Only Politics

Turkey is going through turbulent times. The Kemalists are trying to get rid of the liberal Islamist AKP through the courts. The AKP has struck back by arresting two generals for allegedly leading an armed gang that wanted to destabilize society through killings thus paving the way for military intervention. The words of Ataturk Kemal ring true even today. He had once said, ‘Politics and soldiering have no place together.’ The Turkish secularists seem to have not understood the wisdom of this advice. The result is – many military coups and the current clash between the military and the main political party. Though the AKP claims that the clash is between democracy and rigid secularist authoritarianism, it too hardly covers itself in glory on many matters. The party leaders have the power to fire any party functionaries as they deem necessary with out being accountable for its action. So the party is inherently authoritarian. Also the Islamist agenda of the party does peep through many of its actions like the lifting of the ban on scarves, efforts to ban alcohol on TV, force bars beyond city limits, and impose a conservative morality on the country. Erdogan recently said that every woman should at least have three children; a very ‘orthodox-Muslim’ statement. But it is unlikely that Turkey will go the ‘Iran’ way. Less than 10% of Turks like the idea. The AKP should understand that the Turks voted for it because they feel it can deliver economic prosperity, not for its Islamist goals. Because of these factors the party is hardly expected to go a long way towards its Islamist agenda. The army too will not dare to dislodge the AKP government by force because it came to power on the basis of a 47% brute majority. The main problem in Turkey is that it still has a constitution bestowed upon it by the last martial rule. But because the secularists and the AKP are at loggerheads, it is unlikely that a consensus on a new liberal charter for the nation will be reached.

Turkey is bracing for biggest political upheavals in recent times. Turkey’s highest court, the Constitutional Court, will convene today to decide whether the ruling party, Justice and Development Party, popularly known as AKP is indulging in anti-secular activities. The government may be dissolved. The court ruling may even ban the senior party leaders which includes Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan from politics for next five years! Turkey, though dominated by muslims, is a secular state. For 85 years Turkey’s judiciary and military have been guardians of secular pillars of the state. Political parties have been banned nearly 20 times in the past in order to protect the secular credentials of Turkey’s constitution. AKP won elections last summer for its economic development agendas and not religious motives. AKP’s biggest mistake was its attempt to lift ban on headscarves at public universities. AKP has been accused by prosecutors of hiding an Islamist agenda which runs against Turkey’s secular constitution. If not banned, AKP might be heavily penalised for non-secular activities. On the other hand they may be cleared of all charges or let off with simple warnings. Prime Minister Erdogan armed with his party’s five year record has denied charges. He has said that the charges are politically motivated. He recently told Hurriyet, The 1.5-billion-strong Muslim world is watching us to see how we accommodate religion and secularism. Accomodating religion and secularism is indeed a tough challenge in the current polarised world. The court’s verdict may be out by mid August. Till then Turkey’s hope of joining European Union looks grim. Meanwhile the prelude of bomb blasts at Istanbul by suspected ultras and strong polarised secular and religious camps has already divided the opinion of the people of Turkey. Everyone is braced for the national courtroom drama where the ruling government will be tried in a court of law.

International Criminal Court (ICC) chief prosecutor, Luis Moreno-Ocampo, has filed genocide charges against Sudan’s President Al-Bashir and has requested an arrest warrant. The opinion of human rights groups and UN aid agencies are divided as to whether this move will act as long needed action against Sudanese government and start a real peace process or will this lead to more chaos in Darfur? Many fear there will be a huge setback if Al-Bashir and Sudanese government decide to retaliate against any arrest moves by ICC. The genocide charges against Al-Bashir are serious. The submitted evidence shows that Sudanese President tried to wipe out three ethnic tribes in Sudan’s western Darfur region. In 2003, members of Fur, Massalit and Zaghawa groups rebelled against the government. They defeated the state army. Al-Bashir then sent lawless militia called janjaweed after these groups. Since 2003 janjaweed has committed serious war crimes for which Al-Bashir and Sudanese government are totally responsible. Rebels are happy and they want Al-Bashir to be arrested. But is it possible to arrest the Sudanese President and start peace talks with the government which is headed by Al-Bashir himself? Some feel ICC’s move itself will act as a deterrent and make Al-Bashir go soft and invite rebel groups for peace talks. The President will definitely be under international pressure but ICC cannot stop him from moving within Sudan and carrying out operations against rebels and aid workers. Darfur has suffered for nearly five years. The conflicts have left nearly 300,000 killed, thousands of women and children raped and abused. UN is unable even to carry out the full-fledged aid operations in the region. Finally, this move by ICC might be seen as better late than never by many. Everyone expected UN, West and other countries to act and bring peace back in Darfur. Now that ICC’s prosecutor has filed charges, there are many unanswered questions. Will ICC comply? Will this UN initiative revive the peace process in Darfur which is almost dead? Or will it spoil whatever little chance the peace had in the region? Will Al-Bashir,as head of the state use all the state machinery and retaliate not only against the rebels but UN peacekeepers and aid workers as well? It is best to hope that things will change for better in Darfur. But if they don’t, things cannot be more worse in Darfur. source: LosAngelesTimes

