Rebellions

Issue 13 2015

Rebellions The STockholm Journal of InTernaTIonal affaIrS Another US intervention Battleground for Proxywar Struggle for Independance Raining Teargas Drugwar Kris and Krescent

Editorial

held the US “in breach of its obligations under customary international law not to use force against another State”, “not to intervene in its affairs”, and “not to interrupt peaceful maritime commerce”, the US withdrew from ICJs jurisdiction. And as such the US cannot be held accountable for its crimes.

On the other hand, finding peaceful solutions between two or more parties are in these cases a very complicated affair. Considering how underfunded peace and security organisations are (the UN’s annual budget $2.7 billion compared with $1630 billion global military expenditure) one may very well argue that the achievement of peace less of a problem than its consistently low prioritisation worldwide.

Inciting violent up-risings seem to the method of choice for some countries, but being able to negotiate and compromise, even with an adversary, is vital for peace development.

Without dialogue in the international sphere there can be no progress whatever, and where violence is condoned it is very easy to forget that accountability in the aftermath of rebellion is hard won. Recently, for example, whilst we in the West may cheer uprisings in what we perceive to be illegitimate regimes, seldom does violence and tumultuous change bring about the kind of government citizens have in mind.

‘Violence begets violence’ is an old maxim, and is a theme recurring in most of the articles in this issue. And hopefully you will find them both appraising and thought-provoking.

Enjoy!

Rebellions tend to have several causes. They happen due foreign intervention, local drug cartels aiming for regional power, or a public yearning for more democracy, liberty, or to do with a nation’s distribution of wealth. Whilst the reasons for an uproar are often sincere and legitimate, the organisation and method is seldom very efficacious. An analysis of 323 violent and non-violent political campaigns, defined by involvement of 1000 people or more, clearly demonstrated that non-violent means have been far more successful in instigating change. In more than half of the cases this was met with success, whereas barely a fifth of the violent ones did. Notwithstanding, those violent rebellions that did succeed in seizing power, hardly ever led to people-power, but often disintegrated into a harsher regime. The long-term consequences of conflict led to a worsening of living-conditions for most of the country’s inhabitants.

Woefully long-lasting conflicts of the past decades are mostly due armed rebellion.

Whilst direct invasion of a country (witness the withdrawal from Iraq) is in 2015 out of fashion, deterring internal clashes are more demanding. A start could be to refrain from violating one of the central tenets of the UN Charter, the non-intervention principal. Recent examples would be the insurgencies in Libya, Ukraine, and Syria where in all instances foreign powers, primarily Washington, have played an active role in either toppling the government or attempting to do so. Methods used include arming local rebel groups, supporting them with intelligence, and sometimes even bombing national military targets without UN Security Council ratification. Ever since the 1986 Nicaragua v US case, however, where the International Court of Justice (ICJ)

Haroon Bayani

2

Editor-in-ChiEf

anothEr us intErvEntion

Haroon Bayani

GEnEral Editor Axel Östling

Contributors Gita Nair André Tito Haroon Bayani Clara Geijer Sophia Palmén Edward Basse

battlEGround for Proxywar struGGlE for indEPEndanCE raininG tEarGas druG war Kris and CrEsCEnt

The Stockholm Journal of International Affairs issued by: Stockholm Association of International Affairs Adress: Frescativägen 14B, 114 18, Stockholm Publication date: 2015-06 Publisher: Haroon Bayani redaktor@ufstockholm.se or (+46) 700 55 69 46 ufstockholm.com

3

The Journal reserves the right to edit received material and is not responsible for unsolicited texts or images, as well as printing errors. The author is responsible for signed freelance materials; his opinion does not necessarily reflect the newspapers nor SAIA’s.

anothEr us intErvEntion Gita nair In this article Gita Nair offers a stuanch critique of the hypocrisy and existential confusion that underpins the foreign involvement of a major global player, ie the USA.

S

yria is currently home to hundred’s of thousands of rebels. They are armed groups intent on overthrowing the Assad regime. These groups are not coordinated or united but differ when it comes to religion, ideology and in their vision for the future of Syria. This has resulted in plenty of infighting.

The Free Syrian Army (FSA), an organisation with financial support from Saudi Arabia (amongst others) is a larger one, along with the Syrian Islamic Liberation Front (SILF) and the Islamic State of Iraq and Greater Syria (IS). The various rebel groups’ immense appetite for weapons is based on the military disadvantage they are at compared with the Assad regime, making the military unmatched. Members of opposing rebel groups have been kidnapped and killed, and although some constellations have begun to align, these are far from stability and predictability.

main issue is that they consider Syria to be a country that supports the act of terrorism, meaning the country cannot be seen as a suitable candidate for US aid.

President Barrack Obama has, since the beginning of his presidency, tried to establish a dialogue with Syria but has been met with reluctance. Demanding Assad’s resignation in 2011 was the starting point from where the US began to be drawn deeper into the conflict. While trying to persuade all parties in Syria to join in a unity government, without any further luck, Obama decided to go for a different strategy.

In June 2013 the US prepared to increase their support for ‘moderate’ rebels in an attempt to try and stop the terror group IS. The intention was to put pressure on Assad and to gain influence over the rebels by initially making a “non-deadly” contribution, limiting support food and medicine. More specifically, support was aimed at the FSA. During this time, the group was led by Salim Idriss – a former general in the Syrian Army.

It is unknown how many followers he managed to recruit. The peculiar nature of an organisation such as the FSA is that it works

The death of thousands of civilians has created tension and is the subject of debate all over the world. The US is one of the countries that have raised their voice. Their

4

* *Whilst another eight are internally displaced.

Source: Al-Jazeera

Though the US promised democratic development in Syria, the result of the US-led intervention is 12 million (including 8 million internally displaced) having to flee from their homes, hundreds of thousands civilians dead, and one of Middle East’s most stable country in total chaos. In vain. Nevermind the billions of dollars US-taxpayer’s money wasted.

Source: Reuters

SYRIA

more like a network of groups than an army.

Every rebel leader who wanted to join in order to, for example, obtain weapons from foreign sponsors, had to be approved by the organisation’s committee. In order to get the approval they had to promise to fully support the general but were given the freedom to keep control over their own followers.

Finally the President made a case for his country’s involvement in the conflict: That is why, after careful deliberation, I determined that it is in the national security interest of the United States to respond to the Assad regimes use of chemical weapons with a targeted military strike. The purpose of this strike would be to deter Assad from using chemical weapons, to degrade his regimes ability to use them and to make clear to the world that we will not tolerate syrian-revolution (1).jpg syrian-revolution (1).jpg their use.

In August 2013 a chemical gas attack occurred in the districts around Damascus, Syria’s second largest city. The poisonous He himself said, it was not an easy decigas, sarin, killed at least hundreds of people sion.

There are substantial risks that have and was said to be deadliest attack using to be considered before taking this kind chemical weapons in the twenty-first cenof action.

Matters went from contributtury. The Syrian regime claimed they had ing food and medicine to providnothing to do with the attack. Lead“US ing rebel groups with weapons. ers from several different countries claimed to have Weapons that in the worst case such as the US, France, Israel, Sweproper evidence scenario could risk ending up in den, Turkey, Canada and the UK towards Assad’s the wrong hands. The possibilmade public their disbelief. ity of the situation resulting in a government” conflict between the US and the Not long after the attack, Obama made an Syrian government is also something that official statement saying: had to be considered, in spite of America’s superlative defensive advantage in any such If we fail to act, the Assad regime will see no reason to stop using chemical weapons. Once the ban against conflict. these weapons erodes, other tyrants will have no reason to think twice about acquiring poison gas and using it.

