A Peek Into History of Bosnia Municipal Elections

Since 2008, municipal elections had not been held in Bosnia as the SDA and HDZ parties could not agree on electoral rules. However, both the parties had drafted the budget together, although transparency lacked as citizens were unaware were the money was spent. In the present scenario, the citizens argue that elites have had abused power as they had been living on the money of the taxpayer and shied away from showing any responsibility towards them. The unemployment rate in addition had accelerated during this period. The establishment of a city council signifies hope in Bosnia. Multi-ethnic parties are expected to win councillor which is believed to be a positive sign, although the two-party nationalist majority had been the trend. Bosnian city has been the witness to the ethnical division between the Bosnian Muslims and the Serbs. In the collective memory of the Bosniaks, the horror of the genocide remains etched.

ETHNICITY AND RELIGION: CAUSES OF THE GENOCIDE IN BOSNIA-HERZEGOVINIA

Bosnia-Herzegovina formed a part of the Republic of Yugoslavia. Croatia and Slovenia declared independence which thereafter saw military retaliation by the Republic itself. The violence that erupted in Yougolsovia in 1991 must be perceived as the first major conflict that occurred after the collapse of the Soviet Union. However, during this period there was no British intervention because it was argued that this was merely an internal dispute. It had been led by Milosevic, the President of the Republic of Serbia who had been invigorating violent uprisings of Serbian nationalist parties and envisioned an ethnically Serb-dominated state which was hailed by Dobrica Cosic, the most popular writer in Serbia. It was him who espoused that Slavs were the most superior of all the Balkans.

The Croats and Bosniaks, constituting 60 per cent of the population voted for secession which had been opposed by the Ethnic Serbs that led to violence. Gunmen had been deployed to instigate fear in the minds of the minorities. Thereafter, the necessity of cleansing this population began by the ethnic Serbs, first of which began by detaining the Bosniak or the Bosnian Muslims. Then there were deported by a train to Hungary. Many have become refugees, 40,000 of them been Muslims and it has been argued that the Local Red Cross was complicit in this genocide. Not only that, the Serbia militia forces had been supported by the then President (Gutman, Roy, 1993) Yet, it cannot be denied that the United Nations was established by then and could not prevent the Serbenican genocide. It has been argued that the soldiers of the United Nations Peacekeeping forces were complicit in this.

THE DAYTON AGREEMENT AND AN ANALYSIS OF ITS SUCCESS

The General Framework Agreement for Peace in Bosnia-Herzegovinia known by the name of Dayton Agreement of Peace ended the long-drawn conflict. An agreement was officially reached in 1995 at Wright Petterson Air Force. The Agreement epitomized the triumph of diplomacy by the Western Powers. Annex 1A which is concerned with the deployment of the Implementation Force, whereas Annex 1B outlines regional stabilization, security measures and as well as principles regarding regional arms and ammunition. Although it was against the wishes of the Serb and Croatian ultra-nationalists, Bosnia had been announced as a unified state which allowed those displaced to return to their homes.

The Federation was established as well as the Republic of Srpska or Republic of Serbia was recognized as a political entity which was awarded rights to self-govern itself. The media has indeed portrayed the Serbs as the criminals of the genocide and the Commemoration Day only deepens this memory which is of despair. (Murphy, 2011) Nevertheless, Serbian leadership undermines the legitimacy of the Dayton Agreement. The US involvement has been heralded because of their might to end war-torn Bosnia. In addition to that, the Clinton administration wanted to ensure the signing of this agreement as he would be running for re-election campaign against Robert Dole.

Now Bosnia has three separate armies, police forces and a national government whose functioning can be clearly argued is only on paper. Power remains still in the hands of its nationalists who aim to prohibit refugees returning to their homes. However, it can be argued that the Dayton Agreement has succeeded only in the prevention of armed conflict after it had been signed. In addition, SFOR or the NATO-led force in failing in the execution of the agreement.

CONCLUSION

The Municipal elections must be perceived as an indication of improvement in Bosnia as there will be the establishment of the City Council. It may lead to reconciliation as its leaders have forgone issues of ethnicity and ready to propound issues of employment and the economy. Nevertheless, it remains a necessity that the United Nations must play an active role in ensuring that the holding of the elections are not disrupted and can return to normalcy.

