However, the 2^nd February verdict was enough for the Russians to come out in support of him. Thousands of supporters of Alexei Navalny poured onto the streets and marched towards central Moscow. These protestors clashed with police in body armour who was also armed with staves to control the protest. According to OVD-Info, an independent monitoring group state that over 1,000 protestors were arrested across the country the following day. [3]

It is indeed a controversial decision as Navalny is one of the most prominent Kremlin critics and Vladimir Putin’s foe. It is not the first time that some Kremlin critic is being put behind bars. Mikhail Khodorkovsky [4] and chess world champion Garry Kasparov [5] are some of the people who were forced to leave Russia in fear of their lives for criticising Putin. However, Boris Nemtsov was not that lucky as he was shot dead in Kremlin, 2015. [6] It makes Alexei Navalny the last critic of the Kremlin to be standing alive and on Russian soil.

During the court visit, one could not miss noticing Alexei Navalny’s wife, Yulia. The verdict included the deduction by the judge of 10 months from the originally designated three-and-a-half-year sentence as Alexei Navalny had already spent that duration in house arrest. Yulia stepped out after the court session when Navalny smiled and shrugged his shoulders and yelled: “Don’t be sad! Everything is going to be all right”. [7] She waved back with Navalny’s two lawyers, Vladimir Kobzev and Olga Mikhailova. They have approached the European Court of Human Rights but to no avail. [8] However, all of these come as no news as Alexei Navalny is a nobody but one of the rising figures in Russian politics and a massive challenge to President Vladimir Putin.

Who Is Alexei Navalny?

Alexei Navalny is a lawyer turned activist. He is a very prominent critic of President Putin and his administration. However, to several Russians, he is not just a challenger to President Putin but is instead considered a contender to the leadership position. President Putin is a former KGB colonel who intends to continue controlling Kremlin for a few more decades. On the other hand, Navalny is seen as a revolutionary leader. 

Navalny is a rising figure who has been a symbol of protest against President Putin’s grey bureaucratic hold and his colleagues from KGB in the Kremlin. Navalny is seen as an opponent by several Russian elites. He worked as an organiser for the liberal Yabloko faction in 2007. However, he was kicked out of the party in 2007 for participating in a march with radical nationalists in Moscow. [9] 

He came second in the mayor elections of 2013 with 27% votes, although he alleged that it was due to the authorities’ ballot-rigging. Even though Sergei Sobyanin won the election, it cannot be denied that it was the first official challenge given by Navalny to President Putin. [10] As a result, alleged corruption allegations were put on his to debarred from the 2018 elections. Not just him, even his allies are frequently prevented from holding any office. Now, in the Duma elections that will take place in September 2021, he and his allies want to challenge the United Russia party. [11]

At the same time, Kremlin is getting ready to keep him away from one of the other reasons. Earlier as well, he has been jailed because of his connection to protests. He has also been convicted twice for financial misdeeds, although he claimed that they were politically motivated. Not only that, but he has also had significant eye damage due to a disinfectant thrown onto his face. [12]

How Is Alexei Navalny a Challenge to President Vladimir Putin?

Alexei Navalny gained prominence by using social media to reach out to people regarding matters concerning Russian politics. He makes videos on the Russian elites’ various details that they would like to keep in the dark. Navalny has over 2.5 million Twitter followers and about 6 million YouTube followers. He uses these social media platforms to expose the truth about the sources of the Russian elites’ wealth. One such video is that of President Putin’s secret Black Sea palace. [13] The video has garnered over 110 million views. Several other anti-corruption videos are made by him that tend to hit these Russian elites’ personal lives and big-shot names in Kremlin. [14] Thus, Navalny is no new to raids, lawsuits, threats, and jail stint. 

Alexei Navalny is evident in his objectives if he comes to power- to end corruption by state officials. Rampant state corruption has been one of Putin’s governance highlights, and President Putin is right in the centre of it stashing billions of dollars from strategic enterprises. It led Navalny to become a shareholder activist in 2007. He used his financial knowledge to purchase several shares of state-run firms that have a suspicious background. [15]

He has several foundations based out form other countries to expose the corruption taking place in the Russian power centre. Moreover, he is not a one-person army. Several people are ready to fight this menace in Russia. Vladimir Ashurkov and Leonid Volkov is the director of the London based anti-corruption foundation [16] and is an aide of Navalny in Lithuania. [17] 

So, President Putin has the state machinery in his realm as his tool to keep control over his critics. However, Alexei Navalny uses social media and his dark humour as a tool to keep up with other people. Many have come and gone, but Alexei Navalny is still standing. He has done something that no one could do before- get under President Vladimir Putin’s skin. He has been brave and has stood firm even when put in the worst of situations. President Putin so far, been unable to break him.

That is the reason why Kremlin has been trying to eliminate him for a year with different methods. Jail, lawsuits, raids, threats. Nothing has worked so far. So, the Kremlin decided to use the shadiest method under their belt to silence him once and for all. Last year, Navalny was poisoned in Siberia by an undercover team of Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) spy. They had applied “Novichok Nerve Agent” in the internal parts of Navalny’s underpants. It had earlier been used in 2018 on Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia Skripal in Salisbury. [18] However, Alexei Navalny was able to survive due to timely hospital treatment. Navalny was even able to expose the FSB assassins. [19]

With this attempt, the Kremlin finally thought they had got rid of Navalny. Even though he survived, they assumed that he would not return to Russian soil from Berlin, where he was recovering. Nevertheless, Navalny again proved them wrong when he flew back to Moscow on 17^th January. It was seen as a direct challenge to President Putin. It was then he was detained from the passport control at Moscow’s Sheremetyevo airport within hours of his arrival. [20]

His lawyer Olga Mikhailova told the Echo of Moscow radio station that she could not meet her client. In other words, Navalny was denied legal representation. [21] All of this culminated into street protests in over 100 towns and cities in Russia. [22] From Crimea to Vladivostok on the Pacific, the streets were flooded with supporters. Protestors even gathered in- 50C in Yakutsk to show solidarity with their hero. [23]