Over time our troops would again face the prospects of chemical warfare on the battlefield, and it could be easier for terrorist organisations to obtain these weapons and use them to attack civilians. If fighting spills beyond Syria’s borders, these weapons could threaten allies like Turkey, Jordan and Israel.

This was not the first time the US took actions like these. Their invasion of Iraq in 2003, which was not approved by the UN Security Council, is one such example. The global effects of this invasion and the US war as a whole resulted (amongst many things) in terrorist groups legitimizing their actions in attacks like the bombings in Madrid the following year, or in London 2005.

An American notification report claimed the war contributed to an increased threat of terrorism globally.

He continued by explaining the importance in taking a stand and argues that if failing to do so, it could possibly weaken prohibitions against other weapons of a similar kind and embolden Assad’s ally, Iran, which is under pressure from several countries to halt it nuclear refinement programmes.

The current president also got involved

6

GITA NAIR

US-envoyé and Republican senator John Mccain with Free Syrian Army General Salim Idris (right) and IScommander on the left.

in the conflict between Ukraine and Russia.

The US recently discussed possibly supporting As the Syrian civil war enters into its fifth Ukrainians by sending weapons to make them year, it is a conflict far from resolved, even more able to withstand the Russian-backed with recent developments in the rebels’ favour. separatists. This too, could possibly have What matters most is that a solution to Syria’s alarming effects in the long run.

“Needless problems is seen to come from within The US claimed to have proper evithe country, but with a divided and dence against Assad’s government. to say, the US not necessarily progressive rebel Secretary of State John Kerry even has a habit of movement, Syria’s civilians are in for stated they knew where and when a long year.° inerfering” the weapons were fired and landed as and that they had information from a phone call concerning where the attack had been planned. In spite of this, it seems clear that they decided to use force without a thoroughgoing enough investigation.

UN human rights investigators have received testimony indicating that the opposition rebel forces, and not the Syrian regime, were the ones who used sarin gas.

The US has had a habit of interfering in foreign conflicts.

Although it is very important that international agreements, such as the ones prohibiting the use of chemical weapons, are enforced – this does not mean that military intervention is automatically legitimized. Perhaps diplomatic solutions should be pursued further in order to prevent human catastrophe. But no one are better aware of the dangers of intervention than they who saw through the Iraq invasion.

President Bashar Al-Assad; ready to compromise and listen to the West.

7

battlEGround

for

Proxy-war

andré tito In this article André Tito explains the recent developments in Yemen, the causes for the uprising, and how neighbouring countries are involved.

T

he situation in Yemen today has a lot of resemblances to the civil war in Syria. The two regional powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia, are once again involved in a proxy war in Yemen. The civil war in Syria leaves, unfortunately, little prospects of hope to resolve the crisis in Yemen in the near future.

In late September last year the militant group called Houthi rebels (Ansar Allah), a Shi’ite group politically supported by Iran, stormed and captured the capital of Yemen, Sana. As the Houthi rebels advanced and eventually took the presidential palace, putting the president of Yemen, Abd Rabbuh Mansur Hadi, on house arrest, the fear in Riyadh grew stronger. The disbanding of the parliament by the Houthi rebels and the ousting of Hadi did not mitigate Riyadh’s distress but only increased the tension. According to Al-Jazeera, on 16th March president Hadi escaped the house arrest making his way to Riyadh. Ten days later, a Saudibacked coalition consisting mainly of Egypt, Morocco, Jordan, Sudan United Arab Emir-

ates, Kuwait and Qatar and Bahrain, with the support of the U.S, announced that it would target Houthi positions in Yemen with airstrikes.

The Houthi rebels have been revolting against the Yemeni government before. The stated aim of the revolts has been “the end to corruption, regular utilities fair fuel prices, job opportunities for ordinary Yemenis and the end of Western influence”. However, Saudi Arabia along with other Gulf States, are suspicious of the militant group mainly because of the close relationship the group has with Iran which the Sunni monarchies believe is trying to create a strong proIranian proxy within Yemen. The U.S and Saudi Arabia have accused Iran of training and directly assisting the Houthi rebels with military equipment. Some argue that Iran is trying to install a pro-Iranian Shi’ite government in Yemen. According to an interview with Hassan al-Bukhari, a Houthi activist with close ties to the militant group that it is not the case. “We cannot apply [an Iranian system] in Yemen because the follow-

8

ANDRÉ TITO

ers of the Shafi (Sunni) doctrine are bigger in number than the Zaydis (Shia). For this reason, repeating an Iran-like system is difficult to materialize in Yemen” says Hassan al-Bukhari. Whatever the motives of the Houthi rebels are, the ousting of president Hadi was a redline for the Gulf monarchies.

Saudi Arabia’s direct military involvement in Yemen might be a result of the geopolitical changes in region and the power rivalry that exists between Tehran and Riyadh, or between Shia and Sunni Muslims. When the American-led coalition invaded and dismantled the old Ba’athist regime in 2003 in Iraq, Riyadh lost an important ally against Iran. Consequently, by removing Saddam Hussein from power Iran could reinforce its influence in Iraq due to its large Shia Muslim population. Therefore, from Riyadh’s perspective, it does not want a hostile group, that is Ansar Allah, which considers Saudi Arabia as its enemy, to govern Yemen. Moreover, Houthi rebels have previously been involved in clashes with Saudi Arabia’s border in which several Saudi soldiers got killed.

This was during the insurgency in 2009 in which the Yemeni Army launched an attack against the Houthi rebels in northern parts of Yemen. Having a secure border could be another reason to why Saudi Arabia wants to prevent a Houthi government in Yemen.

The aim of Washington is to prevent Iran from gaining influence in the Middle East and preserve the status quo in the Gulf region. The advances by Houthi rebels into the capital of Yemen would jeopardise that policy. According to U.S officials, the United States - who has been involved in Yemen before by striking at al-Qaida positions with drones, which has had devastating effects on the civilian population - is supporting the Saudi-led coalition with logistics and intel-

ligence on Houthi positions for airstrikes.

Depending on how one interprets international law, the U.S could be liable for any war crimes that take place during the air campaign. Already, Human Rights Watch (HRW) and Amnesty International have reported high civilian casualties from several airstrikes. HRW has also accused Saudi Arabia of using cluster-munitions which is banned by international treaty.

In April, the U.S reinforced its naval forces with two more war ships which the State Department did not give any comments on.

It might be a counter reaction against Iran’s naval presence in the area, which Teheran claims is conducting anti-piracy schemes.

The movement of U.S warships in the coastal area of Yemen could also be an enforcement of a sea blockade in line with Security Council resolution 2216 that was adopted in April this year which authorized an arms embargo on top Houthi rebel leaders.

