A former senior Bosnian politician, Ejup Ganic, has been arrested at Heathrow Airport over alleged war crimes. A warrant for his extradition had been issued by Serbia, in relation to an attack on Yugoslav Army forces in Sarajevo at the start of the 1992-95 war. Mr Ganic has appeared in court, and it's now up to Serbia to produce evidence supporting its extradition request before anything more can happen.
First, the incident itself. Back in 1992, when Bosnia declared independence and was suddenly at war with what remained of Yugoslavia, one early problem was the presence of Yugoslav Army soldiers who had been based in the Bosnian capital Sarajevo. A deal was agreed allowing them to be escorted out of the city by UN peacekeepers to a nearby Serb-controlled area. But hours before this was due to happen, rumours spread that the Bosnian Muslim political leader Alija Izetbegovic had been arrested by Bosnian Serb forces. Bosnian Muslims then ambushed the Yugoslav Army column on Sarajevo's Dobrovoljacka Street.
That much is more or less agreed on. But, as always when discussing the Balkan War, there are differences of opinion about the numbers. Serbia claims more than 40 soldiers were killed, the Bosnians say it was much less. Serbia also alleges that some of those dead soldiers had been wounded in the initial ambush, and were executed later. The charge facing Mr Ganic is that he helped organise this, something he denies. He's the most senior of 19 Bosnian officials who were recently charged by a Serbian court over the incident.
We don't know what evidence Serbia has got, so it's difficult to say whether Mr Ganic or anybody else will ever stand trial. But what we can say is that Serbia is doing its best to correct the record of history a bit. With the war crimes case against ex-Bosnian Serb leader Radovan Karadzic resuming in The Hague today, Serbia is taking the opportunity to remind us that it wasn't the only side which did bad things during the war. Just as importantly, political and judicial leaders in Belgrade want to remind their own public that they've not forgotten about events which remain controversial and painful for many Serbs. Serbia is fed up being the villain.
Monday, March 01, 2010
Thursday, February 11, 2010
Victory For Viktor As Ukraine's Future Is No Longer Orange
Ukraine's Prime Minister Yulia Tymoshenko is trying to carry on as normal, despite her apparent defeat in Sunday's presidential election. It appears she may try to challenge the official result, which gave victory to Viktor Yanukovych. But with international observers saying the election was fair, her hopes of getting the outcome changed seem remote.
Don't be surprised if these names ring a vague bell with you. Five years ago it was these two politicians, along with the outgoing President, Viktor Yuschenko, who were at the centre of events surrounding the so-called Orange Revolution. Then, the pro-Russia Mr Yanukovych won a blatantly rigged vote. After widespread public protests, a new vote was held, won comfortably by the pro-Western Mr Yuschenko, with Mrs Tymoshenko at his side. Russia fumed as another of the former Soviet states moved away from Moscow's influence towards Europe and the West.
But although the future seemed bright, the Orange Revolution turned sour. Unsurprisingly, Mr Yuschenko's years in power have been marked by worsening relations with Russia, including high-profile battles over energy supplies. Yet there's also been growing frustration in Western countries, and among Mr Yuschenko's own supporters, at his failure to actually get things done in office. He didn't follow through on his promises to tackle corruption, nor did he adequately deal with the bitterness and domestic political deadlock that was the legacy of the Orange Revolution. Perhaps most devastatingly, he failed to find a way of setting Ukraine on a path to EU membership. He leaves office humiliated, having finished a distant fifth in the first round of presidential voting last month.
So, now the Kremlin has finally got its man, we can expect Ukraine to edge back towards what diplomats call Russia's "sphere of influence." This is an old-fashioned phrase which basically means Ukraine will be friendly towards Moscow. Those arguments about energy pipelines and suchlike should be replaced by extra trade with Russia and other regional allies, such as Belarus. But Mr Yanukovych can't afford to simply do whatever Russia wants. There are plenty of businesses in Ukraine which depend on trade with the EU and the West, and he'll have to defend their interests too if he's serious about dragging Ukraine out of its current deep economic crisis. If people still can't find jobs or put food on the table, the novelty of a new government will soon wear off. It's time for Mr Yanukovych to get to work.
