Soviet Union – Law Street

Is the Russian Military’s Powerful New Weapon a Bunch of Dolphins?

Mariam Jaffery — Tue, 26 Apr 2016 15:50:11 +0000

Image courtesy of [www.kremlin.ru via Wikimedia Commons]

In news that sounds like it would make for a great B-movie plot, the Russian Ministry of Defense is now in possession of some powerful new weapons: five dolphins, which it purchased this week for $26,000. But nobody seems to know for sure exactly how it plans to utilize the animals.

According to NBC News, the Russian Ministry of Defense purchased the mammals for approximately $5,200 each from Moscow’s Utrish Dolphinarium, the winning bidder for the contract. The posting on the Russian website for state tenders set pretty high standards for the selected dolphins, specifying that they must have “…all teeth intact…[and no mucus from the blowhole].”

These aren’t the first dolphins in the Russian military’s possession; Russia gained a whole stock of them in 2014, after the annexation of Crimea. The aquarium that housed Ukraine’s dolphins was part of the land that went to Russia, which became a point of contention between the two countries. According to The Guardian, “The Ukrainian military dolphin [program] was born out of a Soviet-era scheme that, like much of the Soviet army, fell into neglect in the 1990s.”

The training center is one of two such facilities in the world–the other is in San Diego and belongs to the U.S. Navy. Last year, Russian officials told news agency RIA Novosti that the center was still in operation, indicating that Ukraine’s combat dolphins were making a comeback (although Russia claims that they’re not being used for military purposes).

Surprisingly, militarized dolphins are not a new concept. They were used during the Cold War by both the Soviets and the United States for various purposes, including the detection of mines and submarines. A 2002 History Channel documentary called “Inside the Soviet Military Machine: Dolphin Soldiers” looked into the experiments done on dolphins by the USSR (and sadly, many were indeed painful and cruel).

Russia has continued to remain silent on its plan for the dolphins, but if past experience is any indication, the military could see them as tools in beefing up its defense forces. Although considering Putin’s love for animals, it wouldn’t be completely surprising if he just wanted some new pets.

Mariam Jaffery

Mariam was an Executive Assistant at Law Street Media and a native of Northern Virginia. She has a B.A. in International Affairs with a minor in Business Administration from George Washington University. Contact Mariam at mjaffery@lawstreetmedia.com.

The post Is the Russian Military’s Powerful New Weapon a Bunch of Dolphins? appeared first on Law Street.

A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski — Thu, 18 Jun 2015 18:32:57 +0000

Image courtesy of [DVIDSHUB/Staff Sgt. Shawn Weismiller via Flickr]

Starting in late April 2015, the Taliban launched its annual Spring offensive in Afghanistan. Since that time, the government has fought back and launched its own counteroffensive, which has continued throughout the month of May and into June. After more than a decade and major American military intervention, the Taliban remains active and strong within Afghanistan and neighboring regions. Read on to learn about the group’s origins, the impact of the American war, and the Taliban’s role in Afghanistan’s future.

The Origins of the Taliban

As the oft-told story goes, the Taliban emerged as one of the many competing groups among the Mujahideen fighting against the Soviets in Afghanistan in the late 1970s through 1980s. The group and many others that would make up the Mujahideen were supplied, equipped, and financed in part by large contributions from the United States and Pakistan, which shares a close tribal relation to the Taliban.

The group came to prominence beginning in 1994, succeeding the ouster of Soviet forces. Following the scramble for control, the Taliban, a predominantly Pashtun group, began taking over large swaths of territory. The motivation behind the group centered on a strict interpretation of Sharia law and Sunni Islam. In 1995 they captured their first province, Herat, bordering Iran. By 1998 they had conquered 90 percent of the entire country and were effectively in charge. The video below details the origins of the Taliban.

Help From Abroad

While the Taliban enjoyed a seemingly meteoric rise from obscure Mujahideen group to the rulers of an entire country, it was not without substantial help–inadvertent or overt–from outside sources. This assistance begins with the United States.

As touched on briefly, the U.S. initially started supporting the Taliban and similar groups in the 1980s in an effort to defeat the Soviets in Afghanistan. This assistance was far from benign, in fact several Mujahideen members actually visited the White House and met with then-President Ronald Reagan. The relationship continued openly until as late as 1997, when members of the Taliban came to Texas to discuss building an oil pipeline in Afghanistan with an American oil company. This even while the Taliban had been suspected of hiding Osama Bin Laden as early as 1996.

Even after the war in Afghanistan started and dragged on, the U.S. was still allegedly funding the Taliban inadvertently. Up to a billion dollars a year in funding ear-marked for the Afghan government, was believed to be funneled directly to the Taliban.

While the United States has directly and indirectly funded the Taliban, Saudi Arabia has been more direct. The Taliban themselves are widely suspected of emerging from holy seminaries paid for by the Saudis, which cultivated the ideals of strict Sunni Islam. However, their support has not stopped there.