Iran and Saudi Arabia have been trying to empower proxies in the region in order to create a balance of power between the two rivals. Seeing it from Iran’s perspective it is natural for Teheran to aspire to become a regional power in the Middle East. After the Iranian revolution in 1979, the Islamic Republic, started with few allies in the region, and in order to gain influence Iran began strengthening pro-Iranian powers in the Middle East – Hezbollah in Lebanon, Shia militias in Iraq and securing the presidency of Bashar al-Assad. This might be a way for Iran to compete with Saudi Arabia, its regional rival, about the power in the Middle East. But there might be another reason why the regional powers have invested so much in Yemen.

An underlying reason for the foreign intervention in Yemen might because of the

9

Royal Saudi Air Force flying US-made Boeing F-15C’s, on their way to Yemen.

Source: Al-Jazeera

Source: Al-Jazeera

A village shelled by the Royal Saudi Air Force, resulting in the death of several civilians.

Source: Al-Jazeera

Source: Al-Jazeera

YEMEN

geographical location of Yemen. Similar to the Strait of Hormuz in the Persian Gulf which is of vital importance for the international oil trade - Yemen has the strategically important Mandeb Strait. This is particularly important for the export of oil from the Persian Gulf and export of trade goods from Asia to Europe and vice versa. Mandeb Strait is a passage that links the Red Sea to the Gulf of Aden. Consequently, anyone who has influence over Yemen could in a scenario of war block trade ships from entering the Red Sea which would damage many countries’ economy. Since Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Sunni monarchies use the strait to deliver oil to Europe, they will not let the Houthi rebels, who oppose the West and their allies the dictator Gulf states, govern Yemen. Moreover, Strait Mandeb is also important for Iran’s trade, even more important if the sanctions by the West get lifted, because it would open many trade opportunities for Iran, hence this may explain why Teheran has supported the Houthi rebels.

Considering that Yemen is important to all actors, it seems unlikely that it will be resolved any time soon. The regional powers, Iran and Saudi Arabia will continue to fight to establish a pro-Saudi or pro-Iranian government in Yemen. As a result, the rivalry would infect the already tense sectarian situation between the Sunni and Shia Muslims in the region. Al-Qaida in the southern part of Yemen could take advantage of the chaos and further destabilise and widen the relationship between Shia and Sunni Muslims.

This would empower al-Qaida and pose a bigger threat to Saudi Arabia and the West than expected. Much like the situation in Syria, Yemen will probably become another

battleground for sectarianism. However, there is a fundamental difference between the situation in Syria and Yemen. Saudi Arabia is directly involved in Yemen with its fighter jets and could end the bloodshed by ending the air campaign. However, this

“

The aim of Washington is to prevent Iran from gaining influence in the Middle East and preserve the status quo in the Gulf region.

”

seems very unlikely because of the importance of Yemen to Saudi Arabia but also other countries that feel threatened by moderate Shia uprisings.°

11

struGGlE

for indEPEndanCE

haroon bayani The struggle in eastern Ukraine has been going on for far too long.

What is hindering its resolvement? The following text will dive into the details, explaining what went wrong and what should be done.

“We [in Ukraine] will have work – they [in the Donbas] won’t. We will have pensions – they won’t. We will care for our children and pensioners – they won’t. Our children will go to school, to kindergartens – their children will sit in cellars. They don’t know how to organize or do anything. This is, ultimately, how we will win this war.”

Quote from Ukraine’s current president Petro Poroshenko, explaining how the rebels in Donetsk People’s Republic and Luhansk People’s Republic should be crushed.

E

ver since their disintegration from the Soviet Union, Ukraine has been one of the most corrupt countries in the region. In the past, several presidents have promised change and prosperity for Ukrainians, albeit without any significant results. Since independence, generations of Ukrainians expected that sovereignty would solve all of the problems in the country. They thought that autonomy by default meant freedom, prosperity and democracy. Up until the large demonstrations in Kiev -known as Euromaidan- the country was under a sluggish economy, broad corruption, and a general distrust in the state.

What triggered the Euromaidan were negotiations on a trade agreement with Russia, which would complicate Ukraine’s relation with the EU and a planned Association Agreement there. At the end of 2013, the protests became more substantial and violent, and soon several EU and US politicians officially joined in, actively encouraging a

12

regime change. However, on the 20th of February a European along with a Russian delegation brokered a compromise, promising early elections and concessions from the Yanukovich government. A civil war could have been avoided, were it not for the most violent groups, having close contact with US officials in Kiev, perpetrating a coup d’état the following day, forcing the democratically elected, albeit corrupt, president Victor Yanukovich into exile.

Meanwhile, a judicially illegitimate regime was installed. According to Victoria Nuland, Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, the new regime had the full support of Washington, in all its endeavours. The regime change alienated various oblasts in eastern Ukrainian and protests erupted. The tipping point occurred when the Verkhovna Rada, Ukraine’s parliament, provocatively attempted to revoke the legal status of Russian as a national language. In effect, preventing certain regions using any

DONBASS

other language than Ukrainian in schools, councils, etc. All the while the Kiev regime, the media, and the West chanted “One Nation, One Language, One People”, naturally creating tension with Russian-speaking Ukrainians. Whilst the legisvlation did not pass the damage was already done and the Russian-speaking community, estimated at 40 per cent, felt a hostility from their own government. A struggle for increased autonomy began by locals in Donetsk and Luhank oblast, who denounced the events in Kiev, deeming the new rule a neo-fascist junta.

Thousands of people gathered in both the city of Luhansk and Donetsk, demanding a status referendum akin to the one held in the Crimean peninsula. As the requests were not implemented by regional officials, Regional State Administration (RSA) buildings were seized by locals with a “people’s mandate” and all regional councillors were dismissed.

Prime Minister of Donetsk´s People Republic

13

On April 7th 2014 a meeting was held by local residents in Donetsk, deciding to free themselves from Ukraine. A similar meeting was held in Luhansk a few days later. Both parts voted in favour, promulgating Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) and Luhansk People’s Republic (LPR) respectively (though dispersed a year later). After the declaration, these self-proclaimed states gave an ultimatum to Kiev. They demanded the following: amnesty for all participants in the protest movement in eastern Ukraine, recognition of Russian as a state language, and a referendum on matters concerning self-determination of the region. Alas, Kiev chose not to negotiate the terms nor to response, forcing the DPR and LPR to launch an insurgency in tandem, an insurgency for independence and freedom.

Early on in the struggle, the Donetsk People’s militia and Luhansk People’s militia fought separately. Although some of these units existed before the war as paramilitary forces, most of them were conceived afterwards. But as of September 16th the militias merged into the United Armed Forces of Novorossiya (NAF), swearing allegiance to the DPR and LPR. Currently the NAF consists of approximately 21,000 armed personnel. Amongst Western countries, it is widely believed that the rebels consist of regular Russian armed forces, something the Kremlin has consistently refuted. Rather, as DPR’s Prime Minister Alexander Zakharchenko stated, there are about 3-4,000 volunteers from Russia and other ex-Soviet countries, most of which are retired Russian Army officers. Admittedly there are also a few active ones, even though it is forbidden by law in Russia for soldiers in duty to engage

HAROON BAYANI

in foreign conflicts. Nonetheless, the Russian Ministry of Justice has chosen not to actively pursue them. The vast majority of NAF fighters are in fact defected policeman as well as locals with some military background; an assertion confirmed by Ukraine’s Internal Affairs minister Arsen Avakov. Not surprisingly, considering the dissolution of the special police Berkut, resulting in tens of thousands of men without a job. With that said, establishing an army the size of the NAF from the ground up takes considerable effort, time, and resources, neither of which the NAF had in the early phase of the civil war, consequently suffering from heavy losses.