International Condemnation of Alexei Navalny’s Arrest

Not just Russians, but there has been an international outcry for human rights violation by both USA and European diplomats and leaders in this case. NSA whistleblower Edward Snowden who is now a Russian citizen, Jack Sullivan, Joe Biden’s incoming national security adviser, and even Mike Pompeo are prominent names who voiced their opinion against the state brutality on Alexei Navalny. Not just them, but even US Secretary of State, Anthony Blinken, UK Prime Minister Boris Johnson and German Foreign Minister, Heiko Maas, have described this act as being “deeply concerning”, “cowardice”, and a “bitter blow” to the rule of law in Russia respectively. [24]

In a video conference with French President Emmanuel Macron, German Chancellor Angela Merkel made a statement from Berlin- “We consider this expulsion unjustified and think it is another facet of the things that can be seen in Russia at the moment that are pretty far from the rule of law.” [25]

Showing solidarity with Germany, Poland, and Sweden, Macron stated, “I think this was a huge mistake even for Russian stability today.” Sweden’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mats Samuelsson said that “it considers this entirely unjustified, which we have also conveyed to the Russian side”. Stockholm “strongly rejects Russian claims that the diplomat took part in a demonstration in Russia” and “reserves the right to take appropriate response measures,” he said. [26]

Way Ahead

Nonetheless, nothing seems to change the minds of the Russian officials in this case. To make matters worse, Kremlin went ahead with expelling EU diplomats on 5th February. The Russian Foreign Ministry accused diplomats of Sweden and Poland stationed in St. Petersberg and a diplomat of Germany stationed in Moscow of taking part in the protests on 23rd January to show support to Alexei Navalny. all the three diplomats were declared “persona non grata” and were ordered to leave shortly. [27]

These have further worsened the situation and the EU’s possible attempt to re-engage talks with Moscow that EU Foreign Affairs Chief Josep Borrell was spearheading. In retaliation to this, on 9^th  February 2021, Germany, Poland and Sweden on Monday each declared a Russian diplomat in their country “persona non grata.” All the Russian ambassadors were told to leave the country immediately. [28]

Whatever is happening or will happen, one thing is for sure Alexei Navalny did not lose anything from his prison sentencing. Locking up Navalny for a long time is bound to make him a martyr.

In 2013, when he was arrested, a large crowd had gathered that forced the authorities to leave him. Since then, President Putin is stringent on dissent moves like this. Nevertheless, keeping him long now will surely increase the protest and may lead to political instability. If he is released now, he will be a massive challenge in the Duma elections scheduled in September 2021. Either way, it seems like Alexei Navalny’s win and a loss to the “Vladimir, the Underpants Poisoner.” [29]

REFERENCES

[1] The Moscow Times. “As It Happened: Navalny Sentenced to 2 Years and 8 Months in Penal Colony.” The Moscow Times, The Moscow Times, 3 Feb. 2021, www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/02/02/as-it-happened-navalny-sentenced-to-2-years-and-8-months-in-penal-colony-a72803.

[2] Times, The Moscow. “Russia to Try Navalny on WWII Veteran Slander Charges.” The Moscow Times, The Moscow Times, 5 Feb. 2021, www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/02/05/russia-to-try-navalny-on-wwii-veteran-slander-charges-a72841.

[3] Roth, Andrew. “Alexei Navalny: 1,000 Arrested after Protests over Jailing of Russian Opposition Leader.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Feb. 2021, www.theguardian.com/world/2021/feb/02/russian-opposition-leader-alexei-navalny-jailed.

[4] “Mikhail Khodorkovsky Freed after Pardon from Vladimir Putin.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 20 Dec. 2013, www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/20/mikhail-khodorkovsky-freed-putin-pardon-russia

[5] Williams, Stuart. “Garry Kasparov Quits Russia.” Mint, 6 June 2013, www.livemint.com/Politics/7iTyaOSRom9xGeF2OmaYUI/Former-chess-champion-Garry-Kasparov-quits-Russia-over-fears.html.

[6] “Who Killed Boris Nemtsov? We Will Never Know.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 3 Mar. 2015, www.theguardian.com/world/2015/mar/02/boris-nemtsov-never-know-who-killed-moscow-vladimir-putin-russian-opposition.

[7] Feehan , Katie. “Russian Police Raid Navalny’s Offices after Wife of Putin’s Greatest Critic Flees Moscow for Germany.” Daily Mail Online, Associated Newspapers, 12 Feb. 2021, www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9252195/Russian-police-raid-Navalnys-offices-wife-Putins-greatest-critic-flees-Moscow-Germany.html.

[8] Staff, Reuters. “Russia Dismisses European Court of Human Rights’ Call to Free Navalny.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 17 Feb. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-politics-navalny-court-release-idUSKBN2AH1XI.

[9] Coalson, Robert. “Is Aleksei Navalny a Liberal or a Nationalist?” The Atlantic, Atlantic Media Company, 29 July 2013, www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2013/07/is-aleksei-navalny-a-liberal-or-a-nationalist/278186/.

[10] “Alexei Navalny and the 2013 Moscow Mayoral Election | Princeton University Library.” Princeton University, The Trustees of Princeton University, 27 Jan. 2021, library.princeton.edu/news/general/2021-01-27/alexei-navalny-and-2013-moscow-mayoral-election.

[11] “Russian Presidential Election: Alexei Navalny Barred from Competing.” BBC News, BBC, 25 Dec. 2017, www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-42479909.

[12] Kramer, Andrew E. “Kremlin Critic Aleksei Navalny Says Attack Left Him Mostly Blind in an Eye.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 2 May 2017, www.nytimes.com/2017/05/02/world/europe/russia-aleksei-navalny-opposition.html.

