"A la guerre comme a la guerre"

 “All’s fair in love and war”

French Proverb

 

 

War is coming yet again to the troubled region of the Middle East and there is little that could be done to prevent it. At least that’s what the general perception is based on the political developments and most recent speeches at the UN produced by some leaders.

As was expected Iranian president Ahmadinejad took a defensive and fiery stance against what he described as mingling by the West in Iran’s internal affairs.  In the same time the clock is ticking and the world (not to mention Israel) is getting ever more weary of the ongoing stockpiling of enriched uranium- one claim that Tehran still vehemently denounces and insists that its nuclear program is strictly for peaceful purposes.

Strangely the current atmosphere bears a striking resemblance to the jingoistic rhetoric that preceded both World Wars. Just like in the 20th century there is a talk of a “red line” that can‘t be crossed and there is much vitriol, grandstanding and lack of flexibility currently on display in various countries in the Middle East as well as Russia. Even more unfortunate is that Syria effectively is being caught in the cross fire between the local super powers and sadly is unable to complete the miracle called “Arab Spring” and rid itself of a ruthless dictator like Bashar Assad whose rule has caused enormous suffering to the population.

In order to comprehend the regional dynamics and the “why” of current developments one need to dig deeper in history and be able to see a much broader picture of the causes that seem to instill a never ending conflict in the Middle East and the Gulf.  Only then some solutions concerning Syria and Iran could be found that would be short of simply going to war.

There are several major players in the area who historically have had a significant role in the political development of the region. For the purpose of this study I will focus on Turkey, Iran and Russia as they are the ones whose actions will have a noticeable impact in the short and long run.

Traditionally whatever entity has had power over the Bosphorus (Constantinople) and Asia Minor has been at odds with Persia (later Iran). The Byzantine Empire fought many a war for influence over Syria, Armenia and Mesopotamia (Iraq) with its rival to the East. After its demise the Ottoman Empire took over the mission so to speak of continuing the fight with its eastern neighbor. Russia entered the stage a bit later (historically speaking) but proved to be a formidable foe nevertheless. Moscow proclaimed itself to be the “Third Rome” and set forward a goal to ultimately regain Constantinople and make it again the center of Orthodoxy that it has been for centuries. The so called Sykes-Picot Agreement from 1916 actually allotted Constantinople and all Armenian vilayets to Russia (see map-Green being the Russian, Blue-French and Red-Brittish gains).

 

Only the Bolshevik Revolution prevented it from becoming a reality.

Additionally as years went by it turned out that control of Damascus (Syria) holds the key to ultimately having a strategic advantage over Asia Minor, Constantinople as well as the Levant and the Holy Land-that’s how Syria became the battleground of the empires vying for influence in the region.

Understanding the importance of Syria would explain the fact that Iran is covertly supporting the dictatorial regime there and the reason why Russia would veto any resolution in the UN Security Council that tries to condemn Bashar Assad. Both powers fear that the loss of Assad will drag Syria closer to Turkey and the Sunni countries in the Gulf and undermine Moscow and Tehran’s “gentleman’s agreement” to act as a deterrent to the West and Ankara in the region. The world is bound to see more and more cooperation between Russia and Iran with a possible benevolent silent partnership with Beijing that will counter balance any unilateral or multilateral action initiated by the US, Ankara, Israel and even some Sunni Muslim countries in the region.

It is curious that strategically speaking Iran has always been considered a threat to the Sunni countries in the Gulf. It exudes power through its military might and also via the vast network of shia minorities or majorities (as in Iraq) spreading from Baghdad to Saudi Arabia. This fact produces an interesting development in the region-slowly but surely Israel is starting to resemble its neighbors or becoming more “Middle Eastern” so to speak. It is at odds with a shia off shoot like Hesbollah in Lebanon in the same time that Saudi Arabia is coping with a shia discontent in Bahrain. This could lead to a possible pact of “mutual understanding” between Tel Aviv and Riyadh directed at containing Tehran in its strife for domination in the region.

So is war imminent? It all depends on the willingness of the regional and world leaders for once to forget strategic interests and historic realities and think about a peaceful prosperity of their respective populations rather than hegemony and domination. Another option would be for the Sunni countries and Israel to reach a real rapprochement and given the formidable threat posed by Iran reach a viable agreement with regards to the state Palestine and present a united front in world affairs. As far-fetched as it may sound history has seen many an example of bitter enemies becoming allies.  If the region decides to go to the brink of each other’s patience, only the future generations will be able to judge what might have gone awry. As the French once said: ”A la guerre comme a la guerre” or “All’s fair in love and war”. Let’s hope that there will be enough wisdom in the world as to prove the latter proverb wrong.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

"Russia-the story about the lonely sail"

“A lone white sail shows for an instant, 
Where gleams the sea, an azure streak. 
What left it in its homeland distant? 
In alien parts what does it seek?

The billow play, the mast bends creaking, 
The wind, impatient, moans and sighs... 
It is not joy that it is seeking, 
Nor is it happiness it flies.

The blue wave dance, they dance and tremble, 
The sun's bright ray caress the seas. 
And yet for storm it begs, the rebel, 
As if in storm lurked calm and peace!”