When the British Prime Minister, Gordon Brown, promised last year to work internationally for a ban on weapons that cause unacceptable harms to civilians in wars, the world thought that finally the innocent civilians would be saved from the ravages of death and destruction. However, Gordon Brown has broken his promise as Britain is all set to obstruct a global ban on use of cluster bombs. In an international conference in Dublin, Britain will prevent over hundred countries from reaching an agreement on banning use of cluster bombs. M85 and M73 are the two sets of cluster bombs that are fired by artillery and rockets respectively. Despite Britain’s stance that M85 do not pose any threat to civilians, statistics with the United Nations show that over 300 civilians were killed or injured when Israel used the weapon on Lebanon in 2006. USA, China, Israel and Russia are under no circumstances willing to depose their cluster munitions. They will not attend the Dublin conference. Manufacture and trade of cluster bombs have gained momentum in recent years. These weapons open in mid air and randomly scatter dozens of individual bomblets over a large area, killing hundreds of civilians. With the most powerful countries retaining their cluster munitions, it hardly seems likely whether there will be any positive outcome from the Dublin conference.

Kenya is one country which faced whole lot of troubles before putting together a cobbled up coalition government in parliament. The elections were controversial with reports of irregularities by those in power; results were controversial, there was much post election violence and finally, with intervention of former United Nations secretary Kofi Annan, a power sharing peace equation was put in place. Incumbent Mwai Kibaki was reinstated as President and pposition leader Raila Odinga was made the Prime Minister. The 93 member cabinet with huge pay packet of $10,000 each is in place. Yet, woes of people remain unaddressed and Kenya’s elected politicians are looking away from crucial administrative issues. The tribal groups are still in conflicts. People displaced by violence and ethnic clashes are still in camps. Those who try to return home are being forced off it. Women and girls are still being raped and abused by dominating groups. People are forced to return to refugee camps. There were some 350,000 people displaced by clashes and very few could return home. According to Human Rights Watch aid workers, international observers and experts, the crucial issues which need to be addressed are all controversial issues. They are related to constitutional review, land resettlement and reforms, and there is high competition for jobs. It is difficult to reach a consensus on issues pleasing all those in power. Neither corruption nor election irregularity or post election violence matters can be investigated. This will implicate many of cabinet members themselves. The coalition government itself will collapse if such matters are pursued in the interest of people and nation-rebuilding. Moreover, the Kenyan President and Prime Minister have their contradicting agendas to pursue in the interest of their parties and supporters. For example, PM Odinga suggested amnesty for his jailed supporters while President Kibaki wants them to face judiciary. Rebuilding Kenya and governing Kenya seems to be on backburner. They are too busy staging and upstaging each other’s move. All politicians seem to love power more than their country, country’s poor displaced people and their welfare.

A west-sponsored UN Security Council resolution against the Mugabe regime in Zimbabwe has died pre-maturely after Russia and China vetoed it. Russia said that the resolution would have meant interference in internal matters of Zimbabwe. It has conveniently forgotten another aim enshrined in the UN Charter- protection of human rights. China gave the argument that Mugabe’s actions in his country did not constitute any international security threat. It was futile to hope for anything better from China. A few months ago an arms-laden Chinese ship had tried to unload its cargo in South Africa headed for Zimbabwe. One of the aims of the UNSC resolution was to place an arms embargo on Zimbabwe. That would have meant blocking of a lucrative market for Chinese arms industry! Anyway the industry is booming on arms sales to many repressive regimes in Africa. Passage of the resolution would have meant start of a new trend of clamping down on all repressive governments in the continent. China wants to have excellent relations with all African governments in its search for minerals and oil. Human rights come last on its lists of priorities. Moreover both Russia and China are wary of homilies on human rights given to them by the US and the west. They would hardly have support a resolution on the same matter in Zimbabwe. Both countries have shaky human rights record. The vetoes also reflect the growing power of the two countries. It is meant as a clear hint to the west the its dominance in world affairs will not be tolerated and that they (Russia and China) have their own aspirations to wield greater power; human rights and democracy in Zimbabwe can take a walk! The Chinese hypocritically said using coercion against Mugabe would only hamper the advent of democracy in that country. One of the motives of the west for the UN resolution was to protect the interests of its MNCs placed in Zimbabwe. Mugabe has been clamping down on foreign companies and wants Zimbabwean control of all businesses. Among others, Shell, the Anglo-Dutch oil giant, has announced its withdrawal. Russia and china will be glad to see the backs of such companies from Zimbabwe. It leaves a vacuum that will create opportunities to its own companies.