Don't be surprised if these names ring a vague bell with you. Five years ago it was these two politicians, along with the outgoing President, Viktor Yuschenko, who were at the centre of events surrounding the so-called Orange Revolution. Then, the pro-Russia Mr Yanukovych won a blatantly rigged vote. After widespread public protests, a new vote was held, won comfortably by the pro-Western Mr Yuschenko, with Mrs Tymoshenko at his side. Russia fumed as another of the former Soviet states moved away from Moscow's influence towards Europe and the West.
But although the future seemed bright, the Orange Revolution turned sour. Unsurprisingly, Mr Yuschenko's years in power have been marked by worsening relations with Russia, including high-profile battles over energy supplies. Yet there's also been growing frustration in Western countries, and among Mr Yuschenko's own supporters, at his failure to actually get things done in office. He didn't follow through on his promises to tackle corruption, nor did he adequately deal with the bitterness and domestic political deadlock that was the legacy of the Orange Revolution. Perhaps most devastatingly, he failed to find a way of setting Ukraine on a path to EU membership. He leaves office humiliated, having finished a distant fifth in the first round of presidential voting last month.
So, now the Kremlin has finally got its man, we can expect Ukraine to edge back towards what diplomats call Russia's "sphere of influence." This is an old-fashioned phrase which basically means Ukraine will be friendly towards Moscow. Those arguments about energy pipelines and suchlike should be replaced by extra trade with Russia and other regional allies, such as Belarus. But Mr Yanukovych can't afford to simply do whatever Russia wants. There are plenty of businesses in Ukraine which depend on trade with the EU and the West, and he'll have to defend their interests too if he's serious about dragging Ukraine out of its current deep economic crisis. If people still can't find jobs or put food on the table, the novelty of a new government will soon wear off. It's time for Mr Yanukovych to get to work.
Monday, February 01, 2010
No Closer To A Deal In Cyprus
UN Secretary General Ban Ki-Moon has arrived in Cyprus, as he attempts to put new life into efforts to solve one of Europe's longest-running disputes. The latest round of peace talks have been taking place for more than a year, but the problems which have split the island in two go back decades.
To sum it up briefly, Cyprus used to be part of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey), until it became part of the British Empire. Most of the people in Cyprus are Greek, and during the 1950s an insurgency aimed at overthrowing British rule and uniting Cyprus with Greece took place, ending in a deal which led to Cyprus becoming independent, something neither the Greeks nor the Turks especially wanted. Later, as the Turkish government began to worry that Greece was moving to bring Cyprus under its control, it invaded the north of the country, where most of the Turks lived. That was 36 years ago, and all that time there have been two Cypruses, the Greek in the south and the Turkish in the north, and that hasn't made anyone particularly happy, either.
There have been various attempts to thrash out some kind of better deal since, but all have failed. This latest round of talks had seemed more likely to succeed than most, not least because the political leaders of both communities in Cyprus seemed keen on it. But enough members of their electorates are not for keen for the talks to be fraught with political risk, and the Turkish-Cypriot leader seems likely to lose an election in April to a hardliner. So if there's going to be progress, it needs to be in the next few weeks, which is why Mr Ban is in town. But he's no miracle-worker, the chances of a significant breakthrough remain very remote.
To sum it up briefly, Cyprus used to be part of the Ottoman Empire (now Turkey), until it became part of the British Empire. Most of the people in Cyprus are Greek, and during the 1950s an insurgency aimed at overthrowing British rule and uniting Cyprus with Greece took place, ending in a deal which led to Cyprus becoming independent, something neither the Greeks nor the Turks especially wanted. Later, as the Turkish government began to worry that Greece was moving to bring Cyprus under its control, it invaded the north of the country, where most of the Turks lived. That was 36 years ago, and all that time there have been two Cypruses, the Greek in the south and the Turkish in the north, and that hasn't made anyone particularly happy, either.
There have been various attempts to thrash out some kind of better deal since, but all have failed. This latest round of talks had seemed more likely to succeed than most, not least because the political leaders of both communities in Cyprus seemed keen on it. But enough members of their electorates are not for keen for the talks to be fraught with political risk, and the Turkish-Cypriot leader seems likely to lose an election in April to a hardliner. So if there's going to be progress, it needs to be in the next few weeks, which is why Mr Ban is in town. But he's no miracle-worker, the chances of a significant breakthrough remain very remote.