The war in eastern Ukraine can be roughly divided into two phases; an early phase in which the NAF were weak, and a later phase when the NAF gained control of swathes of land and managed to secure what they had gained. After the separatists captured Donetsk RSA without any resistance, the then acting president Oleksandr Turchynov responded by launching an anti-terrorist operation in the area. The outcome of which was an entrenched standoff between proRussian separatists and Ukrainian Armed Forces (UAF). Several strategically and economically important towns, eg Sloviansk, Gorlovka, and Kramatorsk, were seized when NAF went on the offensive, finding weapon cashes in all of the cities. Sporadic clashes continued, until government forces set afloat a major counter-offensive and retook many of the cities. In early May, an agreement was made in Geneva between Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and US on demilitarisation and de-escalation of the conflict, but was rejected by the separatists, stating that the Russian Foreign minister Sergey

14

Lavrov could not speak for them. By midMay a referendum was held on the status of the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts, despite Russian President Vladimir Putin publicly asking the separatists to postpone it. The results, albeit viewed illegitimate by a number of states and NGOs, showed a twothird majority in favour of secession from Ukraine. The new supreme commander of the DPR is a former FSB colonel, and veteran of many other conflicts: Igor ‘Strelkov’ Girkin, who later played a key role in the organisation of DPR.

By September all parties involved sought a ceasefire. Under the auspices of the Organisation for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), a supranational military partnership, Ukraine, Russia, the LPR, and DPR agreed to a ceasefire protocol. Whilst all parts said that they were content with agreement, both parts breached this Minsk protocol on several occasions in the following days. Nevertheless, two months after the agreement, de-escalation could commence.

In line with the protocol, prisoners of war were exchanged. President Poroshenko voiced that the agreement was “becoming effective point by point”. The early phase of the war ended with large losses on both sides, and partial destruction of several regional cities.

Unfortunately the truce did not last. Following New Year’s Day, the OSCE reported a “rise in tensions”. Ceasefire violations increased and the rebels began advancing their positions. Heavy clashes took place surrounding Donetsk Airport, and on February 15th the NAF managed to secure the symbolically important airport. The separatist’s offensive completely broke down the Minsk protocols and a new round of Minsk talks

Meanwhile, the NAF’s victory at the airport spurred them on to further expand their territory. They commenced an assault on Debaltseve, a strategically important railway town, located between Donetsk and Luhansk. Bit by bit the rebels surrounded Debaltseve, and eventually captured it. During the battle, thousands of Ukraine’s regular soldiers succumbed and even more were wounded. Fighting continued until February 18th 2015, when UAF soldiers were surrendered and withdrew. Concurrently, the battle worried the German and French leaders.

President Hollande and Poroshenko along with Chancellor Merkel met President Putin in Minsk, Belarus, in order to revive the Minsk Protocol. At the same time the Americans were delivering military equipment to Ukraine and sending Special Forces to train the loyalists. A strategy Chancellor Merkel categorically denounced, stating that it would only worsen the conflict, a claim the French President echoed, claiming that the conflict could not be solved militarily. Despite Americans actively pursuing a military solution, Minsk II was agreed upon on February 16th, calling for unconditional ceasefire. Whilst minor setbacks followed, all sides honoured

15

the agreement by withdrawing heavy artillery from the front lines. Which resulted in a dramatically reduced number of casualties.

The fragile suspension, however, may not last as the neo-Nazi paramilitary group Right Sector recently announced that they would renew their offensive against DPR. Whether this new spring offensive will break Minsk II is too early to predict. Though a re-escalation is the more probable outcome as both high officials within Ministry of Defence and US State Department claim the UAF are in need of more arms: making know that they do not wish the conflict to be solved through dialogue.

As the conflict, yet again, is slowly escalating, so will the number of victims. Since the early stages of the conflict Ukrainian forces have shelled numerous towns in the Donbass region. According to Ukrainian Ministry of Defence the reason for the bombardment was to destroy rebel bases, even though most of the Grad missiles were fired without specified targets. Officially roughly five thousand have died, though German intelligence claims that the figure is closer to sixty thousand. In a report from the UNHCR over a million residents in the Donbass region are

Peaceful protestors in Donetsk, Ukraine.

HAROON BAYANI

Donetsk Airport: before and after the Euromaidan.

Close to two million people displaced from the Donbass region.

Many of whom living in the refugee camp near Rostov-on-Don, Russia.

Below: Five-year-old girl left without a home after her house being shelled by the UAF. Paramilitary nazi-group Azov, under direct supervision of Ministry of Internal Affairs, Ukraine.

Source: Slavyangrad.org

16 16

DONBASS

displaced, most of whom are currently living in temporary accommodation centres in Russia. In spite of this human catastrophe is taking place in the region, it is mainly the Russian government who has been sending humanitarian assistance to the separatists: in total 23 convoys with more than 28,000 tons of goods. Apart from Russian aid, Ukrainian businessman Rinat Akhmetov, owning much of the regions industry, has been sending aid as well. Although the human crisis is dire, what is even more unfortunate is the flagrant violations committed daily against POWs and civilians.

On several accounts Ukrainian paramilitary groups with national socialistic disposition such as Azov Battalion (see picture), Aidar Battalion, and Right Sector have contravened international humanitarian law. Murdering or mistreating prisoners of war or civilian internees have been commonplace. Several journalists critical of the revolution have been abducted, tortured, and even killed by ultra-nationalist groups.

Amnesty International has stated that the neo-Nazi Aidar Battalion –which is funded by the oligarch Ihor Koloidmosky- has been “involved in widespread abuses, including abductions, unlawful detention, ill-treatment, theft, extortion, rape, and executions” in the coastal city of Mariupol.

The set of circumstances do not show signs of improvement. As more Western countries chooses to send armaments as well as military trainers to the UAF, the most likely outcome appears to be another summer offensive. Even if Chancellor Merkel

and President Putin have been insisting that the conflict can only be solved through diplomatic means, the Ukrainian government along with their patrons in Washington seem to opt for military solution. On a brighter note though, Secretary of State Kerry’s recent meeting with President Putin and Foreign Minister Lavrov in Sochi could lead to collaboration on the matter. Despite previous contention, Washington has finally come to terms with the Minsk II and Kerry has opined that the Kiev regime should ‘think twice’ before reigniting Ukraine conflict. If Washington chooses to come to its senses and pressure the Kiev regime in executing the Minsk II, this conflict could end by the end of this year.°

“If Washington chooses to come to its senses”

17

raininG tEarGas thE rEvolution

that nEvEr was

Clara GEijEr From late September until December last year, China faced a protest of a calibre many argue resembles that which preceded the grim Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing 1989. The riots were soon dubbed the “Umbrella Revolution”, where umbrellas were used as a symbol of unity and peaceful protest, originally serving as protection from/against police tear gas and pepper spray, besides fighting fatigue caused by rain and sun. Students in the free and open society of Hong Kong managed to coordinate mass protests that jeopardised China’s notion of stable internal and external relations.

F

rom late September until December last year, China faced a protest of a calibre many argue resembles that which preceded the grim Tiananmen Square Massacre in Beijing 1989. The riots were soon dubbed the “Umbrella Revolution”.