The post BOSNIA MUNICIPAL ELECTIONS 2020: FIRST LOCAL VOTE IN 12 YEARS appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Cyprus conflict has remained remarkably a major bone of contention between the Greek and Turkish communities as the 1950s witnessed the unleashing of inter-communal violence. It was the National Organization of Cypriot Fighters, a guerilla force which rebelled against the British Raj during this period that compelled the United States and the United Kingdom to rethink its foreign policies. On the other hand, a paramilitary group was established by the Turkish Cypriots which became known as the Turk Mukavemet Teshkiati or TMT. Rather, enosis has fitted well into the vision of pan-Hellenism or the Great Idea, known also as the “Megali Idea” and has been the sole goal for Greek Cypriots since British colonization and even after its independence. With no assistance from the United Nations, enosis had to be forgotten and a compromise was sought for, whereas the British authority realized the dominance of Cyprus military bases would fulfill its strategic necessities (Bishku, Michael M, Turkey, Greece and the Cyprus Conflict, 1991, p: 169). Therefore, independence of Cyprus was sought by Archbishop Makarios, the Greek Cypriot as the formidable choice, although many Greek Cypriots demanded union with Greece, termed as “enosis” which was refuted by Turkish Cypriots as they believed partition known by the nomenclature of “taksim” was the only solution. However, Makarios desired for alteration in the constitution which the Turkish Vice President, Dr Fasil Kucuk feared would sabotage their minority rights and led to inter-communal fights. The new constitution for Cyprus was then ratified on 16th August 1960. However, London and Zurich Agreements became the foundation of the three treaties as well as the embodiment of the constitution of 1960. By this, the presidentship would be headed by a Greek Cypriot whereas the position of the Vice-President must be awarded to a Turkish Cypriot. The Treaty of Establishment defined the territory of the Republic which excluded the British military bases; the Treaty of Guarantee which erased enosis as a proclamation and permitted Great Britain, Turkey and Greece to engage in ensuring the constitutional and institutional integrity of the Republic. Lastly, the Treaty of Alliance stated the utilization of Greek and Turkish servicemen to be working towards the defence of the region. It was again in 1963 that peaceful co-existence between communities was disrupted when the Greek Junta, a paramilitary group overthrew the government of President Makarios. The purpose was to demand reunification with Greece and as a result of this, Turkey deployed troops in Cyprus in 1974 which finally cumulated into the partition of this region. Northern Cyprus was occupied by Turkey and Southern by the Greek counterparts. Nevertheless, because of the existence of allegiance of both the communities in Cyprus to their motherlands, namely Greece and Turkey has resulted in absenteeism of patriotism in this region (Kaloudis, George, Cyprus: The Enduring Conflict, 1999, pp: 7).

Quandary: Defining the Turkey-Greece Diplomatic Ties

The Aegean is a semi-closed sea which separates the mainland constitutes to function as a bickering territory between Greece and Turkey. The former argues that Turkey has been violating Greek sovereignty, whereas the latter believes that Greece has been aiming to turn the Aegean into a Greek lake. In 2017, a Turkish vessel had been shot down by the Greek coastal guard and it was in April 2018 that two patrol boats came neck to neck in Kardak islets. It was in July 2020 that Turkey was sending a research ship which would carry out a survey over the close to Kastellorizo, which covered the region between Cyprus and Crete. Rather, the conflict has become militarized as both countries are mobilizing ships in the Mediterranean. Thereafter, Ankara had signed a deal with Libya to establish an Exclusive Economic Zone or EEC from the Turkish southern coast to Libya’s north-east coast. Both Cyprus and Greece stated that the treaty violates the International Law of Sea or the United Nation Law of the Sea Convention (UNCLOS). Both have accursed this move as they perceive that this may emerge as a barrier to the development of the Eastern Mediterranean. Not only that, Greece was horrified when President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan decided to transform the Hagia Sophia museum into a mosque, which is a United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) heritage site. This museum had been built by the Roman Emperor, Justinian in the year 537 CE. This was condemned by the Eastern Orthodox Church, based in Greece. These instances have only accentuated the relationship which is fuelled with animosity.

Conclusion

Turkey’s history of such acts against the minorities constitutes what she envisions himself: a visionary leader. No doubt, she believes that expansionism can give her this recognition. NATO must remain true to its core values which have been its foundation, yet her indecisiveness to take a stand in Greece and Turkey conflict has proved to be fatal.

The post GENESIS OF THE GREECE-TURKEY CONFLICT appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Nagorno-Karabakh in the Caucasus in South-East Europe and is significant as an energy corridor. This conflict has started to destabilize an area which is now drawing regional powers. It is rather important to understand why Nagorno-Karabakh or Artsakh has emerged as a conflict between two nations, Armenia and Azerbaijan. Nagorno-Karabakh — “Nagorno” is derived from the Russian language which means mountainous whereas “Karabakh” can be broadly understood as a black garden which is an admixture of Turkish and Persian words.