Thursday, January 14, 2010
Earthquake Is A Devastating Setback For Haiti
Tens of thousands of people are now thought to have died in the earthquake which struck the Caribbean nation of Haiti. Despite offers of help from around the world, rescue efforts have been hindered by a lack of infrastructure in what is the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere.
Aside from the terrible human cost, this is a setback Haiti will struggle to recover from. There were high hopes back in 1986 when a popular uprising finally overthrew the dictatorship of Baby Doc Duvalier, but in the years since a mixture of abortive elections, coups and regular violence has meant Haiti has been so unstable, the lives of its citizens haven't improved all that much.
Or at least that was the case until recently. With former President Clinton on board as US special envoy, and following the decision of Haiti's debtors to write off huge amounts of money the country was never going to be able to pay back, things finally seemed to be looking up. And then the quake hit. Once Haitians get over the initial shock of this terrible natural disaster, they must hope that the world doesn't just repair the damage, but also commits to helping the government build the kind of society that just didn't exist there before. If that doesn't happen, Haiti will go on being the worst of the west.
Aside from the terrible human cost, this is a setback Haiti will struggle to recover from. There were high hopes back in 1986 when a popular uprising finally overthrew the dictatorship of Baby Doc Duvalier, but in the years since a mixture of abortive elections, coups and regular violence has meant Haiti has been so unstable, the lives of its citizens haven't improved all that much.
Or at least that was the case until recently. With former President Clinton on board as US special envoy, and following the decision of Haiti's debtors to write off huge amounts of money the country was never going to be able to pay back, things finally seemed to be looking up. And then the quake hit. Once Haitians get over the initial shock of this terrible natural disaster, they must hope that the world doesn't just repair the damage, but also commits to helping the government build the kind of society that just didn't exist there before. If that doesn't happen, Haiti will go on being the worst of the west.
Saturday, January 02, 2010
The Terror Threat From Somalia And Yemen
Two failed attacks, both apparently carried out by alleged Islamist terrorists, have featured prominently in global headlines over Christmas and New Year. On Christmas Day, a Nigerian man is suspected of trying to blow up a plane as it landed at Detroit. The US now says the suspect has links to an al-Qaeda group in Yemen. And in Denmark, a man with alleged ties to Somalian Islamist group al-Shabaab broke into the home of the artist responsible for the infamous Prophet Mohammed cartoons. The man has now been charged with attempted manslaughter.
And so, Yemen and Somalia are suddenly back on the radar of world leaders, with phrases such as 'incubators of terrorism' being bandied around. We're more used to hearing that sort of thing in relation to Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan, where there was also a recent deadly terrorist attack during a volleyball game. The arguments about how to deal with the security problems in those countries are often debated, but how western countries might deal with the threat posed by terrorist groups operating out of Yemen and Somalia hasn't received much public discussion in recent years. The recent attacks mean that will surely now change, but there seem to be even fewer potential solutions than there are for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Somalia's al-Shabaab formed out of the remnants of the UIC, a Taliban-style Islamist group which briefly ruled Somalia in 2006 until it was overthrown by US-backed Ethiopian forces for, well, being a bit too much like the Taliban. Since then, there's been little central government to speak of in Somalia, which is why pirates have been able to operate with such impunity from Somali ports. Some of the pirates' cash ends up going to al-Shabaab, and the Danish incident demonstrates it now has both the ability and willingness to attempt terrorist attacks abroad. If further international attacks take place, the US may be forced to turn once again to its Ethiopian allies for help in fighting al-Shabaab, the deployment of US troops to Somalia being still far too sensitive a subject following the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident.
As for Yemen, there is at least a central government, and the US has given it tens of millions of aid dollars to help root out terrorists since the attack on the USS Cole in Aden harbour in 2000. Following the failed Christmas Day bombing in Detroit, expect more help for the Yemeni authorities, including more US drones flying over remote parts of the country in an attempt to find terrorist hideouts. The solution to the Yemen problem may be a little more straightforward than that in Somalia, but the potential scale of the Detroit attack shows that al-Qaeda in Yemen already has the ambition to strike at major targets in the US homeland. The Obama administration knows it must act quickly in Yemen before the next terrorist plot becomes a reality.