“Parus”(The sail) by Mihail Lermontov

One of the greatest Russian authors Mihail Lermontov once wrote the poem “Parus” (translated The Sail) which in my opinion epitomizes the Russian existential dilemmas and perceptions that have determined its fate for centuries. Just like the lonely sail at sea embarks on a never ending quest for a storm, as that is where it feels most comfortable, Russia has been following a collision course in history that can’t be fathomed easily using conventional methods and needs a much more thorough and deeper research in order to be rationalized.

Pondering for instance the recent presidential elections certainly should have been a simple matter-Vladimir Putin won by a predictably wide margin (64%).  Undoubtedly there were irregularities and intimidation by the ruling party, however even the independent observers believe that at least around 51% of the voters cast their ballots for Mr. Putin and this fact speaks by itself of the course that Russia has chosen to take-a path that started not with Putin or Yeltsin, not even with the communist leaders before them, but centuries ago when the Russian mentality was formed and when “the sail” embarked on its long journey in a treacherous and unpredictable world. That course has always been associated with the hope that a “good” tsar or a leader will somehow miraculously guide the ship through all the storms that lie ahead and supporting him automatically equals patriotism.

There are several factors that have contributed to the formation of the Russian culture, mentality and hence politics and (authoritarian) style of governance. The influence of the Byzantine Empire that started in the 10^th century with the adoption of Orthodox Christianity for example brought with itself a steady creation of a rule similar to the one in Constantinople. The title of the emperor was not initially hereditary-usually he or she was chosen based on leadership and also the support of the army. Only after establishing himself as a conqueror and warrior he could proclaim a ruling family line as the Comnenos and Angelos  in the Byzantine Empire and the Rurik and Romanov dynasties in Russia. Additionally once chosen the persona of the emperor became sacred-he was perceived to be the ultimate ruler whose decisions could not and would not be questioned as that would equal treason.

 If we draw a comparison with the current state of affairs in Russia one can’t help but notice that the president in Moscow has powers that are almost completely authoritarian-there is no system of checks and balances to counter his decisions-the ruling party has majority in the parliament and the head of state himself can appoint or dismiss the Prime Minister and its cabinet at whim. Additionally he gained popularity after winning the wars in Caucasus (Chechnya and Georgia) showing stamina and grit of a seasoned soldier and a commander in chief. What is even more curious is that given the way the free press is being intimidated and the general feeling among the population that there is no other alternative to Vladimir Putin, the pervasive notion is that having a “strong” leader is essential to the survival of the state as such.

Another factor that has played a significant role in forming the Russian perception of an existential need of a tough and determined leader is its geo-strategic weakness. Straddling the Euro-Asian land mass it has historically been prone to invasions from East or West as with the Mongols in the 13^th century, Napoleon in the 19^th century and Germany in the 20^th. Hence securing its eastern and western flanks has been an obsession that has naturally swayed its decisions to expand into Europe and Asia. However the moment it had felt it had accomplished that goal of fortifying its eastern and western borders as in the 19^th century for instance it had embarked on a brave thrust South seeking a warm sea port as its Baltic and North sea access points had somewhat limited capacity and the Black Sea could not suffice as it was blocked by the Dardanelles. Once it had reached the southern shores of the Caspian Sea, Russia considered Persia to be part of its natural sphere of influence-as a matter of fact it was ready to occupy it during and immediately after the Second World War. It only withdrew its interest there when it felt that its western flank was again threatened with the beginning of the Cold War.

What has occurred in the last 20 years can explain why Russia has renewed its latent interest in Iran (Persia). Strategically speaking its western and eastern flanks were secured again and ironically it happened without any effort from Moscow. The haphazard and somewhat disorganized admittance of Eastern and Central European states into the European Union and NATO created a puzzle that no one in the world could untangle. For instance some countries are members of both the EU and NATO, some only of EU but not NATO (Finland, Sweden and Austria), some of NATO but not the EU (Turkey). Additionally some are members of the Euro zone, some are not, some belong to the Shengen agreement some not (Bulgaria and Romania). The aftermath of that hodgepodge of overlapping alliances and sub groups is that Europe’s strategic position has weakened to the point that no one really knows who if anybody is making the decisions there. This weakness would explain the nonchalance with which Moscow accepted the latest expansion of NATO near its borders-the strategists in Kremlin perhaps saw it as an opportunity rather than a threat.

Additionally there are signs that there is a rapprochement in the making between Beijing and Moscow, based on common interests-both for instance have sizable Muslim minorities that they are trying to suppress and both have strategic and economic interests in South Asia, the Gulf and the Middle East. The steady thaw in the relations between Russia and China is the last piece of the puzzle to explain the latest and possibly future actions in world affairs-the recent joint veto they imposed in the UN Security Council with regards to Syria is just the beginning of the fledgling cooperation or “gentleman’s agreement” so to speak between the two authoritarian regimes. Incidentally that rapprochement between Beijing and Moscow also works in Kremlin’s favor as it secures its eastern flank and allows it to focus on being a significant player in Iran which it certainly sees as part of its strategic sphere of influence. It is not a coincidence that Russia has offered its expertise to build nuclear power plants in Iran-so far presumably for peaceful purposes. Nevertheless nuclear energy is just one way of exerting political and economic influence.