Along with other gulf countries, including the United Arab Emirates and Kuwait, Saudi Arabia remains the largest funder of terrorist groups, including the Taliban. These funds are not usually given out directly. Instead, they are channeled through a false corporation that may request support to build more schools, for example. The Taliban and other groups can also raise money from these countries through kidnappings and extortion.

However, the Taliban’s strongest supporter is likely Pakistan, which shares the closest kinship bonds with members of the Taliban. The Pashtun is a tribe whose members live in an area that straddles the northern borders of Pakistan and Afghanistan. Many of the early members were also educated in Pakistani schools known as Madrassas.

Pakistan’s relationship with the Taliban did not end there. Like the U.S., Pakistan funded the Taliban in their efforts against the Soviets in the 1980s; however, the Pakistanis’ efforts continued after the Americans left, as Pakistan’s Inter-Service Intelligence agency (ISI) continued to train members of the Taliban throughout the 1990s up until the American invasion in 2001.

In 2007, after being driven out of Afghanistan, the Taliban set up an organization in Waziristan, Pakistan and proclaimed itself an Islamic state. From this base the Taliban, which is still being supported by aspects of Pakistan’s ISI, has launched numerous attacks, assassinations, and kidnappings into Afghanistan.

The U.S. War in Afghanistan

Despite the Taliban coming to power essentially as a result of fighting one superpower, this did not prevent the other from going after them either. Following the terrorist attacks of 9/11, then-President George W. Bush gave the Taliban an ultimatum to either hand over Al-Qaeda and Osama Bin Laden or be attacked. The Taliban refused and U.S. forces were in the country in less than a month. Less than two months after that, the Taliban was defeated and pushed out of Afghanistan. Despite this victory, both Bin Laden and the leader of the Taliban, Mullah Omar, were able to escape to Pakistan.

Following the overthrow of the Taliban, the focus of the U.S. and its allies shifted to nationbuilding and keeping the remnants of the Taliban at bay. The Taliban however, would not be so quickly dismissed and began a resurgence starting in 2005. The Taliban traded in their old tactics of facing the U.S. in conventional battles for guerilla tactics–particularly suicide bombs–which had been effective in Iraq. The group also resorted to the opium trade for funding. Afghanistan would eventually reach a point where it was supplying 90 percent of the world’s opium.

The renewed and increased violence led to another major policy shift: the surge. The surge was a large additional deployment of U.S. troops to Afghanistan. Newly appointed general Stanley McChrystal requested the troop increase out of fear that at current levels the war may be lost outright. Following this in 2010, Afghan President Hamid Karzai began to publicly float the idea of meeting with Taliban leaders for the first time. While the U.S. initially condemned his actions, by the following year and in the aftermath of the assassination of Osama Bin Laden, the Obama Administration announced it was open to talks.

Along with attempts at negotiating with the Taliban, the U.S. and its allies also began shifting greater responsibility and power to their Afghan counterparts. The U.S. and NATO also planned to pull out all troops by the end of 2014. However, following continued violence, uncertain safety situations, and attacks on NATO troops by allied Afghan soldiers, NATO agreed to keep as many as 13,000 soldiers in the country as part of a new bilateral security agreement signed by Afghan President Ashraf Ghani. The war officially concluded in 2014, making it the longest war in American history. The video below details the latest war in Afghanistan.

The Future of the Taliban in Afghanistan

So what is the Taliban’s position today? While as of 2014 they maintained direct control of only four of the 373 districts in the country, their reach is much greater. For example, in a 2013 assessment by Afghan security forces, 40 percent of the country was considered to be at a raised or high danger level. Furthermore, while Pakistan has paid lip service, the Taliban still have a strong base in the neighboring country. The group has also benefited from record poppy harvests and other illegal financing operations such as mining.

Partners in power?

Negotiations of varying degrees have been attempted beginning as early as 2010. President Ashraf Ghani seems especially eager to bring the Taliban to the table, as his first two official visits were to Pakistan where the Taliban is strong and China, who has sponsored such talks. The two sides finally met in May and while nothing was agreed upon, just meeting was a step in a positive direction. However, for more meaningful action to be taken it may require removing all foreign fighters from Afghanistan as the Taliban has articulated. The video below presents a desire by the Afghan president to talk with the Taliban.

The question now is how likely the Taliban is to actually come to the negotiating table in a meaningful way? The Taliban currently have an entrenched position and are reaping the windfall from record opium sales. It is very possible that the group will simply wait out the withdrawal of all foreign combat troops and then reignite the conflict with a government that has been repeatedly unable to answer to the task.

Conclusion

You reap what you sow. This is an old saying that essentially means your actions will have consequences, whether good or bad. For the United States, it used the Mujahideen in its fight against the Soviets in the 1980s then left them to themselves for much of the next two decades; however, 9/11 revealed what can happen as a result of benign neglect.

While the attacks were not orchestrated by Afghanistan, they were planned by the insidious leader of Al Qaeda, Osama Bin Laden, who was allowed to live in Afghanistan by the Taliban and who helped them gain more territory in the country.