Artsakh is composed of Armenian majority and had declared independence from Azerbaijan in 1991 which had a Muslim majority populace, yet it has received no recognition as sovereignty even in the 21^st century. It was in 1823 that this area had come under the administration of Tsar Nicholas I, which was retained under the Soviet Republic. The region was ceded to Armenia by the treaty signed between USSR and Turkey. Artsakh was accorded the status of an Autonomous Oblast. The Russian Government during the 19^th century had favoured the Armenians as they had linguistic commonality with them and promulgated policies that would result in the growth of the Armenian population. By the time of the Russian Revolution of 1905, both Armenia and Azerbaijan engaged into an ethnic conflict which would be renewed before the collapse of the Russian Empire. Armenia dominated population established the Armenian National Council of Nagorno-Karabakh as a protest to Azerbaijan laying claim over Karabakh. However, the ongoing resistance against Azerbaijan must be perceived as a war of self-determination for Nagorno-Karabakh that began in the 19th century. However, between 1918 and 1920, this region was under the administration of the Azerbaijan Democratic Republic. A failed Armenian rebellion witnessed massacres of Armenians by Azeri forces, inhabiting Shusha or Shushi as Armenians termed it, until 1920. 

Agreements between two countries were reached by the Bishkek Protocol, of which Russia was a signatory in 1994.  During 1987, a petition was propagated by the Armenian academy which argued for the reunification of Nakhichevan to Armenian Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1988, Armenia took over the region and a six-year war led to the death of 30,00 people and mass displacement occurred. Armenia traces claim over Nagorno-Karabakh as public opinion believes that this region was part of the Armenian Kingdom since the 4th century BCE. However, human rights violations, refugee crisis and repercussions on the economy have been continuing phenomena in this region. However, it is important in this regard to highlighting how warring tensions in the Caucasus between Azerbaijan and Armenia accentuated as Turkey chose to side with the former, an ally. Pakistan, like Turkey, has pledged support towards Azerbaijan and it cannot be denied that it has never recognized Armenia as a state. Rather, she was equally engaged in the narrative of denial of the Armenian Genocide. Hence, she does not acknowledge Armenia’s claim over Artsakh and stated that the ethnic cleansing of the Azeris must be condemned. It would not be surprising if mercenaries from Pakistan join this war. Weapons have been majorly supplied under the regime of the Turkish Prime Minister. Recep Tayyip Erdogan in a recent statement argued that Armenia must withdraw from this region as it never belonged to her. Additionally, he stated that Armenia has been the greatest threat to peace in Nagorno-Karabakh and even rejecting the path towards a cease-fire. Missile strikes have now become a continued occurrence which has led to casualties for both Armenia and Azerbaijan and it is believed that violence has been fueled by Turkey for it cannot be denied that she has never perceived Armenia to be a country. Nonetheless, Turkey has denied of any of these statements, which is a hoax and the International Community must understand this. On the other hand, Artsakh experienced a war-like situation as Syrian forces had been deployed by Turkey which resonates with her inflicting mass annihilation on the Armenians. Four United Nations Security Council resolutions namely 823,853,874, 884 were passed in 1993 calling for Armenia’s withdrawal from Artsakh which Yerevan had refused to implement. Azerbaijan even aimed to attack the Republic of Armenia, expanding the geography of the conflict in recent developments. The United States of America responded to this crisis in 1988 by raising huge sums of money for humanitarian relief till date. The Trump administration has been facing excessive pressure by American legislators. The House of Representatives of Armenia Caucasus has introduced a resolution that condemns Turkey’s influence in the region and Azerbaijan’s military operations. Immediate US security assistance would be provided as suggested by the letter signed by 12 Senate Democrats. It had been suggested that the Republic of Artsakh would be recognized as an independent nation if violence would persist. The State Armenian Fund submitted a bill which stated the recognition of the Artsakh Republic.  On the other hand, Iran has stated that the disputed territory belongs to Azerbaijan as the Azeris are the most influential in Iran. President Hasan Rouhani has commented that Armenia must end the conflict.

Animosity Towards Armenia, Turkey’s History of Genocide: 1894-1916

The interests of Turkey in this region can be examined when one analyzes its relationship with Armenia. The Armenian Genocide had been perpetrated by under the Ottoman Empire and the Young Turks. This has been recognized as the first modern genocide which received immense publicization from North America and Europe, yet had been eradicated from popular consciousness in less than two decades later. World War I witnessed the defeat of Ottoman Turkey in the hands of the allied powers namely the British, French and the United States. The first massacre of Armenians occurred during 1894-96 by Sultan Abdul Hamid II during his reign. The Young Turks usurped the throne in 1908, thereafter entering the World War on the support of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. However, history repeated itself through the culmination of bloodshed of the Armenians during 1915-1916. This genocide was executed by the Committee of Union and Progress with the justification of national security in the face of an encroaching Armenian insurgency. The Committee of Union and Progress (CUP), infamously known as the Young Turks now reigned who believed in the notion of pan-Turkism.