Umbrellas were used as a symbol of unity and peaceful protest - originally serving as protection from police tear gas and pepper spray, besides fighting fatigue caused by rain and sun. Students in the free and open society of Hong Kong managed to coordinate mass protests that jeopardised China’s notion of stable internal and external relations. Contrary to Beijing, Hong Kong being Hong Kong leaves no room for censor and propaganda as methods to tackle opposition.

China had to withstand/face open governmental criticism. The riots ensued following a decision from the National People’s Congress (NPC) on the 31st of August concerning universal suffrage in electing the Chief Executive (the leader of Hong Kong). The democratic dimension was compromised to pre-screened pro-Beijing candidates whereas the previously promised public nominations were discarded. With support from two known pro-democracy organisations

18

(Occupy Central & Scholarism) university students from the Hong Kong Federation of Students started the protests, initially boycotting classes. When the local police addressed what was termed ‘civil disobedience’ with tear gas, support for the protesters grew substantially in response to the socalled ‘heavy-handed’ techniques used by the government. In early October anti-democracy movements, or anti-Occupy, attempted to counteract and disperse the massive crowds.

Sam Cooper, an American tourist lodged in the midst of the occupation area was caught in the eye of the storm as counter-protesters emerged: “It was the first time that the protest turned violent. A few dozen thugs sent by Hong Kong’s triads showed up in Mong Kok and started harassing the protesters. It was really chaotic, and I took it as my cue to get off the street as one of the anti-Occupy:ers started shouting “fuck American people” at a western reporter.”

Setting a unique example in history, China retroceded sovereignty over Hong Kong in 1997, it having been a British colony since 1842. China then implemented a ‘One Country, Two Systems’ policy regarding the Special Administrative Region (SAR) of Hong Kong, still belonging to The Peo-

CLARA GEIJER

ple’s Republic of China (PRC). In short, this means that whilst sharing foreign and security policy, Hong Kong enjoys limited autonomy, having a separate legal structure and government. The liberal and open institutions Britain once instituted were left unchanged and allowed Hong Kong to become the global financial hub of today, simultaneously benefitting mainland China. This marks a great example of how China adapts to liberal market economy without loosing the social functions enabled by a strong state. Doubtless, there are some caveats to this self-rule. The election of Chief Executive (CE) of Hong Kong has been directly controlled by Chinese leaders and not via public elections in the SAR. The Basic Law, the 1997 constitutional document of Hong Kong, states that electing a CE should come about through ‘universal suffrage’. So far the NPC, being China’s legislative branch, seems wary on loosing influence regarding the leadership to the public. Hong Kong incorporates the rule of law and a freedom of speech (as opposed to China’s routine censorship) but resides without what can be called fully democratic elections. In 2007 however, the NPC half-publicly announced that the elections would become democratic by 2017. Hope surged along with a certain amount of suspicion, the pro-democracy organisation Occupy Central with Love and Peace (OCLP) repeatedly showing discontent as the elections drew nearer. Not surprisingly, the NPC seemed to have regretted this announcement seven years later in June when China issued a new ‘white paper’ - “essentially saying that Beijing is the boss and could amend the Basic Law as it chooses”, quoting Michael Davis, a law professor teaching at the University of Hong Kong.

Instead of direct public nominations, two

or three candidates would be selected by an Election Committee, thus enabling vetting and control of candidates and ensuring support for Beijing in Hong Kong.

Originating as a student boycotting campaign the protests escalated when the police employed tear gas and pepper spray. It was first at this stage where Occupy Central, with its wide network in Hong Kong managed to mobilize thousands of people to occupy and barricade the central financial districts of Hong Kong. If it weren’t for the harsh approach by the police in these early stages, the protest might not have grown to the size they did. As Michael Davis states, it is often difficult to motivate people to joining pro-democracy protests in authoritarian systems unless the government does something oppressive. The Umbrella revolution was a rather irregular movement in structure and coordination, originating from three pro-Democracy organisations with the addition of students and civilians, leaving the protest without explicit leadership - for better or worse. If leadership had been claimed, the protest might have gotten substantial political impact, but perhaps resulted in more violence as opposed to the young, peaceful and intellectual movement seen on the street. The week-long class boycott originating the 22nd of September was initiated by the Hong Kong Federation of Students, later joined

by Scholarism (high school students) on the 26th. Police removed them the next day. The hitherto peaceful protests were interrupted on the evening of the 28th of September when riot police used tear gas to clear lingering protesters, prompting thousands of people and Occupy Central to join. For a few days the protests seemed to have subsided pending talks between the Hong Kong

19

Source: Japan TImes

Whilst not reaching the political goals, the protests were relatively peaceful. Above: Students taking a break. Below: midnight Hong Kong.

Source: South China Morning Post

Source: Japan TImes

CHINA

government and student representatives, but when the government cancelled the meeting due to distrust with the student’s objective, demonstrations resumed. On October 3rd, the addition of anti-democracy movements caused violent outbreaks amongst the huge crowds of occupants in the streets of Hong Kong in both Admiralty district and Mong Kok. Some reports say that the triads organized the first ant-Occupy thugs because the protests were a threat to their business interests. The protests in Mong Kok were taking place on a street called Nathan Road with a lot of shady business dealings that the Triads may have their hand in (jewelry, fake/ stolen phone trade/prostitution etc.). Subsequently, the protests remained quite peaceful with police interventions stopping the opposed parties from fighting but also trying to disperse the crowds, albeit without much success. On October 22nd the first talks between government and student representatives began, without Chief Executive Leung Chunying present and without any significant progress. After a Hong Kong court decision, stating central occupied areas should be cleared, the police made some progress, but during the subsequent days arguments and fistfights flared up between police and protesters in Mong Kok. About a hundred protesters were arrested, but also seven police officers for participating in beatings of a protester. The demonstration continued on (with shrinking crowds) throughout November and December, with a few minor outbreaks and clashes, after the leaders for Occupy Central urged participants to withdraw and discontinue the occupation and protests.

Political Demands and Reception in China The protesters were surprisingly specific and

21

concise in their demands for change, making two requests: firstly that the current Chief Executive (a favourite of Beijing) step down and secondly that Beijing withdraw their August decision regarding the nominating committee for the upcoming CE elections.

Beijing did not listen, or chose to be idle. Instead, they seemed to have instructed Leung and the Hong Kong government to sit this one out and leave the protesters to run out of steam. One probable cause for this is the character of the Hong Kong region, being a financial and economic focal point internationally, serving profits for Mainland China.

Long and wary demonstrations will always pose a negative effect on the economy and thus less support will follow as the negative effect increases with time. This resulted in a peaceful and calm dispersion where violence could be kept low (a main goal for China) suggesting that it was not ignorance, but rather a prioritisation of non-violent solutions from Beijing.

Non-violence and protecting civilians might be seen as a liberal appraisal from China, acknowledging international norms.