[13] Putin’s Palace. History of World’s Largest Bribe. 19 Jan. 2021, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ipAnwilMncI.

[14] Don’t Call Him “Dimon”. 2 Mar. 2017, www.youtube.com/watch?v=qrwlk7_GF9g.

[15] Schreck , Carl Schreck. “Russia’s Erin Brockovich: Taking On Corporate Greed.” Time, Time Inc., 9 Mar. 2010, content.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1970475,00.html.

[16] AFP . “Alexei Navalny: Russian Opposition Leader Navalny Aides Push EU for New Russia Sanctions: World News – Times of India.” The Times of India, TOI, 9 Feb. 2021, timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/navalny-aides-push-eu-for-new-russia-sanctions/articleshow/80767361.cms.

[17] Welle, Deutsche. “Navalny Ally Leonid Volkov: ‘Our Aim Is to Outsmart Putin’: DW: 15.02.2021.” DW.COM, www.dw.com/en/navalny-ally-leonid-volkov-our-aim-is-to-outsmart-putin/a-56573967.

[18] Harding, Luke. “’A Chain of Stupidity’: the Skripal Case and the Decline of Russia’s Spy Agencies.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 23 June 2020, www.theguardian.com/world/2020/jun/23/skripal-salisbury-poisoning-decline-of-russia-spy-agencies-gru.

[19] “’Do You Remember the Underwear’s Colour?’ – Navalny’s Call with Duped Spy.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 21 Dec. 2020, www.theguardian.com/world/2020/dec/21/what-does-alexei-navalny-say-the-duped-russian-spy-admitted-about-his-poisoning.

[20] “Alexei Navalny Detained at Airport on Return to Russia.” The Guardian, Guardian News and Media, 17 Jan. 2021, www.theguardian.com/world/2021/jan/17/alexei-navalny-detained-at-airport-on-return-to-russia.

[21] AFP. “Alexei Navalny Lawyer Says Denied Access to Moscow Police Cell.” Hindustan Times, 18 Jan. 2021, www.hindustantimes.com/world-news/alexei-navalny-lawyer-says-denied-access-to-moscow-police-cell-101610962827751.html.

[22] Desk, Sentinel Digital. “The Russian Affair – Sentinelassam.” The Sentinel Assam, The Sentinel Assam, 17 Feb. 2021, www.sentinelassam.com/editorial/the-russian-affair-524975

[23] Troianovski, Anton, and Andrew Higgins. “Pro-Navalny Protests Sweep Russia in Challenge to Putin.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 23 Jan. 2021, www.nytimes.com/2021/01/23/world/europe/russia-protests-navalny.html.

[24] Times, The Moscow. “World Reacts to Navalny’s Arrest.” The Moscow Times, The Moscow Times, 20 Feb. 2021, www.themoscowtimes.com/2021/01/18/free-navalny-western-leaders-tell-russia-a72637.

[25] Ap. “Relations between EU and Russia Worsen over Navalny Jailing.” The Economic Times, Economic Times, 6 Feb. 2021, economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/international/world-news/relations-between-eu-and-russia-worsen-over-navalny-jailing/articleshow/80717773.cms.

[26] Staff, Reuters. “Russian Court Made ‘Huge Mistake’ in Jailing Navalny -Macron.” Reuters, Thomson Reuters, 4 Feb. 2021, www.reuters.com/article/us-france-macron-russia-idUSKBN2A42NJ.

[27] PTI. “Relations between EU and Russia Worsen over Navalny Jailing.” The Week, The Week, 14 Dec. 2020, www.theweek.in/wire-updates/international/2021/02/06/fgn49-eu-russia-ld-navalny.html.

[28] Jordans, Frank. “EU Countries Expel Russian Diplomats in Navalny Dispute.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 8 Feb. 2021, apnews.com/article/eu-countries-expel-russia-diplomats-69e018425fa2d0bc9dde29aa1fad8c60.

[29] Rfe/rl. “’Vladimir The Underpants Poisoner’: Navalny Mocks Putin In Court.” RadioFreeEurope/RadioLiberty, ‘Vladimir The Underpants Poisoner’: Navalny Mocks Putin In Court, 2 Feb. 2021, www.rferl.org/a/russia-navalny-speech/31082857.html.

Featured Image by – Elena Ignatyeva, AFP

The post ALEXEI NAVALNY: CRITIC OF KREMLIN appeared first on WISER WORLD.

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.

Nevertheless, such a political crisis is not new to the country. Italy has always been at the centre of political turmoil for decades. It is quite evident with the fact that the country has seen about 60 governments since WWII. Conte and Renzi’s drift has been known to the public for a long time, and hesitation escalating was very much anticipated. So far, the drift was kept at bay by this centre-left coalition due to the coronavirus emergency. However, the pandemic situation has also now escalated, and it seems that it outlasted the political goodwill. [2]

Why Did the Problem in Italian Politics Start?

The reason for this drift started due to the approach of Conte and Renzi concerning financial matters. [3] Back in 2020, the GDP of Italy slumped by about 10% due to COVID-19. [4] Adding on to that, was a stimulus package that was given by the European Union (EU) worth €750 billion that was allocated to several EU nations. In July 2020, Italy was allowed to get the lion share of the EU stimulus package, amounting to over €200 billion (about $243 billion) in a grant and low-interest loans. [5] Because of such loans, Italy is now the second most debt-ridden economy after Greece. [6]

For weeks, Matteo Renzi had criticized the plan laid out by Conte to use the EU funds to use these handout purposes and less on serving the health needs. Even when the plan was improved on Tuesday night as per the request, Matteo Renzi was still not satisfied. Finally, the usage of €200 billion worth of that package was approved during the night of about 12th and 13th January 2021 by the lawmakers. However, the lawmakers of the Italia Viva abstained from voting on it. Also, two members of resigned including Elena Bonetti, the former minister for family and equal opportunities.  Both Conte and Renzi have a different opinion on how this recovery money given by the European Union should be used.