Since that fateful day the U.S., its allies, and many average Afghanis have fought with the consequences of earlier decisions. This process has now seemingly come full circle, as the U.S. and its regional partners are advocating for talks with the Taliban and suggesting a role for them in the government. The Taliban, for their part, seemed hesitant to commit and more likely to wait out the complete withdrawal of foreign forces before striking again at what is viewed as a weak government.

Resources

BBC: Who Are the Taliban?

Nazareth College: The History of the Taliban

Global Research: Grisly Peshawar Slaughter-Who Created the Taliban? Who Still Funds Them?

Guardian: WikiLeaks Cables Portray Saudi Arabia as a Cash Machine for Terrorists

Shave Magazine: Pakistan and Taliban: It’s Complicated

Council on Foreign Relations: U.S. War in Afghanistan

Brookings Institution: Blood and Hope in Afghanistan

Council on Foreign Relations: The Taliban in Afghanistan

Michael Sliwinski

Michael Sliwinski (@MoneyMike4289) is a 2011 graduate of Ohio University in Athens with a Bachelor’s in History, as well as a 2014 graduate of the University of Georgia with a Master’s in International Policy. In his free time he enjoys writing, reading, and outdoor activites, particularly basketball. Contact Michael at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Resurgent Taliban Complicates Life in Afghanistan appeared first on Law Street.

The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons

Michael Sliwinski — Sun, 29 Mar 2015 18:30:30 +0000

Image courtesy of [New Jersey National Guard via Flickr]

In discussions of international politics, we hear a lot of talk about nuclear weapons, but another deadly type of weapon often goes overlooked. Chemical weapons have both proven their deadliness on the battlefield and have been deployed with greater frequency in contemporary times. Nevertheless, just two-and-a-half years since President Obama made his infamous “Red Line” speech against the use of chemical weapons in Syria, this issue has drifted from the public consciousness. While interest has waned publicly, these weapons are still being used on battlefields across the globe, even as legislation and efforts are being made to eliminate them for good. Read on to learn about chemical warfare, the legal framework for using chemical weapons, and how successful efforts to eliminate them have been.

History of Chemical Warfare

While chemical weapons in rudimentary forms have been in use for millennia, it was only relatively recently that they were harnessed in a modern sense. Chemical weapons made their debut on the stage of WWI. During that war, toxic gases such as chlorine and mustard gas were released from canisters on the battlefield. The results were devastating for two reasons. Not only were chemical weapons responsible for over a million causalities on the battlefield, but they also left a strong impression on the public’s consciousness. The video below explains the use of chemical warfare, particularly in WWI.

Nevertheless the use of the weapons continued through the inter-war years, particularly in places such as Russia and Africa. Usage was ramped up again in WWII. In the Far East, the Japanese used a variety of chemical agents in their attempted conquest of China. Meanwhile, in the Atlantic theater, chemical weapons were used by a number of parties, most notoriously by the Nazis in their death camps.

Even after WWII chemical weapons continued to be used. In one of the most glaring instances, the United States used instruments such as Agent Orange in Vietnam. The Americans were not alone, as the Soviets later employed chemical weapons in Afghanistan. Iraq utilized the deadly agents in its war against Iran as well as against its own Kurdish citizens.

Additionally, the usage of chemical weapons by individuals and terrorist groups has become a concern too. The most prominent example came in Japan in 1995, when the Aum Shinrikyo cult used nerve agent Sarin in a Tokyo subway. Chemical weapons were also used by terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan during the American occupation. Even ISIS has deployed chemical weapons in its battles against Iraqi and Kurdish soldiers.

The most recent high profile and controversial use occurred in Syria in 2013. In late March it was reported that the use of chemical weapons had been detected. While both the Syrian military and the rebels denied using the weapons, each blaming the other side, the usage of chemicals had crossed what President Obama called a “red line.”

While the episode in Syria was just one in a long line of chemical weapons attacks, it aroused concern over whether the existing framework to prevent the creation and use of chemical weapons was adequate. So, what is that framework?

Legality of Chemical Weapons

The horror of chemical weapon usage in WWI left a lasting image in the minds of many people. Thus in 1925, the first legislation aimed at prohibiting the dissemination of chemical weapons was passed. This was known as the Geneva Protocol and it prohibited the use of chemical weapons in warfare. However, the treaty proved inadequate in several ways as it allowed for the continued production of chemical weapons. Additionally, it also gave countries the right to use chemical weapons against non-signatories and in retaliation if weapons were used against them.

The Chemical Weapons Convention

Although seemingly inadequate, the Protocol nonetheless proved to be the only protection against chemical weapons for the next 65 years. Finally in 1992 however, the Chemical Weapons Convention was adopted. It was subsequently opened for signature beginning in 1993 and put into force in 1997. Unlike the Geneva Protocol, the CWC has a much clearer and all-encompassing goal: eliminate an entire category of weapons of mass destruction.