The rather ambitious strategic goals that dominate the Russian internal and foreign policy and the perception that only a strong leader can achieve them certainly explain the outcome of the recent presidential elections.  Just like in Lermontov’s poem the Russian people would much rather seek than run away from the upcoming storm placing their trust in the “good” tsar who will lead them bravely through it to safety. We can only hope that the “tsar” will in fact understand the enormous responsibility he has taken by accumulating so much power and do something for the people. If he doesn’t……..Russian history bears many an example of how unforgiving the masses could be to “bad” leaders.

Is it time to say "oxi" ("no" in Greek) to the current world order?

"You are listening to the voice of Greece. Greeks, stand firm, proud, and dignified. You must prove yourselves worthy of your history. The valor and victory of our army has already been recognised. The righteousness of our cause will also be recognised. We did our duty honestly. Friends! Have Greece in your hearts, live inspired with the fire of her latest triumph and the glory of our army. Greece will live again and will be great, because she fought honestly for a just cause and for freedom. Brothers! Have courage and patience. Be stouthearted. We will overcome these hardships. Greeks! With Greece in your minds you must be proud and dignified. We have been an honest nation and brave soldiers."

“An address from Athens Radio the day before the Greek capitulation in the war of 1940/1941….”

In the early hours of October 28^th, 1940, the Italian ambassador to Greece Emmanuel Grazzi presented the Prime Minister of Greece Ioannis Metaxas with an ultimatum that demanded Greece to allow Italian troops  occupy Greek territory. Mr. Metaxas responded with a firm “oxi” (“no”) and that event has always been commemorated as an example of steadfastness and bravery of a nation when faced with a threat of invasion.

It is all the more mind boggling that the current Greek leadership is docilely begging for loans and can’t stand up to the challenge and put its financial house in order. There are some recent publications “as in The Economist” that literally call it “the scapegrace” of the European Union for its lack of a resemblance of discipline and clear idea of getting out of the current quagmire.  Perhaps it is time for the Greek people as well as the citizens of the world to say “oxi” to the existing world order and strive for a better future unobstructed by greed and begging for loans.

There are several trends that are poised to form the world order in the years to come that certainly deserve careful analysis. The recent elections in Tunisia for instance seem to be the harbinger of a political development in the entire region-namely the ascendance of religion and faith as predominant factor when choosing who to vote for. There are several reasons for that and this article will attempt to shed some light on the causes that led to the victory of the Nahda party there. In the mean time the western part of the world has been rocked by the grass root “Occupy Wall Street” movement that seems to be digging in for a long battle with the existing political order. It’s interesting to note a recent announcement made by the office of the Vatican that effectively proposed the world to establish a supranational financial authority that could set the course of the global economic development in order to avoid crisis and mismanagement as the ones occurring in Europe. So what seems to be the parallel between a moderate religious party winning the elections in Tunisia, a grass root movement in the West and the Vatican getting involved in macroeconomics?

The answer could be associated with a dramatic dissatisfaction that citizens across the globe are experiencing with the current state of affairs-namely corruption, enrichment based not on good business but on manipulation of political connections and favors and ultimately unfettered greed.

Corruption has always been present in various countries but what has occurred in the last twenty or thirty years has been unfathomable and hard to accept. If we just mention the millions embezzled by Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippinnes, Taxin Shinawatra in Thailand, Alberto Fujimori in Peru, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, oligarchs in Russia and Ukraine, Bernie Madoff in the US, the list can go on and on and on. They all have been either presidents of countries or high level participants in the financial order that allowed them to swindle money while pretending they were involved in legitimate governance or business operations. What that perception of enrichment based on power created in the world was the dissatisfaction with the status quo and ultimately searching for ways to topple the existing order and replace it with one that would be more sensitive to the plight of the ordinary people.

Tunisia is a perfect example of the trend that is due to sweep through the entire region in the near future. It is a country of approximately 11 million people that was the first in the Arab World to overthrow its dictator and have free elections. The party that won the majority in the Parliament on October 23^rd was Nahda-a political establishment based on moderate religious postulates. It would be quite near sighted to brandish it “islamist”. The reason the people in Tunisia voted for Nahda is not because they wanted some sort of “sharia” state to be created but because they thought that Nahda would “steal less”, meaning would be less corrupt in the long run.

I can’t help but associate myself with the lines of people on this past Sunday waiting patiently to cast their votes in the cities of Tunisia. It reminded me of the early free “elections” in Bulgaria that I witnessed when everyone was excited and ready for a change. What occurred however was corruption and general lack of trust to the ruling elite as it proved itself to just strive for enrichment based on power and not even remotely think about “the people”.

Another example of a failure based on greed would naturally be Greece. The European Union is still struggling to find a solution how to handle the crisis. In order to understand what happened in financial terms, imagine a consumer whose annual salary, for the sake of argument, is say $20,000 a year. Then imagine that person borrows $31,000 by forging his financial statements, etc. Then imagine he spends it all in Las Vegas overnight and then picture him calling the banks the following day telling them that he can’t pay, and asking them to lower his debt to $15,000 if they want to get anything back at all. That’s exactly what Greece has been doing for the last two years. It borrowed roughly 160% to its GDP (or what its revenue is per annum) and now it is saying that this debt is unsustainable and if the banks want something back they should consider a “haircut” or reduction of 50 cents to the dollar. What is even more appalling is the fact the Greek government is now asking its “people” to sacrifice and share the burden of this debt that was accumulated without their knowledge to start with.