It increased the difference between Renzi and Conte, as the issue became a matter of political vote bank and both the centrists are competing for the same voters. [7]

Matteo Renzi’s move has been met with a mixed response, ranging from anger to confusion to chaos. One opinion poll even suggested about 70% of the Italians feel that this move by Renzi is not due to the difference of opinion, but rather for his political gain. Some experts also state that this move by Renzi may be due to him being side-lined by the coalition in recent times. [8] So, Renzi was doing nothing but using this opportunity to improvise on his political gains.

However, on Wednesday, Renzi argued in a news conference that dealing with the pandemic also meant “solving problems, not concealing them,” He has taken issue with Conte’s strategy for rebuilding Italy’s tattered economy.

Nonetheless, it cannot be denied that Matteo Renzi is a very well-known political figure in Italian politics and holds an even more crucial role in the current government headed by Giuseppe Conte.

Why Renzi Is Crucial to the Italian Government?

Italia Viva was formed by Matteo Renzi in September 2019, after he quit the centre-left Democratic Party. After the populist right-wing League Party’s departure, Renzi and his party played a significant role in forming the coalition government by Conte. The coalition government comprises the centre-left Democratic Party, Five Star Movement (MS5) and the left-leaning parliamentary group called Free and Equal.

According to recent polls, even though Renzi has only 3% public support, his party Italia Viva has 30 lawmakers in the lower house and 18 lawmakers in the upper house, thereby making them a junior coalition partner.

Way Ahead

Renzi had elected as the Prime Minister in 2014. So, he understands how the situation prevails while on that post and how politics needs to be done to rule the state. Not only that, but he also has been known for mediating conflicts among parties having varied political inclination- ensuring that the far-right parties are out of power by making sure that a coalition is created between populist and centre-left parties. 

With the decision of Renzi, there are only a few alternative options that can be viable for moving ahead in this situation. First, that Conte and Renzi come to a compromise by keeping the current coalition government. In other words, without escalating the situation, Conte needs to convince Renzi to support the government. It is still possible as Renzi is still. However, if this does not happen, the country would be on the brink of losing a government in the middle of a pandemic. Alternatively, the Conte government can go through a no-confidence motion. If he loses, the situation of Conte’s government will be like Schrödinger’s cat. In other words, Conte would only be left as the caretaker of the government, and he would also not have much power over Renzi. However, a coalition is still possible. After all, with a lack of public support, Renzi would not want to put his 48 lawmaker seats at risk. Nonetheless, if this not, the situation may move ahead in a different path.

Second, if the coalition government does not move ahead, then considering the pandemic, a government of national unity will be sought to be created by President Sergio Mattarella.

Third, the country could go ahead with the national vote. It would mean that the country may end up going into an election right in the middle of the pandemic. In case of an election, either Conte would win the third term as the Prime Minister, or the far-right wing parties would form the government. The far-right in Italian politics comprises of the League Party and the Brothers of Italy. They have been gaining support for the past few years and hold about 40% of the electoral vote. So, in case an election happens and the far-right wins, then there Italy will have the most anti-European government in Western Europe. [9]

In this way, one can state that Italy is currently in such a political situation that it will not be suitable for the nation if escalated. [10] Hence, sorting out the differences is the best possible way out of this situation.

References:

[1] Italy – COVID-19 Overview – Johns Hopkins. coronavirus.jhu.edu/region/italy

[2] Harlan, Chico. “Italy’s Government Falls into Chaos, Further Complicating the Covid Response.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 13 Jan. 2021, www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/italy-government-renzi-conte/2021/01/13/dd65f6bc-55c6-11eb-acc5-92d2819a1ccb_story.html.

[3] Roberts, Hannah. “Italy’s Coalition Fights for Control of EU Recovery Cash.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 5 Jan. 2021, www.politico.eu/article/matteo-renzi-giuseppe-conte-coalition-government-recovery-fund-cash-coronavirus/.

[4] Amaro, Silvia, and Sam Meredith. “Italy’s Government in Crisis after Former PM Pulls Support for Ruling Coalition.” CNBC, CNBC, 13 Jan. 2021, www.cnbc.com/2021/01/13/renzi-italys-government-in-crisis-after-former-pm-pulls-support.html.

[5] Speak, Clare. “How Italy Plans to Spend €209 Billion of EU Money.” Thelocal.it, 17 Sept. 2020, www.thelocal.it/20200917/more-growth-lower-tax-for-families-italy-sets-out-plan-for-spending-eu-recovery-fund.

[6] Samuelson, Robert. “Opinion | Why Italy’s Debt Matters for Everybody.” The Washington Post, WP Company, 24 May 2020, www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/why-italys-debt-matters-for-everybody/2020/05/24/12b2f310-9baf-11ea-ac72-3841fcc9b35f_story.html.

[7] Roberts, Hannah. “Italy’s Coalition Fights for Control of EU Recovery Cash.” POLITICO, POLITICO, 5 Jan. 2021, www.politico.eu/article/matteo-renzi-giuseppe-conte-coalition-government-recovery-fund-cash-coronavirus/.

[8] Bozza, Claudio. “Sondaggio: Crisi Di Governo Incomprensibile per Un Italiano Su 2. E per Il 73% Renzi Persegue i Suoi Interessi.” Corriere Della Sera, Corriere Della Sera, 13 Jan. 2021, www.corriere.it/politica/21_gennaio_13/crisi-governo-italiano-due-non-capisce-motivi-il-73percento-renzi-persegue-suoi-interessi-59b0ac42-5515-11eb-89b9-d85a626b049f.shtml.

[9] Zampano, Giada. “Giorgia Meloni Is Rising Star on Italy’s Far-Right Stage.” AP NEWS, Associated Press, 18 Oct. 2019, apnews.com/article/fa37b62daab246f2a9ccb0887284aaee.