Namely what the treaty calls for is the prohibition of the “development, production, acquisition, stockpiling, retention, transfer or use of chemical weapons by states parties.” The chemicals themselves are divided into three different schedules, which may sound similar to those familiar with the U.S. drug classification regime. In addition, the signatories are responsible for enforcing these protocols within their own countries. Along with stopping the production of chemical weapons, states are required to destroy existing stockpiles and production facilities. Lastly, states are obligated to create a verification system for chemicals and must open themselves to snap inspections by other members. The video below details which chemicals are banned and what the CWC requires of its members.

Chemical Weapons Prohibition Regime: Success or Failure?

So is the current chemical weapons convention (CWC) a success or failure? Different metrics tell different stories.

Arguments for Success

Membership in the treaty certainly casts a positive glow. As of 1997 when the treaty took effect, 190 countries had joined with only five–Israel, Egypt, North Korea, Angola, and South Sudan–not yet ratifying the treaty. Furthermore, real progress has been made in implementing a number of the treaty’s goals. As of 2007, 100 percent of chemical weapons sites had been “deactivated,” 90 percent of which had either been destroyed or switched to peaceful use. Additionally, over 25 to 30 percent of stockpiles had been destroyed and 2,800 inspections had been carried out. The map below indicates countries’ signing status: light green indicates that the country signed and ratified the CWC, dark green indicates that the CWC is acceded or succeeded, yellow countries have signed but not ratified the CWC, and red countries are not signatories.

Image courtesy of Wikimedia

Arguments For Failure

Conversely, while those metrics point to success, there a number that tell the opposite story. The world has failed to meet the 2012 deadline originally set by the treaty for completely disarming all chemical weapons globally. The two main culprits were also two of the main catalysts behind the treaty in the first place: Russia and the United States. These two countries possess the largest stockpiles of chemical weapons, so their compliance with the treaty carries significant weight. The video below shows the failures of the U.S., Russia, and other nations to uphold the treaty’s protocols.

Along with failure to disarm is the question of favoritism. While the U.S. has been critical of other countries’ efforts to disarm, it has not pressured its close ally Israel to ratify the treaty, let alone destroy its acknowledged stockpile.

Other issues also exist. Several countries, despite having ratified the treaty, have not set up the international policing mechanisms necessary and required by the treaty to give it any actual power. Additionally, the inspection process itself has been described as unfair and inadequate. Because labs are transitioning from large factories to smaller compounds, it’s difficult to inspect and punish individual labs for producing illegal compounds. Furthermore, there are a number of non-lethal compounds used by the police–such as tear gas–that are not covered by the CWC and can be harmful. Lastly, while the treaty covers states, it does nothing to prevent groups such as ISIS or Al-Qaeda from using the harmful weapons.

Conclusion

As of June 2014, Syria completed the process of either giving up or destroying all of its declared weapons. This was seen as a major coup as most expected Syria to sandbag, especially after it missed prior several deadlines. Although Syria declared its chemical weapons, it is still suspected that other secret caches remain. Additionally, after the first acknowledged use–the event that overstepped the Red Line and led to the agreement between Russia, the U.S., and Syria–there were several more speculated incidents of chemical weapons use in Syria.

This points to the problem with the Chemical Weapons Convention. Like the Non-Proliferation Treaty for nuclear weapons, there is no governing body that can punish a country for violating it. This is because joining the treaty is voluntary and there is no punishment for not joining or even for joining then quitting. Moreover, most of the countries that did join never had chemical weapons to begin with, thus signing a treaty prohibiting them made no difference. The bottom line then is that when it comes to chemical weapons, much like nuclear or biological weapons, the onus is on the individual country to comply.

Resources

Primary

United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs: Chemical Weapons Convention

Additional

Fact Check.org: Obama’s Blurry Red Line

OPCW: Brief History of Chemical Weapons Use

Johnston Archive: Summary of Historical Attacks Using Chemical or Biological Weapons

American Society of International Law: The Chemical Weapons Convention After 10 Years

Arms Control Association: Chemical Weapons Convention Signatories and States-Parties

Washington Times: U.S. and Russia are Slow to Destroy Their Own Chemical Weapons Amid Syria Smackdown

Think Progress: Nobody Thought Syria Would Give Up Its Chemical Weapons. It Just Did

Military.com: U.S. to Destroy Its Largest Remaining Chemical Weapons Cache

Michael Sliwinski

The post The Forgotten WMDs: Chemical Weapons appeared first on Law Street.

Russia’s Aggressive Foreign Policy

Michael Sliwinski — Sat, 07 Mar 2015 15:00:45 +0000

Image courtesy of [Jennifer Boyer via Flickr]

Winston Churchill famously said that “Russia is a riddle wrapped in a mystery inside an enigma.” While the quote may be well worn, it is still surprisingly appropriate when discussing Russia today. Just a few years ago, old Cold War rivals Russia and the United States seemed to finally bond over their shared struggles against terrorism and to be on the path to real cooperation. But then, Russia changed course. Instead of trying to ingratiate itself into the international community, Russia took some steps that can be labeled as aggressive. Aside from a long-brewing conflict with Chechnya, it fought a war against the Republic of Georgia and is now slowly devouring Ukrainian territory. Those moves left many wondering: why did Russia feel the need to make such a drastic change in its global political relations. Read on to learn about Russia’s origins, historical political relationships, and foreign policy.