I also can’t help but remember a high ranking minister from a country in Africa whom I met while he was visiting Washington, DC who was handing out $100 bills to the staff at the hotel he was staying in as gratuity. That was happening when that particular country’s nominal GDP per capita was a mere $186!

The current disillusionment with the existing world order will continue to be essential for the years to come. More “Nahda” parties will appear and people will vote for them because they think that the basic humanistic values like “Don’t steal” that lie in every major religion are to be upheld and cherished. The world however is lacking a leader like Charles De Gaulle or Willie Brandt to inspire people all over the world and propose a solution to the current predicament.

Let’s hope that one day there will be a world that is united and based on the very humanistic essential values that have sustained us over so many centuries regardless if the religion is Christian, Muslim or Buddist.. Perhaps the United Nations will also become a “world parliament” without special interests and vetoes. Perhaps one day a leader as Ioanis Metaxas will have the courage to say “oxi” (“no”) to the injustice done and the world will become a better place without greed and embezzlement, perhaps……

The end of Europe-or a tale of the swan, the pike and the crab.

Whene’er companions don’t agree,

They work without accord;

And noth but trouble doth result,

Although they all work hard.

One day a swan, a pike, a crab,

Resolved a load to haul;

All three were harnessed to the cart,

And pulled together all.

But though they pulled with all their might,

The cart-load on the bank stuck tight.

The swan pulled upward to the skies;

The crab did backward crawl;

The pike made for the water straight-

It proved no use at all!

Now which of them was most to blame

‘Tis not for me to say;

But this I know: the load is there

Unto this very day.

From “The world wit and humor”, New York, 1906, pp 19-21

Also from “The Fables”, by Ivan Krylov

The idea of united Europe goes back to antiquity and certainly deserves admiration and applause. The current events occurring on the European continent however, are a cause for concern as after years of talking and half steps the Europeans seem to have failed to create a vital and unified state but rather have become an epitome of the old Slavic fable about the swan, the pike and the crab. Just like in the aforementioned tale the bird, the fish and the crab, were unable to work in unison, the Europeans have found themselves in a quagmire that is on its due course to shatter the entire global economy for years to come. The dangerous lack of consensus how to handle a crisis as the one in Greece for instance is just a tip of the iceberg of the dysfunctional and cumbersome modus operandi of the European Union as such. The purpose of this article therefore is to shed some light on the challenges associated with the European unification process and perhaps encourage the people in Europe to think outside of the box and re-vitalize the idea of a union.

The process of European integration started in the years immediately after the Second World War when both the victorious and defeated countries on the old continent found themselves devastated economically and unstable politically. After causing two destructive wars in a short succession the Europeans generally accepted the fact that they couldn’t handle their economies as well as national and foreign policies in the same way they had been during the first half of the 20^th century. They essentially agreed to rely largely on NATO as a basis for their defense and had to turn their focus on economic development as the only outlet left for their respective societies to apply their energy and skills. The war had scarred Europe to such an extent that even the raw materials that were considered essential for starting a conflict-namely coal and iron ores had to be put under a supranational entity to insure the distribution of those commodities among the European countries. The initiation of the European Coal and Steel Community put the management of coal and iron ores under collective control. In the mean time figures like Jean Monnet and Robert Schuman stood behind the idea of expanding that community in order to achieve a “common market” that would become the mile stone of European integration and ultimately lead to prosperity and most of all reconciliation among the European states. The treaty of Rome in 1957 set the stage for the creation of the European Economic Community (or Common Market) and a customs union between the six original member states: Belgium, Netherlands, Luxemburg, France, Italy and Germany. The creation of a trade zone free of tariffs spurred an unprecedented economic growth among the member states that would attract other countries on the continent to join the community. The fact however that such a development was initiated in the years of the Cold War with the US and the USSR essentially controlling the fate of Europe as far as foreign policy is concerned would have tremendous consequences in the years to come.

When the Cold War came to an abrupt end the European countries found themselves in an unchartered territory. For the first time in 50 years they had a chance to come out of the shadow of the two super powers and conduct foreign policy on their own. It turned out that they didn’t quite know what to do with the newly found freedom in international relations. They decided to accelerate the process of integration and in the same time continue participation in NATO (with the exception of few countries like Austria, Finland and Sweden that were considered neutral). By signing the Maastricht treaty in 1993 the European member countries agreed to create a “European Union”, the European Commission (executive branch of the government), European Parliament (legislature) and the European Court of Justice. They also agreed to establish a monetary union based on a common currency-the “euro” with the provision that all countries except some, like Great Britain that were allowed an exemption, would accept it. The prerequisites for joining the “eurozone” were rather harsh: inflation up to no more than 1.5 percent a year, a maximum of budget deficit of three percent to GDP and a debt to GDP ratio of no more than 60 percent. Additionally the Maastricht treaty stipulated that once accepting the euro member countries could not opt out of it without leaving the European Union as well.