[10] “Italy’s Government in Crisis after Junior Coalition Partner Quits.” Euronews, 13 Jan. 2021, www.euronews.com/2021/01/13/italy-s-government-close-to-collapse-amid-row-over-covid-recovery-cash.

The post ITALIAN POLITICS: FALLOUT OF ITALY’S GOVERNMENT appeared first on WISER WORLD.

Let’s travel back to the past, what is actually Brexit is and why it’s catching the whole news at once. United Kingdom joining EEC (European economic community) in 1973 as a  predecessor to the European Union brings a lot of spilt. The Guardian wrote in an editorial on January 1, 1973 “ The journey into Europe will be bumpy and discordant.

A Quick Glimpse Into the Past Events Which Led to Brexit

During the WW1 and WW2, the European countries were also going through some conflicts in between them, slowly those conflicts turned out to be bloody wars. Simply, to rescue the neighbouring countries of Europe, EU comes into power with its founding members Belgium, France, Germany, Italy, Luxembourg and the Netherlands. European Union was originally the European Economic Community (EEC) created by the treaty of Paris in 1957. The United Kingdom joined in 1973. The main purpose of the European Union was to form a single European political entity and maintain a peaceful balance between all member countries with four basic freedoms regarding the transportation of goods, trade between member countries, common currency and free movement of people. In simpler terms, the EU consists of a group of European countries that acts as a single economic unit in the world economy.  EU provides a peaceful balance to the countries and help to make a stronger economy of each country and offers opportunities to rely on each other. However, the EU also strictly maintains some rules and regulation on these member countries.

When it comes to the UK leaving EU, there’s a lot of news going on. To cover the huge topic in a go, the understanding of UK and EU is a long but bumpy journey and is much important. The United Kingdom joined the EU for the better economic and peaceful life of the citizen. After two years of UK joining EU brings a debate around into two parties, one section of the UK were not really happy with the UK’s relationship with the EU.  According to that section of society, the EU has been a toxic issue in British politics. They always fear that the EU may hamper the sovereignty of the UK and also can bring fundamental conflict. Britain’s future with the EU had no luck, that was strongly believed by a larger section of society, also many citizens and politician were not happy with the rules and regulation imposed by the EU. Although the other half who were not very happy with the freedom that comes other Britain’s exit of EU, the youth of Britain is torn between their idea of what Britain could be and the reality of what it is. So to make a decision and end the debate and protest between the two parties of The United Kingdom, a referendum took place in 2016. On 23 June 2016, British citizens were called to cast their vote on the subject of the UK’s membership in the European Union that had a remarkable turnout of 72 per cent of the total electoral voted YES to the Brexit.

Xmas with Brexit Trade Deal

For the British and European Parliaments to ratify a trade agreement in an orderly fashion before the Brexit transition period expires on New Year’s Eve. The UK insists that it should trade with the bloc with as few restraints as possible. The EU demands that Britain stick to EU rules to ensure fair competition.

After the long discussions, talks and conference call about 90 minutes between the prime minister Boris Johnson and the president Ursula von der Leyen, with the spirit of Christmas 2020, EU and UK comes to finalize their situation with ‘a lose-lose situation’ the deal is about signed in December 31st 2020.  The  EU’S chief negotiator Michel Barnier express regret saying there is no winner in Brexit. Ursula has said, “parting is always bitter and sweet, after successful negotiation journey throughout Brexit, the deal has been made in the Xmas eve, I feel satisfaction and relief.” A bittersweet moment has emerged in the air of the UK. Although the youth are not happy with the whole idea of Brexit but the deal has been made which is better then no deal, if the deal did not happen the situation in the UK will be worst. The deal prevented some worst situation for the United Kingdom. So after this long time with lots of news, protest and discussion, along with the deal made, the UK has become a completely unchartered territory. Britain is free from the EU, and the European Union has lost a member from its union.  A lot of compromise from both sides made possible the Brexit trade deal.

The deal that has made between the UK and EU stated that European boat will still drop nets in British water, giving up only 25% of their catch quotas as fishing becomes the most important part of the economy of both also the Brexit trade deal.  Due to the Brexit deal, the EU is going to reduce quota as EU vessels can get in and the UK can go back. No tariffs or quotas on the movement of goods tariff-free or free trade as there are non-tariff barriers lots of from filling. So there will be no tariffs and quotas but some bureaucratic barriers to trade. There’s quite more stuff including the UK going to stay in certain EU’s programs, free movements of person will be removed along with goods and services, also the Brexit deal does not provide financial equivalence to UK’s economy. After all this there will be a partnership council is going to take over.

After the Brexit deal the leaders of both UK and EU on the positive side of maintaining the strong relationship between the both UK and EU, also looking forward to more stability and certainty towards a new beginning with a new security and trade deal post Brexit, which runs to 2,000 pages. 

The post BREXIT: BRITAIN’S DIVORCE FROM EUROPEAN UNION appeared first on WISER WORLD.

The South China Sea dispute is based on both maritime as well as territorial claims. The Paracel Islands, the Spratly Islands, Macclesfield Bank and Scarborough Shoal, and the Pratas Islands are the four contested geographic features in the South China Sea, with the Paracel Islands, claimed by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam and the Spratly Islands, claimed in their entirety by China, Taiwan, and Vietnam, and in part by the Philippines, Malaysia, and Brunei being the most hotly contested. This maritime dispute has at its roots in Beijing’s contentious ‘nine-dash line’, that was Beijing’s cartographic assertion submitted to the UN in 2009. The controversial line lays claims on the maritime and territorial features that are in compliance with the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). However, its bully-like actions have led to discord in the region. There have been overlapping claims in the South China Sea with China seeking to become the hegemon in the disputed regional topography.

The South China Sea Arbitration

There are six nations that contest all or parts of the oil and gas rich South China Sea, which has led to a series of confrontations between the Dragon and others over the competing claims.