And so, Yemen and Somalia are suddenly back on the radar of world leaders, with phrases such as 'incubators of terrorism' being bandied around. We're more used to hearing that sort of thing in relation to Afghanistan and north-west Pakistan, where there was also a recent deadly terrorist attack during a volleyball game. The arguments about how to deal with the security problems in those countries are often debated, but how western countries might deal with the threat posed by terrorist groups operating out of Yemen and Somalia hasn't received much public discussion in recent years. The recent attacks mean that will surely now change, but there seem to be even fewer potential solutions than there are for Afghanistan and Pakistan.
Somalia's al-Shabaab formed out of the remnants of the UIC, a Taliban-style Islamist group which briefly ruled Somalia in 2006 until it was overthrown by US-backed Ethiopian forces for, well, being a bit too much like the Taliban. Since then, there's been little central government to speak of in Somalia, which is why pirates have been able to operate with such impunity from Somali ports. Some of the pirates' cash ends up going to al-Shabaab, and the Danish incident demonstrates it now has both the ability and willingness to attempt terrorist attacks abroad. If further international attacks take place, the US may be forced to turn once again to its Ethiopian allies for help in fighting al-Shabaab, the deployment of US troops to Somalia being still far too sensitive a subject following the 1993 Black Hawk Down incident.
As for Yemen, there is at least a central government, and the US has given it tens of millions of aid dollars to help root out terrorists since the attack on the USS Cole in Aden harbour in 2000. Following the failed Christmas Day bombing in Detroit, expect more help for the Yemeni authorities, including more US drones flying over remote parts of the country in an attempt to find terrorist hideouts. The solution to the Yemen problem may be a little more straightforward than that in Somalia, but the potential scale of the Detroit attack shows that al-Qaeda in Yemen already has the ambition to strike at major targets in the US homeland. The Obama administration knows it must act quickly in Yemen before the next terrorist plot becomes a reality.
Thursday, December 10, 2009
Another Embarrassing Failure For Russia's New Missile
Some lights in the night sky over Norway caused a bit of confusion earlier today. Despite excited suggestions a UFO or Santa Claus himself might have been to blame, the truth is a bit less thrilling. It was the latest failed test of Russia's new nuclear missile system, the Bulava.
It's thought to be the 13th time the missile's failed to work. To say this is embarrassing for the country's leaders in the Kremlin is putting it mildly. Russia has invested a fortune in the Bulava in recent years as it strives to update its ageing Soviet-era military hardware. The Russians are also working on a new fleet of nuclear submarines to carry the Bulava. So, it has to work.
But the Bulava's success isn't just a matter of getting value for the Kremlin's money. It's more a question of Russian national prestige. The reputation of the Russian military took a big hit almost a decade ago when the decrepit Kursk submarine sank with all hands. Since then, Russia's President (and now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin has tried to win popularity at home and gain respect (and concessions) abroad by building up Russia's strength in various ways reminiscent of how the USSR used to behave. The Bulava project is part of the military aspect of that strategy. Unless it can be made to work soon, both the Kremlin and Mr Putin personally, will start to look pretty foolish, and that's something they're desperate to avoid.
It's thought to be the 13th time the missile's failed to work. To say this is embarrassing for the country's leaders in the Kremlin is putting it mildly. Russia has invested a fortune in the Bulava in recent years as it strives to update its ageing Soviet-era military hardware. The Russians are also working on a new fleet of nuclear submarines to carry the Bulava. So, it has to work.
But the Bulava's success isn't just a matter of getting value for the Kremlin's money. It's more a question of Russian national prestige. The reputation of the Russian military took a big hit almost a decade ago when the decrepit Kursk submarine sank with all hands. Since then, Russia's President (and now Prime Minister) Vladimir Putin has tried to win popularity at home and gain respect (and concessions) abroad by building up Russia's strength in various ways reminiscent of how the USSR used to behave. The Bulava project is part of the military aspect of that strategy. Unless it can be made to work soon, both the Kremlin and Mr Putin personally, will start to look pretty foolish, and that's something they're desperate to avoid.