In order to meet the criteria the countries that wanted to enter the “euro” zone had to undergo restructuring, privatization, tax changes and curbing government expenditures. The social price for such drastic measures turned out to be too high for some as Greece, Ireland, Portugal and Italy and they entered the eurozone anyway riding the wave of excitement of the new European integration.  In the years to come with the establishment of the new currency a European Central Bank was erected with the main purpose of maintaining inflation at the 1.5 mark set at Maastricht. It’s curious however that the Central Bank created in Frankfurt was not given the monetary means that the Federal Reserve in the US has. For instance it could not “print” extra euros to fund lack of capital by European banks as the Federal Reserve did recently to ease monetary pressures in the US. It was largely restricted by its purpose of maintaining low inflation which of course naturally leads to uncompetitive interest rates maintained artificially high to curb possible inflation, which naturally suppresses growth. Additionally countries like Greece that did not undergo restructuring were taking advantage of being in the eurozone to borrow while convincing banks that they were part of the solid “euro” block, essentially cheating the global financial system by posing as something they were not.

What occurred in the years that followed the treaty of Maastricht was slow but steady acceptance of yet more countries into the Union. That period however also highlighted the challenges that accompanied a structure developed in the reality of the Cold War that was trying to exist in a new and changed world. The shortcomings of the system established in Europe became evident when the first president of the European Commission Walter Hallstein proposed the so called: “bicycle theory of the European Union” which states that integration was like riding a bicycle- it had to always move forward to avoid coming to a standstill and falling over. What happened after Maastricht was that the European integration process slowed and eventually came to a halt causing the bicyclists (all 27 of them) to fall over and what is even worse not being able to reach an agreement how to get back on the bike.

The reality is that the awkward structure created in the European Union-European Commission that is supposed to act as an executive power but actually can’t make executive decisions without the agreement of the governments of all member states, The European Parliament that has no real sway except voting on the budget of the union, the existence of the Council of Ministers which somehow acts as an auxiliary legislative body and the fact that all these entities along with the Court of Justice and the European Central Bank are somehow spread out between Brussels, Strasbourg, Luxemburg and Frankfurt, does not convey a feeling of unity but rather the opposite. Additionally the lack thereof a common defense policy has created a monster that is yet to show its head in the future development of foreign affairs. For instance some of the EU states are members of NATO, some are not. One can only wonder what would happen if for example Turkey (a NATO member) attacked the Republic of Cyprus, which is part of the European Union. Would the rest of the EU countries support its fellow EU member or would they split along NATO lines? If they do support NATO, then how would they treat the possible fall of a EU member to another state attack?

The fact is that the European integration process has stalled ever since 2005 when the member states couldn’t agree on further political convergence and giving up of certain areas of sovereignty in order to keep the process moving along. Additionally the fact that the union currently exists of a hodgepodge of 27 sates, all in different state of socioeconomic development isn’t alleviating matters. For instance the “union” lists countries that are protestant, catholic, eastern orthodox, which have never before been in a close relationship. The general mistrust that exists between them showed just recently when the Netherlands and Finland blocked the acceptance of Bulgaria and Romania into the “Shengen” agreement which would have removed any border control between the aforementioned applicant states and the rest of the union.

   

The current state of affairs in Europe certainly looks grim and just like in the tale of the swan, the pike and the crab, no blame can be assigned as the participants are just doing what they think is best for them not realizing that by doing so they are leaving the “cart” stuck in the sand. All we can do is appeal to the citizens of Europe as Victor Hugo did in 1849: “A day will come when all nations on our continent will form a European brotherhood…..” Victor Hugo actually planted a tree at his residence in Guernsey and stated that by the time the tree matured a United States of Europe would have come into being. We can only hope that the Europeans will cherish that tree and for once forget about their cavil but come out of the box and resuscitate the idea of “Europe” as a unified nation once and for all.

A short story about the Russian soul

“From the southern seas to the polar lands
Spread are our forests and fields.
You are unique in the world, one of a kind –
Native land protected by God!”

(Excerpt from the national anthem of Russia)

During its history Russia has seen turmoil, upheaval, wars, revolutions, pain and suffering that is almost unfathomable to a western observer. Yet after the dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991 there was hope that democracy may take a firm hold and at long last the people who live in the vast country stretching from Saint Petersburg to Vladivostok would be able to enjoy the benefits of open elections, free press, right to express their opinion and achieve their dream for peace and prosperity.

The announcement made by Dmitry Medvedev at the congress of the ruling “United Russia” on September 24^th, 2011 to propose Vladimir Putin (current prime minister and former head of state for two consecutive terms) as a party candidate at the upcoming presidential elections in March 2012 effectively shattered those dreams and ended even the slightest hope for democracy. What is even more disquieting is the statement made by Mr. Putin that he and Medvedev have agreed “years back” on a power swap at the end of the term of the current president. One can’t help but wonder what else they may have agreed upon and why such a pact has not been discussed publicly as it would be normal in a functioning democracy. As it seems democracy as such has fallen off the agenda in Moscow and Vladimir Putin is essentially solidifying his grasp on power (some predict that legally he can be a president until 2024 based on the current constitution). It seems that the rest of the world is simply myopically watching as a bystander the events occurring in Moscow without understanding that what happens in Russia will have a dramatic effect on the other countries in the region, which have always been under heavy Russian influence-both cultural and political and who may see the Vladimir Putin model of authoritarianism as something they can mimic in their respective areas. Studying and getting a better grasp of Russia therefore may prove beneficial for the world to plan accordingly for the years to come.