The Philippines in January 2013 put forth a case against China’s belligerent activities and expansive claims in the SCS. An arbitral tribunal was constituted for the hearing of the case under the UNCLOS and final decision in 2016 was in Philippines’ favour; the resource rights in the South China Sea had to be clarified. China’s contentious nine-dash line became the subject of disapproval and the tribunal ruled against it, clearly stating that China was claiming historic rights to the resources within the jurisdiction of its aforementioned nine-dash but in actuality, these claims were nullified with China becoming a signatory of the UNCLOS in 1996 due to its discordancy with the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) of other coastal states.

The tribunal also ruled that the 200-nautical-mile EEZ entitlements of the Philippines and, by conclusion, the other coastal states in the region, are unfettered by the nine-dash line or any claimed EEZ in the Spratly Islands.

China denounced the decision as “null and void” having “no binding force,” it largely kept to its letter if not its spirit in the first year after the award. The United States and its allies, members of ASEAN and India directly or indirectly pressured Beijing to accept the ruling and comply with the UNCLOS. Another reason could have been China’s disinterest in direct confrontation in the region.

China’s Outright Claims Over the South China Sea

Beijing’s venture into the disputed South China Sea has been a part and parcel of its long-term strategy to establish its hegemony over the near and far regions and expand and deepen its sphere of influence, both overland and in the seas. Recently, the dragon’s firing of medium-range missiles into the SCS and its ever-increasing military exercises is an avowal in order to show its sovereignty over the disputed waters.

Even though its untoward claims have no legal basis, as pointed out by Hague Tribunal, which is by and large ignored and disobeyed by China, does not stop it from emerging as a formidable trouble-fomenting power in the South China Sea. What started in the guise of a cooperative mechanism for engaging with the countries in the periphery of the disputed SCS has turned into brazen bullying by Beijing.

Historically, post one-year anniversary of the UNCLOS tribunal’s ruling, as international attention faded, China started strengthening its claims and encroaching upon the EEZs of the coastal states; deepening the purview of its maritime claims and increasing its military and naval presence apart from objecting to the presence of US navigation and laws of free movement. It was greatly engaged in consolidating its grand and objectionable territorial claims engaging in reclamation of physical geographical features on which lay its belligerent claims. Its militarisation of the region and installations at Mischief Reef through naval and aerial facilities and setting up of artificial islands has been a well-known factor.

Beijing has been an aggressive bully in the region trying to establish rules and laws that favour its grandiose plans. It has always maintained that it has full control over the region and has stakes and claims, as in the case of its assertion on a recent White Paper – “China exercises its national sovereignty to build infrastructure and deploy necessary defensive capabilities on the islands and reefs in the South China Sea.”

Conclusion

Beijing through its deplorable actions has been able to outrightly build a forceful maritime presence in the South China Sea, strengthening its surveillance and intelligence capabilities; its aerial capabilities have also helped it to gain a strong foothold over the region, thus, bringing it closer to the realisation of its broad strategic goals of hegemony of the region, sans any respect for the laws of the sea or the international rules-based order. The other adversaries have also been subdued by China’s overwhelming presence in the region and even, the US credibility, action and capability has been undermined with Chinese sovereign control over the contested territory being somewhat fait accompli. Chinese downright assertions over the South China Sea have antagonised the neighbouring states with the ASEAN being virtually helpless in the face of adversity that Beijing has thrown on to them. Moreover, in the present scenario in a world ravaged by COVID-19, it is difficult to control the bully and prevent it from infringing on the rights of other rightful contenders of the South China Sea resources.

References:

Council on Foreign Relations. (n.d.). Territorial Disputes in the South China Sea. Council on Foreign Relations.

Kumar, A., & Chari, S. (2020, September 6). China creating a flashpoint in South China Sea. Sunday Guardian Live.

Kuok, L. (2019). How China’s actions in the South China Sea undermine the Rule of Law. Global China.

Tsirbas, M. (2016, June 2). What Does the Nine-Dash Line Actually Mean? The Diplomat.

The post IN PURSUIT OF ESTABLISHING HEGEMONY OVER SOUTH CHINA SEA 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.

Background of the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

The region of Nagorno-Karabakh has for several decades been constantly buffeted by the winds of political instability, which emanated from the last days of the Soviet Union. Tensions originally arose when Armenias, which constitute a majority of the population in the region demanded a complete unification with the nation of Armenia. However, prior to the collapse of the Soviet Union, when both Armenia and Azerbaijan were under the military-economic sway of the Soviet Union, the Armenian Parliament passed legislation, declaring the region of the Nagorno-Karabakh to be a part of Armenian territory. This was however categorically rejected by the Soviets, and led to a six-year-long war, which was only resolved in the early 1990s, by Russian intervention. In claim over the region, the Armenian authorities have cited the 1991 referendum, whereas the Azeri side has repeatedly highlighted the United Nations resolution that declares Nagorno-Karabakh, though a predominantly Armenian region, to be an integral part of Azerbaijan. As mentioned already, the region houses a majority of the Armenian population, owing to which several separatist movements have gained momentum, and have managed to declare the region as the ‘Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Oblast’. Since the Six-Day War that recorded the killing of over 30,000 individuals, the conflict in the region has continued sporadically. However, what is unique in terms of the current conflict is the manner in which it has drawn in regional powers and has turned Nagorno-Karabakh into a region of Russian and Turkish interests.

