that was broached on this blog is the situation in Ukraine. Russia is playing off Ukrainian reliance on trade and cheap gas to keep this nation within Moscow’s orbit, this has also been widely panned. Conspicuously absent from this list is the Chechen situation and the rampant human rights abuses there.

That is not to say that Chechens have been completely excluded from the news cycle. Rather infamously, the Boston Marathon bombing was the work of Chechens (though their ties to Chechnya were tenuous). Of late, the bombing in Volgograd appears to originate from the North Caucasus (the region that Chechnya is in). This has raised concerns of security for the Sochi Olympics, which is understandable since the games will be a prime target for terrorist acts. This story is not as one sided as it seems however, and there is a complete vacuum regarding the plight of Chechens. Terrorist acts are never tolerable and Chechens, especially Islamists have committed many atrocities. These include bombings in Moscow subways and even attacks on schools. These are often targeted by “black widows” the term for the predominantly female suicide bombers who commit these violent acts after they have lost their spouse (along with undoubtedly many other family members). Unfortunately atrocities are not one sided in this case, and Russia since the fall of the Soviet Union has been responsible for some hideous carnage.

As a brief digression, some background is important. Chechnya along with other former members of the Soviet Union declared their independence after the collapse of the USSR. This was not to last however, due to Chechnya’s slightly different status Russia saw it not as a former Soviet Socialist Republic, but as part of its territory. This resulted in a first Chechen war from 1994-1996. In the lead up to this war and immediately following it Chechnya had a democratically elected government that was quite moderate. In the period before the second Chechen war started however, the creeping tide of radical Islam started to take hold. This was largely felt in the presence of foreign Wahhabi troops. These Wahhabis support a puritanical version of Islam and receive much of their support from Saudi Arabia (basically like Al-Qaeda). This lead to many clashes between moderate Chechen groups and largely foreign Wahhabis in the inter-war period. The second war commenced in 1999 and effectively ended in 2009. Contrary to the first war which saw the shocking victory for Chechen rebels, this one saw Russian victory and the reassertion of Russian control in this territory.

That Russian control did not come without a price however. Credible reports, reported by Amnesty International detail indiscriminate shelling and bombing of towns. Perhaps more heinous, civilians and medical teams were specifically targeted by Russian troops. In addition, hundreds of civilians and Prisoners of War were extra-judicially executed. This led to untold numbers of mass graves, the current count is approximately 60 but it is assumed thousands more are buried. Russia has an official policy of not exhuming or searching for these graves, this helps expedite a process of war crimes denial. In order to find some recourse in the face of Russian orchestrated impunity Chechen victims appealed to the Council of Europe’s European Court of Human Rights. This court has ruled against Russia stating that it has violated many human rights laws. These horrors were responded to by often equally objectionable acts, particularly from the radical Islamic elements of the resistance. In my view, the brutality of the Russian invasion caused extremism to flourish and made the problem of radical Islam even rifer in Chechnya.  Mr. Putin was President during this period up until declaring victory in 2009. His policies have not improved during his present tenure.

Human rights activists in Chechnya were awarded the 2013 Martin Ennals Award for Human Rights Defenders. This award is given by ten of the most influential human rights organizations including Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch. It was awarded to “Joint Mobile Group” who have given themselves the task of aiming to bring to justice those who perpetrate forced disappearances, extrajudicial executions and torture in Chechnya. This award is significant and well deserved. The state of Chechnya in the aftermath of the second war with Putin’s counterinsurgency campaign is marred by abduction, arbitrary detention and torture. Their bravery is clear, in 2009 several of the most prominent human rights defenders in Chechnya were abducted and executed, that fate could easily follow these brave crusaders. This is not to mention the persistent plight of ordinary Chechens under Russia.

International events with the prestige of the Olympics are critical in galvanizing international condemnation for abuses of all kinds. This has already begun with the release of political prisoners, the spotlight on Russia’s anti-gay law, and perhaps closer attention to Russian foreign policy. This has not happened with what is perhaps the most blatant of Russia’s human rights abuses. The Global community cannot in good conscience ignore Chechnya, these people should not be regarded as simply Muslim terrorists (though some are and those should be condemned) but as victims of horrific Russian policy. Hopefully the world will take note of this soon, the likelihood of that happening unfortunately seems slim.