Many have tried (unsuccessfully) to understand Russia and its people. Former president George Bush even once said after his meeting with Vladimir Putin: “I looked the man in the eye. I was able to get a sense of his soul.” (BBC News, June 16^th, 2001). This statement could not have been farther from reality. As a matter of fact it sounds hilarious and preposterous to those of us who have grown to be part of the Russian people and culture. The truth is, it is next to impossible to see trough a Russian soul at a first glance. After centuries of oppression, serfdom, forced relocations, lack of freedom and heavy-handed approach by its rulers, the Russian soul is hidden deep inside where no one can ever penetrate.

In order to understand it one needs to learn the language, read Chekhov, Pushkin and Dostoyevsky, be accepted as “a Russian” as the humble author of this article was. Chekhov’s magnum opus “Three sisters” for instance offers an interesting insight into the Russian soul. Just like the main characters in the play dreamed all their lives of a better future but never really achieved it and became mired in a dull life, that’s how many Russian ordinary citizens feel-freedom is elusive as authoritarian rulers always seem to have their own agenda that doesn’t include liberty and democracy.

Another approach to understand Russia and its soul would be to study its history as it shows a pattern that repeats itself century after century.

The first Russian state appeared in the 9^th century-the so called Kievan Rus. In 988 it adopted Orthodox Christianity from the Byzantine Empire and that fact has had dramatic consequences on the way the Russian society developed. After the fall of Constantinople in 1453, Moscow claimed the title of “Third Rome”, essentially picking up the torch as an Eastern Orthodox defender from the fallen Byzantine. In the following centuries the Russian tsars proclaimed their messianic purpose-to defend Orthodoxy and along with that stand as a bulwark against any hostile invader. They did just that-it may have been the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, Napoleon, the Ottoman Empire or Germany, they tenaciously defended their land and expanded it majestically across Europe and Asia. The Russian rulers developed almost sacred aura-even their title “tsar” originated from the Roman “Caesar” meaning the ultimate autocrat sent from God.  The communist leaders that followed the tsars actually continued the pattern of becoming “revered” and claiming that their rule was infinite and untouchable.

After the self implosion of the Soviet Union there appeared to be a glimpse of hope as elections were held and the press was freed from any communist shackles. The economy however collapsed and people went months without getting paid. In the mean time some wily (well connected) oligarchs managed to privatize large portions of the Russian oil and raw materials industry and became billionaires almost overnight. The corruption was omnipresent and the mafia took firm hold of any profitable business activity.

When the transition of power between Boris Yeltsin and Vladimir Putin- a former KGB officer occurred in 1999, the people were ready for a change. Mr. Putin gave them just that even though he himself was probed for possible corruption in the 90’s he appealed to the voters as a tough talking politician who meant business. Under his guidance the economy grew at a rate of average 7% a year, the GDP rose from 24.8 trillions of rubles to 39.6 trillions of rubles. He introduced tax reforms that helped business attract foreign direct investment and in doing so generate jobs and higher salaries. He did however introduced a system which relied on friendly oligarchs and destruction of hostile ones-as was the case with the Russia’s richest man at the time-Michail Khodorkovsky, president of YUKOS. Additionally Mr. Putin slowly put a lid on freedom of press in order to ensure benevolent reports on his rule. It seemed that Mr. Putin was becoming a “tsar” of his own right and building an empire again based on economic and political allegiance to him and his “party” United Russia.

When his two terms in office ended, he handpicked Dmitry Medvedev as a successor. Rumor had it that there must have been a secret arrangement between those two so Mr. Putin will remain in power, but no one was the wiser until the infamous congress of United Russia on September 24^th of this year.

All this comes to show that Russia has a complex soul that can’t be fathomed easily or with simplistic approaches. More importantly the influence of its rich culture and language is still rather substantial in the former Soviet republics. I can attest to that as during business meetings in Washington with representatives of countries like Uzbekistan or Azerbaijan it was curious that we reached agreements only after we switched to speaking Russian, even though those states have been independent for some time.

I can see that the world has become a less safe or predictable place nowadays. Once in 1992 Francis Fuquyama wrote the book “The end of history and the last man” which stipulated that after the fall of communism and the end of the cold war history essentially ended as there was nothing left to fight over. It seems that history didn’t end it just repeated itself as in the case of Russia. A new “tsar” has emerged and the future seems divided and antagonistic as it has been since times immemorial.

What I do also know is that my heart is Russian and it will always bleed with the struggles of the people to throw off the chains of authoritarianism and dictatorship that have plagued them century after century. It has been a great honor to become part of the Russian culture and understand the Russian indigenous soul when so many others have failed. This I consider the greatest achievement that there ever could be. I will always hope that the “three sisters” as in Chekhov’s literary work who represent the Russian society will rise one day and stand up to the challenge of proving to the world that even a country as vast could be a democracy.

To all Russian people in the world: a sincere “Thank you” for letting me be one of you and Godspeed!

Why is the Arab Spring not reaching Belorus?

When I think about Belorus I can’t help but refer to an episode of a popular TV show of late-Seinfeld. There is a line between the two main characters Jerry and George when discussing what their work was going to be about. George answered to Jerry: “Nothing, the show is about absolutely nothing”.