Turkish Involvement in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

In recent months, the Turkish Government of Recep Erdagon. has attempted to portray economic might and military prowess, through its increasing presence in the region. Through the perspective of the international community, as the conflict escalates, many actors have questioned the role played by neighbouring nations such as Turkey. However, in the current conflict, the Turkish Republic has been pinned down by allegations regarding the involvement of Syrian fighters through the Turkish backed militias. It has been ascertained that Syrians are being deployed on behalf of the Azeri army, in the form of shock troops to claw back scraps of land. The increasing deaths of Syrians in the conflict and the use of weapons produced and supplied by states like Israel has been questioned and brought under the scanner the issue that how the worsening of the decades-long conflict attracts outside regional powers to the region. Reporters have shed light on the use of Turkish, Russian, and Israeli produced weapons in the war, especially Azerbaijan’s assault on Stepanakert, the capital of the region which has included the use of cluster munitions. While on the Armenian side, the reports from international groups such as Amnesty International have confirmed the use of Russian manufactured rocket artillery systems in the bombardment of the Azeri city of Ganja. The deployment of the Syrian mercenaries has followed a pattern very similar to the conflict in Libya, where both Turkey and the Russian Federation have locked horns in a bitter battle. Turkish officials have chosen to portray their country’s expanding foreign engagements as part of the country’s promotion of its security and energy interests. Interestingly, another view that has been adopted and mainly by the critics is that Erdagon’s government has used international engagement as an excuse to divert people’s attention from domestic problems such as the crumbling economy, the problems facing the healthcare system, and the effort of the government to rally the country behind an external cause is one last attempt to shore up domestic support.

Russian Stakes in the Armenia-Azerbaijan Conflict

As aforementioned, the Russian Federation has a long-established history with the region of Nagorno-Karabakh. The first war which lasted six years was brought to an end owing to Russian intervention, effectively defining the Line of Contact between the two neighbouring nations. Russia for long has played a rather confusing and contradictory role. When it comes to Russia’s relations with Armenia, it provides military assistance through bilateral ties and Collective Security Treaty Organisations. However, this assistance for Armenia does not expand to the region of Nagorno- Karabakh, since it is an internationally recognized part of Azerbaijan. In terms of the current crises, Putin’s government has chosen to tread a fine line in terms of diplomatic relations with the erstwhile Soviet satellite states, by selling arms and providing economic assistance to both states. The Federation has given out mixed signals of its willingness to intervene in the conflict, by citing the excuse that it has met its moral obligation to aid the two states and that its jurisdiction does not extend to the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Moscow has condemned Azerbaijan’s use of Turkish-backed Syrian mercenaries in the region, out of the fear of the conflict becoming the trigger for Islamist militants to establish a presence in the outer reaches of Russia. However, Russia has stepped into the conflict to bring an end to chaos once again, just like it did more than three decades ago. Unfortunately, this time introducing a mutually agreed ceasefire is not going to be a cakewalk for the Russian authorities. Even as Russia floated the idea of sending in ‘Military observers’, the suggestion wasn’t responded to by either of the two heads of states involved in the conflict. The fighting scene is the worst since the war in the early 1990s. Several international bodies warn of an emerging humanitarian crisis, which will only be aggravated by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic.

What Next?

It is crystal clear is that the current conflict can draw in regional powers especially NATO powers such as Turkey. In terms of closure to the conflict, the European Union Policy Chief, Josep Borrell, urged the two nations to carry out an immediate cessation of hostilities. While Iran, a strategic player in the region, also an ally of Armenia, offered to mediate. The region has already experienced war in the latter years of the 20th century which lasted a number of years, while on the other hand, 2016 skirmishes only lasted for a few days. Owing to such historical uncertainty it is difficult to chalk out a prediction for the near future. However, the situation may change significantly if a major power were to enter the conflict in the near future.

The post ARMENIA-AZERBAIJAN CONFLICT — EXPLAINED! 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.

Reasons behind the rise of populism

To counter populism, we must counter the reasons that led to the rise of populism. One of the main reasons has been economic inequality – it gives leaders a foundation to base their populist ideals on and comes with a section of the population that is extremely frustrated and can easily subscribe to the aforementioned populist ideals. This is similar to what happened in the United States of America when Donald Trump was elected as President. He used the idea of the political elites ruling the country to garner votes. This idea can be summed up very well through a quote from his inaugural address, “For too long, a small group in our nation’s capital has reaped the rewards of government while the people have borne the cost.” 

Secondly, populism is characterised by a call for homogenizing societies. This stems from disapproval of pluralism and people with lower educational levels are more susceptible to believing anti-immigration ideas. Populist leaders often pretend to address the whole nation but often are referring solely to their supporters. They refer to their supporters as “we the people” or some variation of this. These leaders can tend to alienate one or more particular groups in order to demonize these groups and portray them as “the other”. Usually, these groups are immigrants, people of colour or gender and sexual minorities. 

Main characteristics of populist leaders

The wide spectrum of populism and the geographical diversity of populist nations can make it difficult to identify who is a populist leader. Every leader who refers to the nation as “we the people” doesn’t automatically become a populist leader. Populist leaders can be characterized by their two things – the first being the alienization of a certain sect of people. As described above, populist leaders can only rise to power if they have a group – either external, but mostly internal to their countries – that they can demonize. Europe has seen an increase of negative portrayals of immigrants in populist advertising.

Secondly, populist leaders will often believe in a radical centralization of power – they use speeches which make them seem God-like. Populist governments have one central figure whose charisma and revolutionary capabilities are presented as the saviour from the continued oppression of political elites.

The Threat and the Solution

Populist rhetoric and the marginalization of communities can pose a serious threat to democracy. Populist rhetoric is often spread through misinformation which undermines the transparent workings of a government. Populism often fuels much more dangerous political mishaps in our societies. Perhaps the most dangerous example of this is Europe in 1930s. Hitler’s populist tendencies included villainizing Jews, the disabled and every “non-Aryan” person, along with charismatic and larger-than-life speeches. Populism fuelled fascism and right now it is fuelling the alternative far-right in western liberal democracies. 

Populists vehemently oppose experts or more specifically scientific professionals. Jan-Werner Müller, a professor of politics at Princeton University writes in The Guardian, “Populists are not by definition liars. They are only committed to one particular empirical falsehood: the notion that they, and only they, represent what populists often call “the real people” – with the implication that other politicians are not only corrupt and “crooked”, but traitors to the people, or, as Trump has often put it, “Un-American”. This is very characteristic of populists – creating “the others” and differentiating themselves form this. Not listening to scientists and the educated strata of the society can have grave consequences – such as the half-baked response of the American government in dealing with the coronavirus.