All ethnic groups would be brought under one umbrella: the rule of the Ottomans through the idiom of political unification and therefore, the formation of a one-party state that allowed them to exercise such control which was the pathway to completely annihilate the Armenians. An anti-reform attitude was inherited by the CUP during the advent of their rule in 1908 when its foremost leader, Mehmed Talata dismissed the notion of equality with the non-Muslims, who were known by the terminology of ‘ghuirs’ evoking that the Shari‘a believes such an idea to be maleficent with the sentiments of the Muslims. The French ambassador at Istanbul, Paul Cambon opines that Diaspora Armenians had problematised the issue of administrative mishandling into that of racial persecution. The hatred of the government towards Armenians crystallized in the state’s conspiracy to prosecute the mass killing. These perpetrators have been conferred with the name of front-line killers who believe that their actions are for the greater good of the nation. The Interior Ministry announced that it propagated the ideology of benevolence, which functioned under the Ministry of war lead by Enver Pasha. This was indeed a distorted truth as the young girls were distributed in Muslim households, whereas boys of Armenian origin were made to work in factories. It must be pointed out how nationalist historiography claims that its officials were conducting rescue operations. Here one must be able to decipher the racial connotations which were clearly revealed through the government’s policies, as well as the vocabulary of de-humanization when its Anatolian populations were increasingly termed as tumours and leeches who must be exterminated for the greater good of the nation (Morris and Ze’evi, 2019, pp:137-300 ). A first-hand account of a Turkish Official, Lieutenant Moukhtar Beas dating to 26^th December 1916 had been elucidated which promulgates how order from Constantinople led the deportation of Armenians inhabiting the frontier towns to the interior. Large convoys passed through Erzeorum, consisting mainly of men, children and women. In 1915, he was transferred to Trezibond, where a large number of Armenians would be expatiated for the slaughter. The Armenian culture had been completely destroyed. It has been termed as the loss of moral, intellectual and spiritual life. This leads to the community questioning its position in history and in turn the self’s understanding of rootedness with the community. Rather, the collective identity of a community is submerged in its institutions.  Nevertheless, Turkey shares no diplomatic ties with Armenia which clearly can be perceived as the staunch hatred it holds for the Christian minorities who have been regarded as a threat to her beginning from the regime of Sultan Abdul Hamid II.

Conclusion

It is rather necessary for the international community to voice their opinion against such atrocities that are simmering in Nagorno-Karabakh. Turkey’s prominent role in this conflict arises from the fact that she wishes to propagate herself as the new leader of the Muslim leader, with Pakistan following the footsteps. The generational trauma that the Armenian population experience remains a horrifying truth. Yet, it is repeating itself in a new form. 

The post NAGORNO-KARABAKH: A REGION EMBEDDED IN ETHNIC VIOLENCE appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The strategic importance of the Korean Peninsula has enacted as the bridge between Asia mainland and Japan. It was believed that dominance over the Korean Peninsula signified influence over East Asia. It was during 1876 that diplomatic ties between both the countries were established. The Sino- Japanese War fought during 1894- 1895 must be analyzed from the perspective of Japanese imperialism or ‘Empire of the East’ countering the notion of western imperialism. However, the latter is not the only form of imperialism. Clearly, the aim of the Japanese government was to exercise political and economic control. Public opinion supported this action and clearly believed that Japan should play a pivotal role in helping Korea to free itself from the clutches of China. On the other hand, Qing China during the 1880s espoused the necessity to dominate over Korea. It is indeed true that nationalism and the trajectory of civilization have an intimate relationship as can be clearly seen by the case of Japan. Both the countries emphasized on their narratives to point out the righteousness in their actions (Sook, 2011, p: 39-74). Clearly, the Japanese government had manipulated the public opinion towards its aggressive foreign policy. Japan engaged in the discourse of civilization or bunmei kaika to present itself as a progressive nation which saw the light of Westernization (Darua, 2001, p: 99- 130). This altering contour emerged during the reign of the Meiji Restoration (1868-1912).  However, Russia’s emergence as a threat to Japan pushed the latter to be protective about Korea which led to the Russo-Japan War in 1905. 