However, many expressed a worry for another Tiananmen Square Massacre; one can almost picture the demonstrators seeking to provoke the People’s Liberations Army out from the mainland in order to show the ‘true calibre’ of the Chinese government. Despite extensive censoring activity, actually reaching beyond the measures taken during 4th of June in 1989, China cannot consolidate Hong Kong press just precisely because Hong Kong is Hong Kong. Instead, they managed a considerable job in keeping the mainland population ignorant. However, according to Sam Cooper, even though social media updates were quickly removed,

CLARA GEIJER

Hong Kong is Hong Kong. Instead, they managed a considerable job in keeping the mainland population ignorant. However, according to Sam Cooper, even though social media updates were quickly removed, civilians were quicker and information still spread. Beijing does not have control over the opposition and political movements in Hong Kong (the Basic Law guarantees its citizens freedom of speech and press), so it becomes the only place where Chinese citizens are able to openly criticise the one-party rule, albeit risking accusations and legal consequences of civil disobedience and illegal occupation. This should also be understood in the light of the political system in China, where a social political elite structure rules.

There exists vibrant opposition, but this takes place within the Communist Party of China (CPC) instead of between different parties and/or public opinion.

Struggling with internal differences and regressing to a more ideological approach to unify the nation with Maoist agenda in universities, the Umbrella revolution was not what the Chinese government needed. Balancing between liberal market economy and communist one-party rule, it is still remarkable that the pluralist and state-hybrid Hong Kong has coexisted along China for so long without any major upheaval (although minor pro-democracy demonstrations regularly take place). In order to sustain this somewhat stable relationship, Chinese concessions were not taken and the protests fizzled out because of lost momentum – which can be seen as a successful grand strategy

with regional focus. This was motivated by keeping the “One Country, Two Systems” constitution successful, which was originally developed for Taiwan by Mao Zedong in 1960. After the civil war where the communist party won, the Chiang Kai-shek’s nationalists fled the mainland to establish their liberal version of China on the island Taiwan, China has supposedly tried to overcome cross-strait differences and regain some political control over the island. According to some, proving that the “One Country, Two Systems” method is successful represents a win for China in the Taiwan game, and maybe a demonstration of legitimacy to the international community. The tolerance for the Umbrella Revolution must be put in regional context, with domestic problems and external relations playing a part. Labelling China’s with Tiananmen Square is not beneficial for anyone. Western eyes are often too quick to judge, when China may have a different view on security. As Kenneth Waltz said in 1979, “States, like people, are insecure in proportion to the extent of their freedom. If freedom is wanted, insecurity must be accepted.” This portrays China as trying to balance between freedom and security in the case of the Umbrella Revolution in Hong Kong, as opposed to balancing between democracy and oppression.°

“Western eyes are often too quick to judge, when China may have a different view on security.”

22

druG war balKanisation

in

MExiCo

soPhia PalMén

In the following article Sophia Palmén will discuss the ongoing drug war in Mexico. As in all wars, the causes are complex but Palmén will dwell into it properly.

N

ine years ago the Mexican Drug War began. Newly elected president Felipe Calderon called for an intervention in government action against drug-related crime which had until then been left to thrive. Eleven days after Calderon took office he deployed thousands of troops as part of a massive crackdown on the drug cartels. Drug-related violence had escalated in the years leading up to Calderon’s victory and the goal of the war was to dismantle the cartels. Because of the government’s action there was a dramatic increase in drug-related violence. The first year of war saw nearly 3,000 official deaths. Despite the fact that the yearly death toll is still high today the ongoing war is defined as low-intensity. Even though the war is between the Mexican state and a few powerful cartels, violence occurs mainly between cartels and is often directed towards civilians.

There are only estimates as to how many people have been killed as a result of drugrelated violence. During the years of Calderon’s presidency, which ended in 2012, at least 60,000 people were killed according to Human Rights Watch. More recent estimates suggest a higher figure, somewhere between 80,000 and 120,000 deaths, not including the government’s official number of people

who have ‘disappeared’ which in 2014 numbered 26,000 people. Organised drug smuggling over the border between Mexico and the US has been going on for decades. Drug alliances have since the 1950s competed for territory and control of the lucrative drug smuggling corridors. The prominence of the drug organisation’s power rose in the 1980s when the first drug cartel Guadalajara was formed by a former police agent. Since then several drug cartels have emerged and today between six and eight cartels control most of the drug trade. They import, produce and smuggle drugs. The dominating cartels are Los Zetas, the Sinaloa Cartel, the Juárez Cartel, the Tijuana Cartel, the Beltran Leyva, and the Knights Templar. As many of these names indicate they are tied to the regions which they control and many are deeply rooted in the societal structure. Corruption is essential to facilitate drug trafficking and Mexico has been accused of being a weak state where local governments and police are entrenched with drug cartels. Of course, to that backdrop it is important to bear in mind that Mexico is a big country where regional and municipal police actions might not always reflect federal government policy.

23

SOPHIA PALMÉN

The nature of the drug-related violence has gained media attention for being particularly gruesome. Beheadings are commonplace, as is sprawling out dead bodies in public places: numerous mass murders have been recorded. The first Massacre of San Fernando was carried out in August 2010 in the state Tamaulipas in Mexico’s northeast. The bodies of 72 migrants from South- and Central America were found at a ranch by Mexican military. They had all been shot, most likely by the Los Zetas cartel, for having refused to traffic drugs or cooperate with the cartel. This was followed in the year thereafter by the Second Massacre of San Fernando when the bodies of 193 people, mostly migrants, were found in mass graves between the months of April and June. The killings were carried out by Los Zetas, but local police have also been linked to the crime. Los Zetas are known for systematically kidnapping Mexican civilians and migrants and it is believed that local police helped them by not interfering and providing them with information about migrants.

Last year in September students went missing in the southwestern state of Guerrero.

In October the same year mass graves were found containing burnt remains of bones.

Only one student has been identified from the remains in the graves but it is most likely that the other students were killed and buried there also. It is not known which cartel carried out the murders but once again local police is said to be involved. This time they are supposed to have captured and handed over the victims to a cartel. The reason behind the killings of the students is unknown; a scenario where the students were mistaken as a rival cartel has been pointed out as a possible option.

The killings are, doubtless, manifestations of power. All the examples above show the extreme danger many Mexicans live in every day, and can only allude the fear and insecurity that permeates the life of almost any

24

Mexican. They also point to a highly corrupt system where local police cooperate with drug cartels because of bribery. The violence is a part of life and naturally so is trying to escape the violence. In areas controlled by cartels children are reportedly sent away to stay with relatives in areas where the cartels are not operating. An estimate made by the Mexican Commission for the Defense and Promotion of Human Rights shows that around two million people have been displaced as a result of the drug related violence.

There are socioeconomic explanations for the drug cartels success. One is widespread poverty, exemplified in UNICEFs annual report last year, indicating that half of the children and teenagers in Mexico live in poverty. In addition, the country has a high unemployment rate which has resulted in low government trust and made recruiting to cartels easy. Calderon was accused of failing to address the underlying social factors that facilitate the war and instead putting all the effort on arresting and killing drug cartel leaders and kingpins. Those efforts did actually succeed, many kingpins have been arrested, but it has not reduced violence or illicit trade. Rather the fragmented landscape of drug trade has resulted in more syndicates and new ways of operating. The disorganisation can even make it more difficult to control drug trafficking. These internal factors, corruption and weak institutions all contribute to the war, however, external reasons behind the war cannot be overlooked; namely the global demand on drugs, and more specifically the perpetual and extensive demand from the US. During the time of his presidency Calderon once said that“We are neighbours to the largest drug consumers”pointing to the US, and also noted the paradox in the US producing weapons that are then supplied to drug cartels.