Russian History

Rise and Imperial History

While the area today known as Russia had been populated by steppe nomads for thousands of years, eastern European Slavs moved into the area only about 3,500 years ago. The Vikings also sailed into modern day Russia and founded the city of Kiev in the late ninth century. Early Russians adopted many of the practices of the Byzantine Empire, including the Orthodox religion. Following the fall of Constantinople, Russian leaders declared Moscow as its successor. Russia’s leaders adopted the title of tsar, similar to that of Caesar.

Russia continued to grow, but this growth was nearly undone when the Mongols conquered Russia in the thirteenth century, burning Kiev and sacking Moscow along the way. The Mongols then held sway over Russia for the next 200 years until the end of the fifteenth century when Russian rulers finally were strong enough to throw off the Mongol yoke.

Following this emancipation, the new rulers of Russia–the Romanovs–continued expanding, reaching the shores of the Pacific in 1649. Russia also attempted to gain further footholds in Europe, mainly by acquiring seaports in the Baltic to the north and Mediterranean to the south. As it did so, Russia came into greater contact with Europe and participated in a number of wars, including the defeat of Napoleon. Contact with Europe also forced Russia to confront its many backward policies. In the early twentieth century, reactionaries inspired by communism began to gain traction. During World War I, the Romanov family was overthrown and the Soviet Union was established.

Soviet Union

The Soviet Union was the successor to Romanov rule in Russia, but not without a fight. It was established after the victory of the Bolshevik Red Army in the Russian Civil War. Following their ascent to power, the Soviets enacted a series of purges and five-year plans that left the country weak and starving heading into WWII. The Soviets initially allied with the Nazis in exchange for several eastern European countries and a partition of Poland; however, the truce was broken in 1941, when the Germans invaded the Soviet Union. Nevertheless, the Soviets were able to withstand the attack, push back the Nazis, and establish themselves as one of two superpowers along with the United States after the war ended.

Following the war, the USSR and U.S. engaged in a protracted Cold War. Both sides competed against the other in arms and space races. While they never engaged directly in wars, several times during this period their proxies faced off against one another. Following the Cuban Missile crisis, cooler heads began to prevail, the rhetoric surrounding nuclear war was reduced, and several arms control treaties were signed. Beginning in the 1980s, the USSR started to liberalize as its economy and empire began to crumble. Finally, in 1991 the USSR dissolved into a number of independent countries with Russia as its leading member.

Post-USSR

Following the collapse of the Soviet Union, Russia was in disarray. Struggling to deal with the shift from communism to free market capitalism, inflation soared. The Russian economy, under the leadership of Boris Yeltsin, was barely able to avoid total collapse and reached the point of needing to import food to stave off starvation. Following the resignation of Yeltsin and the rise of Putin, the country began to stabilize and the course of foreign policy began to take its present shape. The following video gives a brief summary of modern Russian history.

Current Foreign Policy

Russia’s current foreign policy can be summed up in one word: aggressive. The reason for this shift toward conquest, oppression, and authoritarianism can be linked to two things. First is the desire of many Russians to return to the prestige of the Soviet Union. Second is the man leading that change and the nation itself, Vladimir Putin. The video below looks at Russia’s current foreign policy.

Vladmir Putin

The man who holds responsibility for many of Russia’s decisions since the fall of the USSR is its longtime leader, President Vladimir Putin. Putin was born in Stalingrad during the height of the Soviet Union’s glory; however, he was coming of age professionally just as the empire was disintegrating. Even after the USSR collapsed around him, Putin was determined to restore Russia to its status as a global power. Below is an excerpt from a speech Putin gave when he was a candidate for Prime Minister in 1999:

Russia has been a great power for centuries, and remains so. It has always had and still has legitimate zones of interest abroad in both the former Soviet lands and elsewhere. We should not drop our guard in this respect, neither should we allow our opinion to be ignored.

Since Putin was elected prime minister and subsequently president following Yeltsin’s resignation, he has done everything in his power to live up to these words. His first order of business was finally crushing the independent state of Chechnya. Chechnya, a small area in the southwest Caucasus region of Russia, had actually defeated the Russian army in the 1990s and formed a short-lived nation of its own.

After reestablishing Russia’s military strength, Putin also moved to curb the power of the oligarchs who became fabulously wealthy when they took control of state-owned industries following the fall of the USSR. He arrested and silenced critics, such as the fallen oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky. This policy has only continued as Putin’s strangle-hold on power has intensified. Along with leading the country since his ascent in 2000 as either president or prime minister, he has also engaged in further military actions including dispatching soldiers to crush Georgian troops and annexing Crimea. Recently Russian troops have also been implicated in separatists’ movements in Eastern Ukraine as well. The video below discusses Putin’s life.