Colonization of Korea (1905- 1945): Etched in Korea’s Collective Memory

Russia’s defeat was the stepping stone for Japan as Korea was formally annexed and become a part of the Japanese empire in 1905. Korea remained colonized till 1945 after which she was freed from Japan’s clutches with the latter’s defeat in the Pacific War. It was in 1912 that the Japanese Governor-General propagated laws that allowed the Japanese people to have ownership of land in Korea. A resettlement program was introduced by the government wherein many Japanese families settled in Korea before the end of the First World War. A large scale displacement took place. Additionally, 724,777 Korean workers had been sent to mainland Japan and Sakhalin as labourers in industries for mining, shipbuilding and construction. The Koreans were treated as second-class citizens and the Japanese government attempted to erase their culture by drawing up policies that would lead them to speak in the language of the colonizers. It was believed that Korean history and geography books were burned down by a nationwide search as well as confiscation of books of its independence and biographies of its national heroes was conducted by the government.

Not only that, gender-based violence on the Korean women was emerging as a disturbing issue during the Second World War. 20,000 Korean and Asian women were trafficked in military brothels to serve as ‘comfort women’ to the Japanese soldiers during the Asia-Pacific war. Comfort stations had been established in Indonesia, Indochina, Thailand, Okinawa, Korea and Taiwan. The women were treated as forced sexual slaves and must be analyzed from the perspective of gender-based violence. On the other hand, Japan had been the signatory of the International Convention for the Suppression of Traffic in Women and Children of 1921, yet Korea and Taiwan did not come under its purview. (Min, 2003, p: 938-957) The terminology of jugun inafu or comfort women was coined by the Japanese Government officials to cloak the reality of sexual slavery. Women who rebelled were brutally beaten up, raped and tortured.  It took 20 years before the former Korean President, Park Chung- Hee had agreed to normalize ties with Japan as collective memory etched on to its horrifying history.

Changing Contour of Republic of Korea and Japan Ties

The relations between South Korea and Japan can be examined from the point of view of a former suzerain state and colonizer since the 19^th century. Japan had argued that by the treaty of 1965 with South Korea, the former has provided compensation of $9.5 million for its sexual slavery as well as apologized in 1993. It was in 1952 that the first territorial dispute emerged between South Korea and Japan. Although Tokyo came under the jurisdiction of Korea, it had been administered by the latter for 41 years.  Kim Young- Sum’s Government declared the construction of a wharf facility in 1996 which was protested by the Hashimoto Government of Japan. However, on the face of North- Korean Teapeo- Dong Missile Crisis, Republic of Korea, President Kim and Japanese Prime Minister, Obuchi in 1998 signed the Joint Declaration and Action for a New Korea- Japan partnership in the 21st century. It was in 2015 that the former Foreign Minister of Japan, Fumio Kishida offered a formal apology and the Japanese Government stated that it would establish a Reconciliation and Healing Center which would care for the victims of sexual violence.  As Korea was in the process of democratization, civic organizations such as the Association of War Victims and Bereaved Families of Korean’s and Citizens Coalition for Economic Justice insisted that their Government must bring out a resolution to the colonial problems faced in South Korea. However, it cannot be denied that Japan was heralded as an economic partner. The post- Cold War period witnessed shifts in Korea- Japan relationship as security cooperation between USSR, North Korea, China and on the other hand, Japan, Republic of Korea and the USA broke down. Nonetheless, it cannot be forgotten that Japan and South Korea have espoused an anti-community narrative which is significant in their alliance as constructivism argues. These countries distinguish themselves from the other or Communism in this regard which is rooted in the perception of the self and other. The alliance is established when North Korea emerges as a common threat that leads them to shift from friction. It is imperative that the norms or a common ground must be shared for cooperation to flourish. Adding to that, the alliance did not last very long when in 2010 South Korea recalled the ambassador to Tokyo to protest against the approval of the Japanese Government of middle school textbooks written by the Society for Making New History Books, a Right- Wing intellectual group that aimed to conceal the atrocities of Japan’s wartime history. (Cho, 2008, p: 2-117) It clearly glorified Japanese militarism and fueled anti- Japanese sentiment in Korean public opinion. South Korean domestic policies have the impact of post-colonial history. The General Security of Military Information Agreement (GSOMIA) had been signed in 2016 which allowed Seoul and Japan to exchange information on North Korean missile which was supposed to expire in November. Ties experienced a downward spiral after the Supreme Court of South Korea in 2018 had ordered Japanese Firms to pay reparation for mobilizing Korean men and women as forced labours. Japan responded in July by removing South Korea from its list of trading partners as well as curbing exports namely fluorinated polyamides, photerists and hydrogen fluoride which are pivotal to the former’s semiconductor industry. The decision of not renewing the GSOMIA was upheld by Moon Jae’s government. The trade war that had been declared by both the countries has been perceived as a warning sign for USA and fear looms of the trilateral alliance breaking down.  