Mexico accounts for the highest number of illicit drug transits in the world. The biggest

120

Journalist Deaths in Mexico: 1950 - 2013

100

80

60

40

20

0

1950s

1960s

1970s

1980s

1990s

2000-2007

2007-2013

MEXICO

reasons behind the war cannot be overlooked; namely the global demand on drugs, and more specifically the perpetual and extensive demand from the US. During the time of his presidency Calderon once said that“We are neighbours to the largest drug consumers”pointing to the US, and also noted the paradox in the US producing weapons that are then supplied to drug cartels.

Mexico accounts for the highest number of illicit drug transits in the world. The biggest importer is of course the US. 90 per cent of all the cocaine in the US has been trafficked through Mexico, originally produced in South American countries such as Colombia, Bolivia and Peru. The drug cartels are reportedly making between $19 to $29 billion every year from cocaine sales to the US. Most of the imported cannabis in the US has been produced in Mexico too, although a lot of it is now grown domestically. As several states in the US has legalised medicinal use of cannabis, and production is authorised in the US, Mexican cartels have lost a market and instead have increased the production of heroin, methamphetamines and opium.

Opium is also imported from Afghanistan and China to be transited through Mexico to the US. Drug trade makes up for three or four per cent of Mexican GDP. The drug trade is often a multi-, or in the case with Mexico/US, a bilateral issue, between one main importer and exporter, and should be handled as such. Disinterest from importing countries toward the internal implications of the drug war is an indicator of global inequality between producer and client countries. In 2007 the Mérida Initiative, a cooperation strategy between Mexico and the US, was launched in order to combat the drug trade. America’s part in the cooperation was mainly to aid money to the Mexican government for the cause; it funneled a total of $2.3 billion. The initiative ended when Peña Nieto took office as president in 2012.

Other ways the US is contributing to com-

26

bating drug trade is by controlling its own side of the border, which is also of interest to stem illegal migration, and the US spends somewhere around three billion dollars every year on border control. However, none of these actions tackles the deeper problem of the war which is that a lot of Americans are buying drugs.

Artist: David Granlund

Today the drug cartels are characterised by balkanisation as an effect of the war. As the cartels are being fragmented new cartels arise combining drug trade with human trafficking and prostitution. Nieto went to election on economic questions, stating that the drug war was Calderon’s issue and when he became president he changed government policy from directly attacking the cartel leaders to reducing violence and kidnappings.

The aim of the war is not to stem drug trafficking but to downplay drug-related violence. The strategy is seen by critics as vague in how it will actually be performed and drug-related violence is still common. In actuality, as violence has continued to increase Nieto’s tactics has become more defensive.

Looking at the massive resources the drug cartels have in terms of money, arms and multinational network it will be very difficult to extensively impinge on their power.°

Kris

and

CrEsCEnt

MusliM sECEssionisM

21th

in

CEntury

PhilliPPinEs

Edward bassE

I

n the early morning hours of January 25th, members of the Filipino Special Action Force (SAF) undertook a tactical raid on a village in the Mamasapano district of Mindanao, the large southern island that is home to most of the country’s 11 million Muslims.

Military raids in and around the Muslimcontrolled territories are not uncommon.

However, the scale of this particular operation elicited great local attention: the SAF was acting on information that placed Zulkifli Abdhir, a Malaysian terrorist and bomb expert, in the sleepy southern hamlet.

However, a critical oversight made it past the operative planning: Mamapasano is a stronghold of the separatist Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), whose fragile peace agreement with the Philippine state remains nebulously debated in the national legislature.

By the end of the day, 44 SAF officers lay dead, their bodies scattered across a flat cornfield near the hamlet. Four civilians, and 18 MILF fighters were also killed.

Whilst the SAF ultimately succeeded in eliminating Abdhir, these unprecedented losses prompted immediate outrage within the national legislature. Leaders from across the political spectrum have called for im-

27

peachment proceedings against the current President (subsequently dismissed), and ongoing negotiations between Muslim community leaders and the political establishment have slowed.

For more than half a century, large sections of this southern hinterland have seen unceasing low-intensity warfare. On one side is the Philippine state, which has struggled to maintain law and order in Mindanao for decades. They face a ragtag coalition of secessionist groups fighting for the creation of a separate Muslim homeland within the island, including the MILF—one of the largest and most prominent rebel organizations. At the heart of the matter is the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL), a proposed piece of legislation that outlines the creation of the Bangsamoro—a new political entity encompassing Muslim-majority regions in Mindanao. The BBL comes on the heels of a comprehensive agreement signed in Malaysia last year, the most recent and definitive instrument of peace between the Philippine government and the MILF. With much at stake, these recent developments have made more challenging an already tenuous process that both parties believe is critical.

The historical relationship between Muslim peoples of Mindanao and the state has

PHILLIPPINES

always been tense. Prior to Spanish colonisation, the “Philippines” consisted of small Islamic kingdoms, sultanates, and Datu-run entrepots connected primarily through regional trade. Though differences among various Muslim groups in the Philippines have always existed, the kinship of shared religion cut across ethnolinguistic lines. The Philippines’ strategic value as a way-station between China and Mexico saw Spain’s only Asian colonial outpost; too far from the metropole, most administrative concerns fell on the Catholic Church, which quickly became the largest landowner in the archipelago.

A substantial standing army never materialised, but the Spanish nonetheless maintained pacification programs against Muslim resisters, whom they dubbed Moros—an ethnic pejorative derived from their shared religion with the North African Moors. Although the Moros maintained a state of revolt against their colonisers, most parts of the southern frontier were beyond the reach of the Manila metropole, and communities were still organised around Islamic juridical practises, power structures, and traditional social organisations. This lasted right up to the Philippine War of Independence in the late 19th century. ‘The Moro menace’ wrote historian Patricio Abinales, ‘was soon replaced by a nationalist rebellion that would have ended Spanish rule had the Americans not intervened.’ The unsuccessful Philippine Revolution, which saw the Spanish sell the fledgling independent nation to the United States in the Treaty of Paris (1898), did not mean an end to Muslim pacification.

Under the American colonial administration, a centralised Philippine bureaucratic apparatus formally incorporated local government units—sultanates, fiefdoms— and with this change, a sense of sovereignty was lost. Ancient domains gave way to new cadastral surveying and titling; large tracts of Mindanao were summarily ceded to USbased agribusiness corporations, or Filipino élite landowners. These enlisted the help of thousands of Christian farmer-settlers. This sudden population shift did more than fundamentally alter the island’s demographic makeup: the institutional Islamophobia of the Philippine state and the Christian-majority, combined with increasing economic and political disenfranchisement, alienated local Moro populations from political life.

The Philippines became an independent nation after the Second World War, but the Moro peoples were not necessarily afforded greater opportunities to participate in the state formation process. Systematically excluded from government positions, housing, and educational opportunities, a vicious cycle of disempowerment deepened.

On-going Christian settlement contributed to heightened tensions: without land, there were fewer opportunities for livelihood, or leverage for representative electoral apportionment in the national legislature. Abinales points out that: Most of Mindanao, especially the Muslim provinces, was still underdeveloped and backward. Muslim politicians therefore lacked the wealth of their Christian counterparts ... their overall resources paled in comparison to the political clans of the central and northern Philippines.