Foray into Ukraine

While outsiders may view Russia’s recent foreign expansion into Ukrainian affairs as aggressive, the majority of its citizens hold the opposite opinion for several reasons. First, to many Russians, Ukraine is part of their historical empire and thus it is only natural that it be restored to Russia.

The conflict in Ukraine started when Russian-backed Ukrainian President Victor Yanukovych was ousted following his unpopular decision to remain aligned with Russia instead of integrating with the European Union. In response, Russian troops invaded an area called Crimea, occupied the area, and Crimea eventually voted in a referendum to become part of Russia. After the annexation of Crimea, Russia has continued supporting ethnic Russian Separatists in Eastern Ukraine, where they are the majority. This has aroused great controversy because despite several ceasefires, Russia has continued to provide separatists with weapons and possibly soldiers.

Many Russians also believe the entire uprising in Ukraine is the result of Western actions. A common argument is that Russia has actually intervened to protect Russian speakers the same as many western countries do for other minority groups. However, the opinions of everyday Russians are heavily influenced by the Russian media, which is indiscriminately run by the state and thus broadcasts the state’s message.

Russia’s next course of action remains up in the air. Economically it would seem obvious that Russia has to stop being so aggressive and work toward appeasing its Western creditors and consumers. Economic sanctions placed on Russia following its actions in Ukraine are beginning to be felt. The main effects of the sanctions have been in denying Russia credit and access to markets. Nonetheless, as yet another breached ceasefire implies, Russia doesn’t seem content to return Eastern Ukraine–and certainly not Crimea–back to the original status quo.

Other Foreign Policy Concerns for Russia

Along with sanctions, an even greater problem for Russia suggests it should curtail its recent aggressive maneuvering–falling oil prices. At the beginning of the year, the price of oil dropped below $50 a barrel. This is devastating to a Russian economy that is dependent on oil as its main export.

From an economic standpoint this has been disastrous to the ruble, which has dropped by 17.5 percent compared to the dollar in just the first two weeks of 2015. The economy in general is hurting, as well, as it’s projected to retract by three to five percent this year. What this means for people on the street is also troubling. Lower crude prices mean higher prices for other goods, in particular food stuffs.

All of these economic woes have negatively impacted another grand Putin endeavor, the Eurasian Union. As the name implies, it is an economic union made up of Russia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Armenia, and Kyrgyzstan that is supposed to rival the EU. However, with falling prices in Russia and declining currencies at home, all of the members are already discovering the side effects of allying with a troubled Russia. The member countries are also wary of sovereignty violations by Russia as well, similar to the ones that have already occurred in Georgia, Crimea, and now Eastern Ukraine.

It seems unlikely that Russia will stop pursuing such an aggressive approach, however. As a de facto dictator, it is crucial for Putin that he keeps his people happy enough so that they will not revolt. In this regard Putin seems to have been very successful. In December 2014 he was elected Russia’s Man of the Year for the fifteenth time in a row. Putin’s popularity level in fact has hovered at around 70 percent his entire time in office, spiking even higher during the invasion of Georgia and following the annexation of Crimea. It actually seems to Putin’s benefit to maintain his strong appearance in the face of alleged western aggression. While people in the West may question the authenticity of these ratings, any western politician would love to have the same kind of popularity.

Putin has also increased spending on the military. Even with the economy in crisis, military spending actually increased for this year rising to $50 billion. The effect of this spending has been evident in increased navy patrols, air maneuvers, improved equipment and greater activity. It also included the purchase of dozens of new state-of-the-art nuclear weapons to replace obsolete models from the Cold War.

So, Russia’s policies are working, at least in part. While they have proven very costly to the average Russian and the economy overall, it has not dissuaded Putin from his desire to restore Russian prestige. Frankly it should not be surprising either, with his high approval ratings and the West’s resistance to anything more than soft power tactics. The real question going forward is how much further Russia will go down this path. Will it stop with Eastern Ukraine or go further and risk overstretching? At some point the West will likely draw a line in the sand and if Russia crosses it, what will be next for Russia and the international community it refuses to abide by?

Resources

BBC News: Vladimir Putin

History World: History of Russia

The New York Times: Why Russians Back Putin on Ukraine

Business Insider: How Do We Know Russia Economic Crisis Has Officially Arrived?

Foreign Policy: Putin’s Eurasian Dream is Over Before it Began

Atlantic: Putin’s Popularity Much Stronger Than the Ruble

PBS: What Has Been the Effect of Western Sanctions on Russia?

U.S. News & World Report: Putin Defends Actions in Ukraine.

Michael Sliwinski

The post Russia’s Aggressive Foreign Policy appeared first on Law Street.