Portrayal of Japanese Media House Towards the Issue of Comfort Women

Journalism plays a pivotal role in bringing the truth to the public, yet this is determined by the coverage of the issue and if its portrayal is influenced by Government representation. ‘Sorrowful Homecoming’ was a Documentary which was released by the Korea Center of Investigative Journalism in 2016 that contained interviews of Korean women who were treated as sex slaves. This documentary had been created to raise awareness of the brutality done by the Japanese Imperial Army on Korean women and reconstruct the past human abuses. This has played an important role in building the collective memory of South Korea.  (Runquist, 2020, p: 2-17) On the other hand, Hirayasu Minzo, the Executive Editor of the Japan Times had criticized Reuters for not taking into account Japan’s viewpoint of colonization and refused to call comfort women as victims neither did he view Japan’s annexation of Korea as brutal.  Clearly, the Japan Times had refused to portray the horrifying Human Rights Violations that had occurred under the Meji regime in fear that it would be perceived as anti- Japanese by Shinzo Abe’s Government as it needed revenues from companies to survive and therefore had utilized the usage of such terminology. Although, Minzo had denied that his stance had altered due to external pressure, the fear of Abe’s Government ceasing the functioning of the paper could be viewed as one of the motives behind such an action. Indeed, the banner was, “All the news without fear or favor” has proved to be a farce as the truth has been denied. This has played a pivotal role in accentuating differences between the two countries. 

USA’s Role in South Korea-Japan Ties

The USA had perceived South Korea as its bulwark against Communism during the Cold War era. Yet, it cannot be denied that she built the foundation for democracy and it was the path that the Republic of Korea walked on. It was in 1953 that the Mutual Defense Treaty between the USA and the ROK was signed when Korean War had come to an end. The fervour to renew this alliance was pushed by George Bush’s Government during the 2000s. The USA, Japan and the Republic of Korea have been entangled in trilateral cooperation as North Korea’s advancement of nuclear missiles and China’s growing aggressiveness have led to the development of this alliance as these three countries share the standpoint of security. Nevertheless, this alliance has been embedded in the USA’s foreign policy. Nonetheless, an agreement between the Korean President, Park Geun- Hye and Japanese Prime Minister, Shinzo Abe was reached on 28^th December 2015 which could not have been possible without the pivotal role played by Obama’s administration which focused on the policy of “Rebalance to Asia”.

Conclusion

It is imperative for the Trump administration to sustain the trilateral cooperation as the ties between The ROK and Japan experience significant shifts due to the disturbing colonial past and atrocities embedded in the history of South Korea. As China’s aggressiveness becomes a warning sign for the USA as the ever so globalized world witnesses a re-emerging dawning Cold War era, the alliance can become the foundation for resistance if the economic partnership is facilitated. However, it must be kept in mind that the relationship of the Republic of Korea with Japan has been defined by the history of colonialism and collective memory.

The post DIPLOMATIC TIES BETWEEN REPUBLIC OF KOREA AND JAPAN: HOW JAPANESE COLONIALISM INFLUENCED THEIR POST COLONIAL RELATIONSHIP appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The Chittagong Hill Tract: Acts Implemented by the British Empire

However, it must be remembered that the British Empire bore the colonized with the fruits of colonial forestry that altered India’s ecology. Nonetheless, it must be mentioned how the onus of responsibility has been placed on the Raj for deforestation. The dense forests of the Chittagong Hill Tracts were perceived to be a source of revenue for the British and declared it to be Government property under the guise of protection (Golam, 2005, p: 7-10). The practice of kumri was now denounced under the British Raj which had been known as shifting cultivation where trees had been burned and seeds were then sowed in the ashes, performing as a fertilizer (Rajan, 2006, p:1-112 ). It was argued that it had resulted in deforestation and soil depletion. The shifting cultivators had been engaged in competition with the colonial state for forest resources. This could be perceived as the beginning of intolerance against the indigenous consumer of the forests, as hunting for livelihood was now criminalized. However, the commoditization of forests was detrimental for the British Empire to pronounce its dominance. The Act XXII of 1860 brought the Chittagong Hill Tracts under the jurisdiction of the British Superintendent and was made a subdivision in the Bengal Region (Barua, 1971, p: 514-518). The Chittagong Hill Tract Regulation Act of 1900 put forth the trajectory of separation by reaffirming restrictions on immigration. By this law, it was the Deputy Commissioner under whom jhum cultivation could be regulated. The Government of India Act, 1935 designated the Chittagong Hill Tracts as a “Totally Excluded Area”.