Just when world leaders where attending grand opening of Olympic games in Beijing, Russian tanks moved into South Ossetia to counter Georgia’s surprise attack on the region. Russia has sent tanks, troops and warplanes in to the region. In the battle that is raging in large parts of Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, more than thousand civilians are reported to have been killed and the numbers are increasing. According to BBC report, Georgia has declared state of war for 15 days. South Ossetia has been bone of contention ever since USSR fragmented into smaller countries. South Ossetia never really wanted to be part of Georgia. In 1991-92 it even fought a war for its independence from Georgia. But official sovereign recognition never came. Russia played role of mediator between the two and worked out a truce. In 2006, South Ossetians did hold an unofficial referendum but legally it is still a part of Georgia while it enjoys Russian patronage. The militant separatists have constantly engaged with Georgia to breakaway from it and tension has continued. Couple of days ago, when the conflicts with separatist groups escalated, Georgia moved in army. Russia feels this is an attempt to regain authority on the region. Russia has responded by moving in troops and warplanes and air attacks. This territorial war will have a global impact. Georgia is an ally of US in its ‘war on terror’. Bush will definitely support Georgia for its strategic importance. The western world obviously blames Russia for excesses, while Russia is blaming Tblisi government’s armed attempt to regain control over South Ossetia. EU, NATO and US all have urged to stop this territorial fight. Meanwhile as diplomatic initiatives and UN’s interventions are failing to broker peace and ceasefire, the conflict has escalated with Russian jets attacking the town and Georgia calling back its troops from Iraq. History shows territorial wars never bring long lasting peace. Inspite of ceasefire and peace negotiations we are seeing many such conflicts gaining a lifeline of their own in many parts of the world. It’ll be unfortunate if this becomes a constantly evolving war and show of might by both sides.This will only increase civilian deaths and constant fear of attack will stalk people in the region. Peace will be all the more elusive.

South Ossetia, a region which is legally a part of Georgia, is almost fully under the control of separatist groups that want to cede from Georgia and join the Russian region of North Ossetia. The nights here regularly see intermittent gun and mortar fire between the official Georgian forces and the armed separatist groups. South Ossetians have a grudge that the Georgians discriminated against them since the Soviet times. It was Stalin who divided Ossetia into two in 1922 and made Noth Ossetia part of Russia and South Ossetia a division in Georgia. The division was then protested by the Ossetians who are mostly Orthodox Christians. The tiny South Ossetia’s attempt to break free of Georgia in 1991-’92, immediately after the break-up of the Soviet Union, was suppressed by Georgian troops. Now, Georgia’s bid for NATO membership has infuriated Russia and there is talk of armed conflict over South Ossetia. The border between the Russian North Ossetia and the Georgian South Ossetia is porous and there is unchecked movement of people from both the sides. The tensions between Russia and Georgia over South Ossetia have been rising and the likelihood of a full-scale war breaking out between the two countries is not ruled out. Russia has warned Georgia of “large-scale military action” and has further said that it would “not remain indifferent” to any danger to the South Ossetians who are holding Russian passports. There have been repeated accusations and counter-accusations by Russia and Georgia about attacks on each other’s territory. A Russian plane bombed Georgian villages close to South Ossetia last summer and Georgia warned of the danger of full-scale war. Last month, when the US Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice visited Tbilisi, the Georgian capital, four Russian fighter planes flew over South Ossetia, making public Russia’s claim over the region. Temur Iakobashvili, Georgia’s minister for re-integrating its separatist regions, argues, Russia will undermine Georgia until it is formally placed on the path towards NATO membership, and more US and EU involvement in security missions and negotiations in Georgia’s breakaway provinces is needed. The separatist government in Tskhinvali, the capital of South Ossetia, is overtly pro-Russian and anti-Georgian in its stand. The region’s Deputy Prime Minister, Boris Chochiev, says, All we see is that Georgia is preparing for another war. But we wouldn’t be alone. It would be a war of the Caucasian peoples against Georgia, and Russia would be obliged to protect its citizens. And the message is clear that Russia would not let go its grip on the Caucasian region. The simmering conflicts in the various regions in the Caucasus and the Russian interference here, both direct and indirect, keeps the ethnic and economic divides politically charged, while no immediate solution is in sight.