More than anything, it was formal economic and political exclusion that facilitated the armed struggle for Muslim independence.

28

EDWARD BASSE

By 1968, Mindanao society had become a powder keg ready to go off. That year, in what is now known as the Jebidah Massacre, the Philippine military murdered several Muslim recruits who had been covertly trained for a mission to annex Malaysia’s Sabah state. Although modern scholars still dispute the details, it was the catalyst for the country’s budding Islamic liberation movement.

Radicalised youth began to reclaim the term Moro as the basis for a specific, ethnoreligious polity: what had once been derogatory became empowering. A group of students, led by a charismatic professor named Nur Misuari, founded the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) shortly after Jebidah. By year’s end they began openly engaging in armed revolt, and declared themselves the representatives of the Bangsamoro Republik.

Ferdinand Marcos’s authoritarian regime only exacerbated the situation. The regime’s dependence on usurious international loans and cronyist corruption destabilised the economy; runaway inflation and dramatically rising unemployment only served to escalate violence and flooded the insurgency’s ranks. Within a few years, Mindanao was in a constant state of war. The MNLF secured considerable parts of the island with a string of victories. The cost was high: nearly a million Muslims had become refugees. Arab and North African states began providing arms and financial support for the Moro rebels, who saw their belligerency as an indemnifying step toward political legitimacy.

The tentative first steps at ending the armed confrontation, the 1976 Tripoli Agreement, acceded large parts of Muslim-majority Mindanao into an autonomous political unit within the Philippine state. Brokered

29

by Muammar al-Gaddafi, the treaty ultimately collapsed after a breakaway group, the MILF, grew disenfranchised with the MNLF’s return to the political fold, carrying the cause of armed rebellion well into the 21st century.

The following decades saw a string of presidential administrations attempting to facilitate a solution, some more peaceful than others. The United States’s international campaign against militant extremist organisations, following the September 11 attacks, created further problems for the peace agreement. The Philippine government saw lucrative financial support from the US as a chance to bolster its own military prowess, and gain an upper hand in its war against the separatists. Overnight, various affiliate separatist groups found themselves listed as a terrorist organisation, as the US provided financial and military training assistance to the ”second front” of its ”War on Terror”.

Although the MILF and MNLF had nominal relations with some of these groups— including the Jemaah Islamiyah, the group responsible for the 2002 Bali bombings— they successfully managed to avoid being blacklisted. As Glenda Gloria and Marites Vitug point out, in their authoritative Under the Crest Moon, leadership had ‘not yet fully thought [through] what constitutes an Islamic state’, and exhibited ambivalence as to what jihad fully meant for the Moro struggle: indeed, long-term observation of other Islamic states made MILF leadership question the propriety and applicability of such juridical models on their “different culture”.

Though provisioned by the world’s most powerful military, the Philippine state has long struggled to end the violence decisively through conventional military means.

2212As one presidential administration gave way to another, with no subsidence of violence, it became clear that a long-term legal and political framework that empowered Muslims in their own communities would be the ultimate end-goal. With unwinnable guerrilla war waging in the hinterlands, politicians of every stripe understood that a larger, more comprehensive agreement between both belligerents would be necessary.

In his first address to the national legislature after winning the 2010 elections, President Benigno Aquino declared: We will only achieve lasting peace if all stakeholders engage in an honest dialogue: may they be Moro, Lumad, or Christian...

Our foundation for growth is peace. We will continue to be shackled by poverty if the crossfire persists. We must understand that now is a time for sacrifice... that will pave the way for a better future.

Less than four years later, the Aquino Administration met with leaders of the MILF to sign a Framework Agreement on the Bangsamoro. Along with full-scale disarmament and cessation of all armed conflict, a new autonomous subnational region will be carved out of Mindanao—one with significantly wider power sharing responsibilities, and a greater independence for local juridical, constabular, and fiduciary duties.

Enshrined in the Bangsamoro Basic Law, the implementation of these new political powers are what’s at stake in the face of the

30

Mamapasano massacre.

Though most Filipinos live at a remove from the daily realities of life in a conflict zone, the economic consequences of war have been clear: having faced years of low growth and grinding poverty, a recent boom in foreign direct investments— largely attributed to Aquino’s pathway to peace—has made peace both a political and economic imperative.

As the poorest regions in the Philippines are predominantly Muslim, the lack of inclusive economic development practises and policies has been critical. The prospect of opening up Mindanao’s untapped resources—oil, natural gas, and perhaps one of the world’s largest gold reserves—has been at the centre of heated negotiations; entrenched landowner interests continue to hold up long-needed land reform legislation.

The Uppsala Conflict Data Program has estimated that over 120,000 people have been killed in the Moro secessionist movement. The recent Mamapasano Massacre has added to that figure. While recent events may have opened up an opportunity for ambitious politicians to beat war drums, and the Philippine president continues to face staunch criticism on SAF actions, the peace process moves forward, and confidence in the long-term benefits of peace—from Muslims and non-Muslims alike—remains high. On the verge of settling one of the longest- running insurgencies in the world, both sides mutually recognise the difficult conditions they have weathered, and hope that a permanent and lasting peace in the region will soon be realised.°

final rEMarKs This issue’s theme ”rebellion” portrays COP21, and NATO intently over coffee and the epitome of the mobilization of people. pastries. Furthermore, our radio continues With remarkable recruiting in times of dis- to air on Mondays on 95,3FM, and our detress and conflict, these various groups have bate club is thriving more so than ever after managed to prompt change. This may have a tournament with our sister-association in resulted in more democratic political sys- Uppsala. tems, or contrarily fostered instability at the The association is preparing this year’s expense of the population’s safety. biggest events at full throttle: the annual In contrast to the typically violent conno- Smile for Peace Conference and our 90th tation of rebellion, the association highlight- anniversary extravaganza. We encourage ed a peaceful protest that lead to change. members to get involved in these projects Namely, the Women of Liberia Mass Ac- and influence the programs of the two! tion for Peace. Members were invited to a We are immensely appreciative of the private screening of the renowned docu- work the board and our members have volmentary Pray the Devil Back to Hell that untarily dedicated to the association. It has followed this nonviolent movement and resulted in an eventful spring that was taihow it helped bring to power their first fe- lored to the interest of the members and male head of state. Additionally, the associa- garnered a wider presence of youth voices tion has spent the semester examining the in international politics touching base in international community’s accountability in Stockholm. For more information on our times of crisis within national borders. Hans program, travels, and impending projects, Corell, former Under-Secretary-General for visit our new website: ufstockholm.com.

Legal Affairs and the Legal Counsel of the Have an enjoyable, relaxing summer!

United Nations (1994-2004), lectured on human security and the responsibility to protect where members were captivated by the complexity of the enforcement of human rights.

Our popular #diplocafé’s with the American, French, and Polish Embassies allowed Parisa Khosravi Rebecca Lindqvist Vice-president members to explore global issues in an inti- President mate setting. We discussed the Middle East,

31

become a member of STOCKHOLM ASSOCIATION OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS it includes: free entry to lectures and debates, access to valuable contacts, opportunity for study visits in sweden and abroad and free issues of THE STOCKHOLM JOURNAL OF INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS annual membership - 50 sek - available at our events and ufstockholm.se.