The solution to populism lies in solving the issues that cause it. Economic inequality and anti-immigration ideas are issues that go beyond the sphere of one country. While domestic attempts to combat these are necessary, they are not always effective when you have a populist government that benefits from these issues. Moreover, these issues are highly affected by events of globalization, international trade and migration. Hence, the nature of these issues makes it such that international cooperation becomes necessary. 

The United Nation Secretary-General, António Guterres said that multilateralism is the key to combating populism.  While this is certainly true, the international community has several more concrete things they can do. Pushing for the elimination of corruption and curbing the spread of misinformation is crucial. Corruption plays a huge role in keeping populist leaders in control. The principles of the United Nations Convention against Corruption can be applied in the discussion surrounding populism. Secondly and perhaps most importantly, populism can be curbed by educating the general public on the ideas of democracy and pluralism. The biggest strength of populist leaders is the insecurity or lack of awareness of citizens that they exploit. In this sense, if people are educated on the principles of democracy and moved way from set ideas of homogeneity, it can make populist leaders a rarer phenomenon.

Conclusion

Populism can cause the eradication of democratic principles. Populists come to power through acting on the weakness of the people and their lack of awareness. If we are to counter populism, we have to make the people aware of the aforementioned democratic principles and promote pluralism. However, while populism is combated, the negative effects or consequences of populism needs to be dealt with. Countries need to include disadvantaged groups in political discussions, such as by changing methods of representation. Calls for radically anti-immigration policies need to be disregarded especially in a time when so many countries are plunged in internal conflicts. 

The post RIGHT-WING POPULISM AND ITS RISE appeared first on WISER WORLD.

According to the World Bank, women make up 49.5 percent of the world’s population, however, there are only 3 countries (Rwanda, Bolivia and Cuba) in the world that have 50 percent or more women in Parliament in single or lower houses. It is important to identify why women don’t get into politics to combat these reasons and lead to the betterment of the whole society. 

Social Barriers

Firstly, the underrepresentation of women is caused by social barriers before their entry into politics. The general populace’s ideas of traditionally feminine characteristics are incompatible with the characteristics that people in positions of powers need to have. This does two things – from their childhood, girls are not encouraged to be leaders as much as boys are. They are instead taught to be docile and homely and puts them at a disadvantage from the very beginning. Parents, even today, bring up their daughters and sons in different ways. Since women are never made to believe that they can suit leadership roles, as well as men, can, they become less likely to enter politics. Moreover, this gender stereotyping leads to another phenomenon – when we eventually do see women in power, it causes people “discomfort” due to the mixture of two supposedly incompatible set of characteristics. This sentiment can be summed up by Alexandra Ocasio Cortez’s quote – “The idea that a woman can be as powerful as a man is something that our society can’t deal with.”

Unequal Starting Points

The traditional differences in the way that men and women are brought up also leads to a difference in their professions. Men are much more likely to have better careers and be in more positions of power. For example, there are less than 5 percent of women who head Fortune 500 companies.  This inequality can be a huge hindrance to entry in politics. Resources and money are important to become potential candidates for parties. There is not just a disparity in material resources, but also immaterial resources, such as time (women have to take on the burden of household responsibilities more), self-confidence (due to the earlier mentioned different upbringing for women which doesn’t help build their image as a leader) and networks. 

Often times political parties recruit their candidates from the corporate world. However, this is a field dominated by men which means that they have the upper hand in forming the right networks. This obviously makes it more likely that more men, rather than women enter politics. Moreover, political gatekeepers tend to be most often men who tend to recruit political candidates via their male-dominated networks.  Therefore, the fact that people who are into politics are mostly men kind of creates a cycle that prohibits women from getting into politics. 

Removal of men from political photographs shows the dire need for more women in politics.

Continuation in the Political Field

The gender stereotyping and the way we differently bring up men and women means that even if, despite these hindrances, a woman does get into politics, continuation is difficult. The discomfort that the voter base has with women in power means that they are held to a different standard to those of men. Female leaders are held more accountable than their male counterparts and the media is much harsher on them.

This uneven punishment is because the media and the people involved subconsciously do not think that women are cut out for politics, which makes them tougher on women in case they fail. The media especially can continue to treat female politicians poorly. The way the media presents female politicians shows us that they are not as worthy to be in power as men are, or that their priorities are supposed to be different – they are asked more questions about their families and personal relationships than male politicians are, and have their personal lives invaded. Their appearances are also given more importance than their substance. Despite all of these, some women still rise to enter politics.

Conclusion

Therefore, it is important for us to promote the representation of women in politics. But simply doing this is not enough – it is also important to promote it in the correct way. When we do commend women in politics, we tend to do it through a narrow scope – we view these achievements as individual efforts of exceptional women, whereas the truth is that there are also numerous parties at play here – women in political party backrooms, riding associations and women’s organizations.  Recognizing the efforts of everyone in promoting women’s participation is the first step to make sure we have more women and a better democracy.

Moreover, the discussion of female representation cannot end here. Caste, economic status, sexual orientation are all factors that affect the experiences of women in politics. Women from lower castes or lower economic strata will have a much harder time becoming politically successful. Similarly, the experience of a trans woman or a non-heterosexual woman is bound to be tougher due to ingrained biases. Representation of women in politics does not only help better women’s issues but leads to a betterment of society as a whole – in areas where Indian panchayats are headed by women, the number of drinking water projects was 62 percent higher than in areas with men-led panchayats. This is why it’s crucial to encourage women in politics and facilitate discourse related to this.

The post WHY DO WOMEN NOT GO INTO POLITICS? appeared first on WISER WORLD.