Most Western powers have been skeptical about the way Russian elections are held and the new government was seen as a body that is under the shadow of Vladimir Putin. Not surprisingly, the Medvedev government, which revealed the future foreign policies of the Russian government, seems not to deviate from the earlier acrimonious policies set by Putin. Putin had clashed with the West on a number of issues such as installation of U.S missile defense system in Eastern Europe, skepticism about the American war of terror, closer ties with China, and opposition of eastwards expansion of the NATO alliance. A new found confidence supported by oil revenue and the desire of other nations to see an alternate voice being heard, other than that of the U.S has allowed the Medvedev government to continue the previous foreign policies. Russia recently angered many countries by vetoing a U.N Security Council resolution to punish Mugabe on charges of violence and misuse of power. Medvedev shot back that it is against any resolution that seeks to punish a country due to the way elections are held. The U.S especially has been a vocal critic and Zalmay Khalizad, the U.S ambassador to the UN felt the Russian Veto raises questions about it’s reliability as a G-8 partner. However, what seems to have angered the Russian government is the American military presence in the neighborhood, especially the installment of a radar system in the Czech republic and Russia has suddenly cut down the oil supplies to the central European nation. This has raised fears among many countries about Russia’s ability to use energy as a leverage to establish its policies. Russians are worried about the NATO expansion and also the U.S military action in Iraq. Russia has been a vocal of critic of the American foreign policies and the continuation of Putin’s policies may actually be good in many ways, especially in a situation where war looms over Iran. Russia has ruled out its support for military actions against Iran and stresses the importance of dialogue. The new foreign policy doctrine also stresses higher importance to relations with India and China. Calling the relationship between the two nations as being the most important vector in Asia, it calls for closer trilateral co-operation with India and China. Russia’s new foreign policy doctrine might have a more balancing effect though it may not sound sweet enough to the Western ears, specially in a scenario where the stability of Middle Eastern countries is at risk.

Novelist McEvan has said that he hates militant Islam. He has also defended his friend Martin Amis who has also expressed his dislike for Islam. McEvan says anyone who says something against militant Islam is branded a racist. This is true. Governments the world over have become extra-sensitive in dealing with their Muslim populace. They want to avoid anything that hurts their sentiments. This is because Osama bin Laden’s brand of Islam has many takers. Let us discuss what McEvan and Amis say about Islam. We deal with Amis first. He says the militants have won the war of dominance and the moderates amongst Muslims have lost. Though there are many takers for the militant brand of Islam, it would be too early to say that the moderates have lost. Though ‘Ladenism’ has appealed to many, most Muslims the world over subscribe to moderate Islam. It is only that the hardliners grab more headlines. Amis said Muslims would suffer till they bring their house into order. This is true. Muslims the world over are looked upon with suspicion. The relations of Muslims with their neighbours of other religions have been gradually spoiled. But when Amis says things like, ‘strip-searching people who look like they’re from the Middle East or from Pakistan’, it is going too far. This will only swell the ranks of Laden’s followers. McEvan says he detests Islam because of the way women are not given freedom and its non-acceptance of homosexuality. McEvan should look at Turkey and Jordan. Both have Muslim populations but the status of women there is good. Iraqi women too enjoyed a free life till Saddma Hussain was deposed. As far as homosexuality is concerned, it is only recently gay marriages were legalized in ultra liberal California. Homosexuality remains taboo even today in most countries of the world. Though McEvan has full rights to say he hates militant Islam, he offers no solutions. His friend Amis provides extreme measures that will prove counter-productive. It must be kept in mind that Ladenism is a freak strand of Islam, subscribed to by a minuscule minority of Muslims. Muslims are citizens of the world too and followers of other religions should show understanding. Just criticizing the weaknesses of Islam as followed by some will only alienate the entire community. Gandhi’s teachings are very relevant today. His principles of tolerance hold the key to today’s incipient clash between religions.