The US and North Korea: The Relationship at the 38th Parallel

Michael Sliwinski — Mon, 12 Jan 2015 00:37:37 +0000

Image courtesy of [(stephan) via Flickr]

The United States and North Korea have had an acrimonious relationship for more than 60 years. America has not only invaded North Korea, but also maintains support for North Korea’s enemies as well as levies punitive sanctions. North Korea conversely has persistently agitated the United States with provocations, both against it and its allies in order to seek an amendment to the sanctions.

With all this in mind then, it is fair to explore how this relationship became so toxic. Certainly war couldn’t be the only factor as the United States now has working relationships with Japan, Germany, and even Vietnam following large-scale wars with each. The answer must lie somewhere else and thus it is important to explore the history of the relationship between the two nations and some of the major flash points.

History of Communist Korea and the Korean War

Although people have been living on the Korean peninsula where North and South Korea sit for thousands of years, North Korea in its current form is relatively new. Near the end of WWII in 1945, Soviet troops kicked out the occupying Japanese forces in the northern parts of Korea. The Americans forced out Japanese forces in the south. It was assumed that at some point the two Koreas would then become one, although exact dates and times were never set. One thing was clear though, the groups deciding the future of Korea did not really include the Koreans themselves, but rather the world’s major powers.

Originally the United States and the Soviet Union discussed creating a trusteeship in which the countries would only govern in Korea until Korea was ready to govern itself; however, when a provisional democratically elected Korean government proved ineffective, the Soviets rejected further efforts, leading the U.S. to appeal to the United Nations. The United Nations decreed there should be one government and the South followed through by electing a pro-democratic government. The Soviets rejected this election.

Instead, one year later, the North Korean Communist Party was created with Soviet-sponsored guidance. One of its leaders became the founder and eventual leader of North Korea two years later in 1948, when Kim Il-Sung declared the nation the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). In response to the communist overtones of the government established in the North, in 1950 South Korea declared its independence, leading to a North Korean invasion and the beginning of the Korean War.

Following the North’s invasion and thanks to the Soviet Union’s boycott of the United Nations, the United States was able to have the actions condemned and create a multinational force to come to the aid of the South. Aid was needed too, as the North Korean advance had almost completely overrun the entire peninsula when the American-led effort began to materialize. Led by George MacArthur, the Americans pushed the North Koreans out of the South entirely.

MacArthur wanted more, and thus aimed to push them all the way back to the Yalu River on the border of China. In response the North Koreans were assisted by Chinese soldiers, who despite taking heavy casualties pushed the American coalition back near the thirty-eighth parallel where the borders had been at the start. What followed was a stalemate that saw more action outside of Korea, where MacArthur was recalled after calling for an escalation to the conflict including the use of nuclear weapons against China. The conflict finally reached a ceasefire in 1953 following the election of President Eisenhower. The map below shows the progression of the war; the red represents North Korean forces, and the green South Korean forces.

Map Courtesy of Roke via Wikimedia

While the conflict technically ended in 1953 with the deaths of more than 50,000 Americans and over a million Koreans and Chinese, it is important to note that the war is not officially over. An armistice was indeed signed, but that only ended the conflict; technically the war is not over until a peace treaty is signed. Also interesting is that South Korea was not a signatory to the armistice. Regardless of the exact terms the war left the Korean peninsula divided into two very different nations. Watch the video below for a good overview of the war.

North Korea and the United States: Post-Korean War

The Immediate Aftermath

Despite its infrastructure being basically destroyed by U.S. bombing, coupled with the fact that it lost nearly 12 percent of its population, the North actually rebounded well following the war. This was due mostly to huge infusions of aid from both China and the Soviet Union. This assistance led to rapid industrialization through the rest of the 1950s and on through the 1960s, with North Korea being the more economically advanced Korea at the close of the decade.

Following this, however, the North Korean economy began to slow down as it started to exhaust its industrial capability and accrued massive debt in search of new technology from the West. While North Korea sputtered, the nation to the south took off. Since 1950, the economy of South Korea has grown by an average of seven percent, with only two years of negative growth during a crisis in the mid-nineties. The last year that North Korea’s GDP equaled that of the South was 1976, according to a study published by the CIA.

Unlike the North, the South’s economic rise was not predicated on heavy industry, but instead on international trade. Utilizing a well-educated workforce and a campaign of state intervention in which money was funneled into particular companies whose families were trusted by the government, known as chaebols, companies from the South such as Samsung were enabled to grow into multinational corporations capable of competing with any western firms. South Korea was also able to adapt in a time of turmoil, namely by overhauling its inept financial system which was exposed following the Asian financial crisis in 1997-1998. Thus by the end of 2013, South Korea’s economy was the world’s fourteenth largest. Watch the video below for a comparison of the two economies.

South Korea has also been enabled by its political transformation. For roughly the first 40 years after independence, the South was ruled by strongmen. These leaders engaged in every measure of violent repression imaginable and in many ways mirrored their counterparts to the north. However, with the democratically elected Roh Tae-Woo in 1987, that began to change. Following him were two more democratically elected presidents who were not linked to the old regime, as Roh was. This marked a major turn toward liberalism for South Korea. Nonetheless, with the election of Park Geun-Hye, the daughter of one the most notorious South Korean authoritarian leaders, questions still remain.