It was in 1947 that the establishment of two nation states: India and Pakistan were established as sovereign. It was Cyril Radcliffe, the Head of the Bengal Boundary Commission who suggested the inclusion of CHT in Pakistan (Ashrafuzzaman, 2014, p: 39-53 ). The Chittagong Hill Tracts was incorporated by the Pakistan who she had directly governance over. By the constitution of Pakistan, proclaimed under the Dictatorship of Ayub Khan in 1962, the CHT was declared as a ”tribal area”. It was believed that the Kaptai Dam was to be established across the Karnaphulli river during 1959- 1963 which was a hydroelectric project and the stepping stone for industrialization. This led to the displacement of over 100,000 indigenous people and many were compelled to resettle in India. As a result of continuous economic exploitation, resistance was the only solution for East Pakistan.

The Bangladesh Liberation War of 1971: Government Sponsored Violence in the Chittagong Hill Tracts

It was in 1971 that Pakistan withdrew, although the Liberation War brought to the fore violence by both East and West Pakistan. The Bengali freedom fighters declared the tribespeople as supporters of Pakistan and were tortured. However, it cannot be forgotten that the Bangladesh Liberation War was fought in 1971 by the indigenous communities who were a minority as well as by the majority population constituted by Bengali Muslims against West Pakistan, the former believing the claim that their rights would be restored to them after independence. The Bangladesh Liberation War must be analyzed as an imposition of the Urdu language in Bangladesh with a pursuit for Muslim rule (Wolfgang, 1984, p: 1-126).

In 1972, Manobendra Narayan Larma, the only representative in parliament of CHT led a delegation and placed demands to the Prime Minister, Majibur Rahman such as the establishment of a Legislative Assembly in the CHT, restricting the movement of outsiders in this region and lastly the continuation of the designation of Tribal Chief Offices which was outrightly rejected. A new political party was born known as Parboti Chottogram Janasanghati Samati or PCSS, coupled with its armed wing known as Santi Bahini. The indigenous communities were collectively termed as Jumma (Islam, 2003, p: 137-160). However, no special status was awarded to CHT by Bangladesh after it gained independence and its population was accorded the citizenship of Bengali which denied the separate identity that its indigenous community had. The Constitution of Bangladesh in 1988 declared Islam as the state religion, the victims of religious persecution has been the Jummas and the Hindus. Temples had been destroyed of both Hindus and the Jummas alike. There has been an influx of Bengali Muslim settlers with the support provided by the Bangladeshi Army which has resulted in the significant reduction of the Jumma population. The International Labor Organization has brought to the forefront the annihilation of the indigenous people.  

The Peace Accords: A Failure

It was in 1997 that the Peace Accords were signed between Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina and the PCSS. The Accord stated that the Bangladesh Government would withdraw its troops from the Chittagong Hill Tracts, although human rights violations have continued to occur even after the treaty had been signed. Rabi Shankar Chakma, the Central General Secretary, in an exclusive interview with Hill Women’s Federation has commented on how CHT has still been under military occupation by the government. The Army’s influence plays a vital role in the failure of the implementation of the Peace Accords. Adding to that, the Bangladeshi National Party has espoused an attitude that can be termed as uncooperative. It violated the terms of the treaty by not appointing a minister belonging from the indigenous members of the parliament. Detentions of the Jumma have accentuated. Massacres have been occurring since 1976 and women have been victims of sexual violence as rape has been utilized as a tool. Not only that, but looting has also occurs predominantly. Many such incidents can be cited to propound the role of an authoritarian government that has repressed the voices of the Jummas. Hill’s Women Federation which represents the rights of Pahari Women in the Chittagong Hill Tracts has reported the rate of rapes at 67% during 2011- 2012.

Therefore, it is important to point out that the Chittagong Hill Tracts is such a region that has been fraught by communalism which has been fueled by discrimination of the Government of Bangladesh, and their perception of the Jumma community. While this same government has spoken out for the displacement of the Rohingya Muslims, it has remained silent on the terrors it has engaged in. 

The post CHITTAGONG HILL TRACTS: A VOICE THAT HAS BEEN SILENCED appeared first on WISER WORLD.

War-torn Palestine

It is important in this regard to trace the genesis of the Israel- Palestine conflict and how it has had repercussions in the geopolitics of the changing contours of the Arab- Israel conflict. The terminology of Palestine was endowed by the Roman Empire, Hadrian in 135 CE after the defeat in the Battle of Bar Khhoba Revolt as he desired to erase Judea as it implied a long drawn connection with the Jews. Jews have continued to be victims of persecution, the emergence of which began at the dawn of Crusades. However, the Arabs had been under the authority of the Byzantine, Romans and later on the Ottoman Empire, the majority of Palestine was composed of its Muslim majority (Tessler, 1994, p: 42-44).