The recent political developments in Belorus bear a resemblance of the abovementioned line as stalemate and lack of any kind of change has described the country’s political landscape for the last seventeen years(or it is about “nothing” in George’s words” so to speak).

Yet the world has witnessed an amazing array of grass root revolutions as the ones that occurred in Tunisia, Egypt and currently in Syria to name a few.  It is mind boggling as to how it is possible for so many dictatorial regimes to be overthrown in a matter of weeks by their discontent respective populations and a country like Belorus to be still mired in a dead end politics concocted by its heavy handed and erratic president of seventeen years Mr. Lukashenko.

I have even tried to ask people born in Belorus what their vision is as to why the country wouldn’t move towards democracy and progressive development and I have always received a lukewarm response that: “the state and the people there aren’t ready for a change”. This prompted me to study it in depth and see if there is any reasonable answer to its current predicament.

World history shows that nation building follows a pattern that involves creation of educational, cultural, religious, economic and ultimately political institutions that all when put together form the foundations of a state. The order in which those institutions develop naturally differs from one country to another but as a rule they all contribute to the functionality of any given polity. The success of a nation building process is often affected by the determination of a population to participate and support willingly the formation of cultural, educational or political institutions that represent the state. If we take Bulgaria for example its history reveals some interesting steps that are an indelible part of a nation building. In the 19^th century, long before it gained independence from Turkey the Bulgarian population developed its own schools where the classes were taught in Bulgarian. Additionally it worked towards creation of its own church which resulted in the initiation of the Bulgarian autonomous “Echsarchy”(a form of self governing church body based in Constantinople and separate from the Greek Patriarch). When the independence movement started under the leadership of the national hero Vasil Levsky who developed a network of grass root revolutionary committees that were active participants in the struggle against Turkish rule, the Bulgarian population reached a point of awareness of being part of nation and it was just a matter of time when the goal of creation of a state would be achieved. This explains to a large extent the quick pace with which Bulgaria was able to form an army, parliament and government structure after the Russo-Turkish war in 1877-1878 which resulted in the formation of a Bulgarian state.

 Belorus on the other hand has largely lacked, due to various historical reasons, a popular national movement that would lead naturally to the formation of cultural, educational or political indigenous Belorussian institutions.  In the Middle Ages it was part of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth which led to a distinctive culture gravitating to Vilnus as its land was a portion of the Lithuanian section of the state.  Following the final partition of Poland in 1795 it became largely part of the Russian Empire. The national policy of Pan-Slavism that developed in Russia created an atmosphere of general russification of all conquered lands. Belorus was considered the inferior partner in the empire and no outlets of Belorussian culture were allowed. That is the time when Belorus started to russify itself so to speak to the point of no distinction between the people living in Minsk or Moscow.

Yet at the end of the 19^th century and beginning of the 20^th century there were signs of Belorussian revival. The newspaper “Nasha Niva” published in Vilnius in Belorussian language had writers like Uladzimir Zylka, Zmitrok Biadula and Maxim Haretsky contributing to the development of a Belorussian self awareness.

Ultimately Belorus was split between Poland and the Soviet Union after the World War I. Historically it turned out that its population has always been affected by the will of some major neighboring power that would impose its own vision and strategy.

After World War II Belorus was incorporated into the Soviet Union. The official policy was to suppress any irredentist behavior and promote the “Russian” language and feeling of belonging to a “superior” culture-namely the one coming from Moscow. The Belorussian language as such became almost extinct in a way-it was an oddity, a feature of the folklore or the past never to return.

When independence came in 1991 it was a total surprise for the general population. It was something that just happened due to the fact that the Soviet Union disintegrated. No one in Belorus had any idea prior to that fact that they would be forced to form an independent country and be separate from the mighty Russian neighbor.

The country of Belorus had to start from scratch building some form of statehood and promoting a Belorussian identity for the first time in hundreds of years. When Mr. Lukashenko came into power in 1994 the general population gave a sigh of relief-finally there was a strong person who would surely guide everyone to prosperity. What occurred though was a steady establishment of a dictatorial regime. The authoritarian president showed signs over the years of being pro-Russian, then pro-West, ultimately he switched back and forth until he confused everybody in the international community. He preserved the state nature of the main factories and businesses in order to maintain a firm grip on the economy. He developed a populist approach in order to keep the general populace happy-for instance he increased the public service employees’ salaries by 50% right before the “elections” in 2010. Yet he took all that added wealth back in 2011 (after the elections) by devaluing the Belorussian ruble (the national currency) by almost 50% which wiped out the savings of the working class. For instance as of May 25^th the ruble was trading 4930 rubles per dollar as opposed to the previous 3155. The perceived value of the local currency is considerably lower however-on the black market it takes 6000 rubles to buy a dollar.

Additionally Mr. Lukashenko jailed all responsible for the protests after his “overwhelming” victory in the presidential elections last year, which were considered mired by fraud by all independent organizations monitoring them. For instance Nikolai Statkevich, Dmitry Uss and Andrei Sannikov all received various prison sentences for participating in unsanctioned demonstrations against the current strongman of Belorus.