Wednesday, December 02, 2009
The Big Question In Afghanistan Is What Happens After 2011
President Obama has finally made his long-awaited announcement on the future of US strategy in Afghanistan. He's sending an extra 30,000 American troops, with the health warning that they will begin to withdraw in 2011. The decision has met with a sceptical response in Afghanistan itself.
The stated aim of the western military involvement in Afghanistan is to fight Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies, and make it harder for Islamist terrorists to attack targets in the west. One of the major criticisms of the increased western involvement in recent months is that now the troops are focusing not just on fighting the west's enemies, but also on trying to protect and strengthen the Afghan government (which, as the controversial recent election showed, is widely corrupt). Critics call it 'mission creep' and accuse Mr Obama and others of trying to find new reasons to justify their involvement in Afghanistan, when they should have pulled out already.
That's believed to be the view of the US Vice-President, Joe Biden. But for leaders like Mr Obama and Gordon Brown, there's more to consider, namely what'll happen when the western troops withdraw. Now that Mr Obama has named 2011 as the start of the end of the mission (as an answer to one of the big criticisms of America's mission in Iraq, namely that there was no exit strategy), that deadline will dominate the way all interested parties act in Afghanistan. And it may end up to the Taliban's advantage.
The Taliban now knows that, if it can avoid complete obliteration over the next couple of years (with help from sympathisers in Pakistan, this shouldn't be a problem), the western troops will go home. Then it can take on the Afghan government. The Taliban did exactly that when it initially seized power in Afghanistan back in 1996. It was a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in which Al Qaeda harboured and trained the terrorists which carried out 9/11.
So, if the US and its allies are unable to help the Afghan government improve its security capabilities sufficiently in the coming months, there could be big trouble ahead. Leaving Afghanistan in 2011 might suit short-term western political opinion, but if the Taliban is able to regain control once the Americans have left, it would probably allow Al Qaeda the opportunity to strengthen, and therefore make a spectacular attack on the US or Europe far more likely. Although it may cause an increase in the human cost in terms of American, British and other international lives, spending the time between now and 2011 putting the Afghans in a position to defeat the Taliban is essential to the ultimate success of the west's mission.
The stated aim of the western military involvement in Afghanistan is to fight Al Qaeda and its Taliban allies, and make it harder for Islamist terrorists to attack targets in the west. One of the major criticisms of the increased western involvement in recent months is that now the troops are focusing not just on fighting the west's enemies, but also on trying to protect and strengthen the Afghan government (which, as the controversial recent election showed, is widely corrupt). Critics call it 'mission creep' and accuse Mr Obama and others of trying to find new reasons to justify their involvement in Afghanistan, when they should have pulled out already.
That's believed to be the view of the US Vice-President, Joe Biden. But for leaders like Mr Obama and Gordon Brown, there's more to consider, namely what'll happen when the western troops withdraw. Now that Mr Obama has named 2011 as the start of the end of the mission (as an answer to one of the big criticisms of America's mission in Iraq, namely that there was no exit strategy), that deadline will dominate the way all interested parties act in Afghanistan. And it may end up to the Taliban's advantage.
The Taliban now knows that, if it can avoid complete obliteration over the next couple of years (with help from sympathisers in Pakistan, this shouldn't be a problem), the western troops will go home. Then it can take on the Afghan government. The Taliban did exactly that when it initially seized power in Afghanistan back in 1996. It was a Taliban-ruled Afghanistan in which Al Qaeda harboured and trained the terrorists which carried out 9/11.
So, if the US and its allies are unable to help the Afghan government improve its security capabilities sufficiently in the coming months, there could be big trouble ahead. Leaving Afghanistan in 2011 might suit short-term western political opinion, but if the Taliban is able to regain control once the Americans have left, it would probably allow Al Qaeda the opportunity to strengthen, and therefore make a spectacular attack on the US or Europe far more likely. Although it may cause an increase in the human cost in terms of American, British and other international lives, spending the time between now and 2011 putting the Afghans in a position to defeat the Taliban is essential to the ultimate success of the west's mission.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