It was under Hitler’s autocratic rule during the Holocaust that complete annihilation of Jews was witnessed, whereby they were targeted to be the enemy of the Germans (Arendt, 1963, p: 36- 56). Yet, it cannot be denied that Jews have always felt that Palestine has been their homeland which the Arabs have laid a claim over, which Israeli historiography has espoused (Tessler, 1994, p: 74-128). The establishment of a State for the Jews would bring an end to years of persecution. Rather, the Zionist movement experienced an evolution as there was a demand to cleanse this holy land from Arabs or ‘Eretz Israel’ as known in Hebrew. It was in 1917 that Lord Balfour, the British Foreign Secretary, endorsed the idea of a Jewish State that soon turned into a violent response by the Palestinians, a colony under the British sphere of influence ceded by Ottoman Turkey after World War I. By 1937, the British Peel Commission agreed to partition Palestine which accentuated into the Arab-Israeli War (Pappe, 2007, p: 10- 17). In 1948, the United Nations played a pivotal role that altered the history of Palestine underlined by Resolution 181 of 29 September 1947 and the official recognition of the Jewish State by the U.S.A and the USSR.

Violation of Human Rights in Palestine

Leaflets were distributed in villages to warn of the disastrous consequences of collaborating with the Arab Liberation Army. The village of Deir Yassin was occupied by the Jewish military forces where the inhabitants were killed by gun spray (Pappe, 2007, p: 40-70). The IEZL or Irgun Zvai Leumi under the Israeli Prime Minister, Menachem Begin was known to have headed these forces and perpetrated the massacre of Palestinian Arabs. One of the testimonies published by the NGO Zochort that works towards Transitional Justice of the Israeli-Palestine Conflict states that he along with other men were ordered to evacuate the villages where Palestinian Arabs resided as deportation would be taking place. The massacre has been bestowed with the horrifying nomenclature of Nakba or catastrophe to designate the ethnic cleansing that took place in 1948. Possession of Palestinian property violates the International Law (Human Rights Council, 2017). Women were victims of rape, firstly because of their sex and secondly because of their Palestinian-Arab identity. Women have been epitomized as embedding honour of the family. By the Israeli Citizenship Law, the Palestinians citizens were construed as Israeli citizens as passed on 1st April 1952. The same trajectory has been drawn in the History of India as the Partition of 1947 must be perceived from the lens of a watershed that gave birth to two nation-states, India and Pakistan, the latter which has been believed to be a product of a failed democracy as post-colonial historians would argue. The commonality in the history of India and Palestine is that both countries experienced the discourse of Partition violence. Israel’s invasion of Lebanon in 1982 was targeted against the Palestine Liberation Army and Syria as the surface to air missiles were deployed by the latter in Lebanon, whereas the PLO employed Israel with artillery shells (Israel Journal of Foreign Affairs, 2012, Volume: 3). President Roland Regan introduced the Regan Plan and affirmed USA’s decision of not supporting Israel’s dominance over the Gaza Strip and West Bank. The United Nation Resolution 242 was implemented by the Regan Plan which stated that a solution must be reached of the existing refugee crisis as well as the Security Council to position a Special Representative in the Middle East. The aim of the Oslo Accords was to elect a Palestine Interim Government as well as a Council to govern the Palestinian people with authority been transferred from the Israeli Military Government. Therefore, Abraham Accords has been perceived in terms of a harbinger of peace in the Arab-Israeli conflict (United Nations Security Council:1993). The Oslo Accords signed in 1995 signed between the Palestine Liberation Army and the State of Israel had failed as Israel’s decision was to annex West Bank.

Perception of Turkey and Bahrain on UAE-Israel Deal

On the other hand, it is significant to evaluate the response of Turkey and Bahrain on the perception of Abraham Accords. Prince Recep Tayyip Erodgan, the President of Turkey stated that the normalization of ties between UAE and IS was rather the latter’s betrayal of trust and undermining the cause for Palestine. The Arab Peace Plan of 2002 was established by the Crown Prince, Abdullah of Saudi Arabia at the Beirut Summit which underlined the recognition of the State of Israel as and stated that she must withdraw from the Golan Heights as well as the creation of Lebanon since 1967. The plan clearly espoused the creation of a sovereign independent Palestine with East Jerusalem as the capital as highlighted in the Council of the Arab States at the Summit Level which has been forgone as Erodgan argued. The Kingdom of Bahrain has equally welcomed Abraham Accords and perceived this as the path that would pave peace building.

The post UAE-ISRAEL DEAL: HARBINGER FOR PEACE? appeared first on WISER WORLD.