North Korean leadership has been much more clear cut since the end of the war. Specifically, since the end of the Korean War the North has been ruled solely by the Kim family, who has created a cult of personality in North Korea in which they are portrayed as gods.

Assasinations and Attacks

While North Korea may have given up hopes for military conquest, at least temporarily, following the war it still tried to ensure its agenda by less direct means. This played out primarily though assassination attempts against South Korean political leadership, seen as puppets for a U.S. master. From the late 1960s through the early 1980s several assassination attempts were carried out on the president’s life, and while they all failed, one in 1974 led to the death of the first lady. In 1987 the North stepped up its efforts by bombing a South Korean Airliner, which garnered it a place on the list of the countries that support terrorism as designated by the United States. Since then North Korea has been even more overt, now occasionally actively attacking South Korean military units, and most importantly building and testing nuclear weapons.

The North Goes Nuclear

In 1985 North Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT). Chief among the treaty’s goals is limiting the number of countries with nuclear weapons. In 1993, North Korea was accused of running a nuclear weapons program. In response, it threatened to leave the NPT and was only pacified in the following year when it was given aid in order to halt its program.

For the next eight years the North promised to halt its program in exchange for nuclear power plants built by the United States to provide electricity, as well as the loosening of sanctions and more aid. In 2002 it was revealed that North Korea had continued with its nuclear weapons program and by 2003 had withdrawn from the NPT. The next few years featured six-party talks in which North Korea tested increasingly long-range missiles and made threats in exchange for aid and other concessions. In 2007, North Korea finally confirmed its first test of a nuclear weapon. Since the test in 2007, North Korea has allegedly tested nuclear weapons twice more, while also continuing to make threats with the goal of attaining incentives such as aid and the easing of sanctions.

Much of this see-sawing has to do with North Korean leadership. Since the inception of the nation more than 60 years ago, North Korea has been ruled solely by one family, the Kims. Currently Kim Jung-Un is Supreme Leader following in the footsteps of his father, Kim Jung Il, and his grandfather, Kim Il-Sung. If there is any question about the power wielded by these men one only has to travel the streets of Pyongyang where portraits of them are everywhere and people flock daily to their birth places as a sign of deference to their greatness.

Potential Future Outcomes

While the world hopes for a breakthrough, the reality of any such event happening soon seems bleak. This begins and ends with the Kim dynasty; as long as this family is in charge there is unlikely to be any sudden liberalization. Each ruling Kim is perceived as the father of his people and also god, so it seems unlikely the people of North Korea would suddenly rise up and overthrow the government. The only group that could potentially topple Kim is his inner circle; as long as they are comfortable and worried for their own safety, which is likely following the execution of Kim’s own uncle last year, a coup seems unlikely. In addition, no matter how bad famine gets it is unlikely to have any impact on the great leader’s status.

U.S. vs. North Korea?

Like Iraq and Iran, North Korea was labeled by President Bush in 2003 as part of the axis of evil. Unlike Iraq, however, North Korea has a powerful ally in China, which has already shown a willingness to come to its aid, making North Korea an unlikely target of American invasion. China does not want to see North Korea fall because it creates a buffer between it and U.S.-backed South Korea, and also because the potential wave of refugees who would flood into China following the fall of North Korea could be very destabilizing.

North Korea has a big army and its people are indoctrinated into a cult that worships the Kim family, not conditions conducive for being greeted as liberators. The country also has nuclear weapons in some form. While its ability to hit the U.S. mainland remains in doubt, that would be a big risk for any American president to take without major provocation. The video below offers the potential outcome of North Korean-U.S. conflict.

Conclusion

As 2015 dawns, the demilitarized zone (DMZ), which divides the two Koreas and countless families, is still the most heavily armed border in the world. At any one time North Korea, the world’s fifth largest army by total numbers, has 75 percent of its 1.1 million member force stationed there. Across the line is an American contingent numbering as many as 37,000 men supported by the majority of the South’s 650,000 strong group. At any provocation these two sides could engage and the tenuous armistice signed more than 60 years ago could vanish.

All hope is not lost, however. As the Kaesong Industrial Complex–a complex in which South Korean companies are allowed to manufacture goods in the North–shows, there is still opportunity for change. For true change to occur in this relationship, North Korea would have to alter just about its entire society, which is unlikely. Additionally though, the United States must also change its attitude to the upper half of the hermit kingdom. As the Sony Hack, which quite possibly may not have been carried out by North Korean hackers but was attributed to them immediately, showed, the bad blood built up between these two nations has made it hard for any real dialogue to occur.

This is a real problem too, as dialogue is necessary to settle grievances. An example of the value of simply speaking to each other is recent attempts at normalcy between the United States and Cuba, which also seemed unfathomable before they began. While that situation was very different and required assistance from the Pope, change has to start somewhere.