The opposition as such is facing an uphill battle due to its lack of reasonable ideas as to what the future after Lukashenko would be.  Additionally they are failing to capture the momentum of general discontent with the detrimental economic policy established so far as well as to utilize the resources available online as Facebook, Tweeter, etc. As the revolutions in the Arab world showed people like Wael Gonim (the Google representative in Egypt) played a major role in inspiring the population to revolt against the dictatorship. Basically the public used Facebook to update each other when there will be a demonstration and what it would be about. The opposition in Belorus so far has been unable to utilize that great source of information to its full extent.

When studying the historic evolvement of Belorus as a nation in retrospect one can’t help but notice that it hasn’t reached the maturity necessary to develop a viable and stable democracy yet. However the very fact that there are people opposing the regime at this time shows that sooner or later an uprising similar to the one that occurred in the Arab world will happen. The nation of Belous may seem supine and lethargic at the moment but this is only calm before the storm.

In closing I would like to quote to all Belorussians in the world a line from the United States Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness”.

The truth is that the right for liberty and natural strife for happiness is so overwhelmingly important for the functionality of any society that no one, not Lukashenko, or Saddam Hussein, or Bashar Assad, or Hosni Mubarak can take it away from its subordinate populations. Sooner or later freedom will prevail and the people of a proud country like Belorus will be able to establish a viable and flourishing democracy. The Belorussian equivalent of Vassil Levsky (the Bulgarian revolutionary) or Wael Gonim (the Egyptian) will surely appear at some point and lead the nation to a revolt against the dictatorship. Let’s hope that this time will come to Minsk sooner rather than later.

Case study-"what justifies the use of force in world affairs?”

"They shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks; nation shall not lift up sword against nation, neither shall they learn war anymore." (Isaiah 2:4)

History bears many an example of schools of thought attempting to find the ultimate solution how to end the use of force in international relations. The works of authors like De Saint-Pierre, Rousseau, Immanuel Kant and Jeremy Bentham go as far as suggesting “Perpetual Peace” as the panacea that could cure all ills that exist in the way states relate to each other. Their idealism notwithstanding the world has and still is experiencing military conflicts of different varieties that are being fought for large range of reasons as the current events in the Middle East show. It would be interesting to reflect on the driving force behind nations’ decision making process to participate in a conflict in one part of the world and not the other.

Military intervention usually led by a coalition of forces has occurred in places like Bosnia, Afghanistan, Iraq and most recently Libya. The overwhelming reason has been to protect civilian lives from the abuse of rogue dictators, to prevent ethnic cleansing or to oust religious fanatics from causing harm. This seems to be a valid casus belli for the international community to interfere. Yet places like Rwanda, Congo and Zimbabwe have also experienced severe conflicts and loss of lives of civilians without substantial military engagement by the rest of the world.

The reality is that the international society is experiencing changes on its path to maturity not seen since the French Revolution which reverberated in the hearts and minds of people for generations. For years and years in the 20^th century the predominant doctrine in international relations has been the idea of non-interference in any country’s internal affairs irrespective how corrupt or dictatorial its leadership could be. During the Cold War many undemocratic regimes survived due to the fact that they could always lean on one of the super powers in exchange for political “favors”.  The collapse of the Soviet Union and the process of democratization that ensued in Eastern Europe and Asia however brought a completely new set of realities that found the repressive regimes unprepared. Suddenly it was clear that they were no longer at liberty to oppress their respective populations or to prevent them from seeking freedom of speech and independence as was the case in Bosnia and Kosovo.

Additionally erratic dictators like Saddam Hussein found out the hard way that the international community was no longer indifferent to his megalomaniac and disastrous war mongering and usage of brutal force to suppress dissent. What happened in Iraq (the controversial claim for weapons of mass destruction notwithstanding) and the riddance of a brutal dictator caused an unprecedented ripple effect in the whole region. In the years to follow the young population of the Middle East became more restive as the citizens realized that it was possible for dictators to fall. The eventual uprisings in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya rubberstamped the new reality in international order-oppression is no longer safe from international condemnation that could include force at times to protect the people’s struggle for freedom.

There are several factors that seem to influence countries to interfere when making decisions for the use of force against a brutal dictatorial regime. Libya for instance is a clear case of an erratic dictator that has caused a tremendous hardship for its people and the world for over 41 years. Additionally the Arab League played a major role in condemning Moammar Qadhafi’s actions to use brutal force against its own population. The participation of regional states as Qatar in the international effort against the Libyan regime is a clear sign of the new reality in the Middle East and its evolution from a rigid and intransigent block of undemocratic countries to a slow but steady liberalization in the making.

The reason behind the international community decision to act against a brutal dictator seems to be the existence of clearly defined goals of the population to achieve freedom. Here lies the difference between the conflicts in Somalia or Congo where it was difficult to determine which faction was fighting against whom and for what reason, and countries like Libya or Kosovo where it was rather obvious for the independent observer to see long time dictators fighting to suppress people’s natural desire for freedom.

The current events in the Middle East are just the start of the new development and evolution of the way the international community handles conflicts. What is certain is that the old status quo is gone forever and dictators across the globe are no longer safe when trying to suppress people's free will. Only countries that adapt quickly to the new reality in world affairs will prosper and reach stability. It is possible that during this process of evolution and steady democratization the world will finally achieve the goal set by De Saint Pierre, Rousseau and Immanuel Kant-namely the coveted “Perpetual Peace”.