Catching Kony: altruism or geopolitics?

Some days ago I learned that president Obama is going to send military reinforcements to Uganda. This is announced in a time when the US military presence in Iraq is almost completely reduced. The goal of the military venture is to make an end to the activities of Joseph Kony and his Lord's Resistance Army (LRA). The LRA is a renegade rebel army that seeks to overthrow the Ugandan government. It is hard to convey an image of the LRA in brief, but I'll try it nonetheless: it combines a mix(ed)-up ideology rooted in Christianity, traditional African mysticism and Acholi nationalism. The LRA recruits children in its ranks by raiding villages, accompanied by the many cruelties commonly associate with child soldiers (think rape, murder and drugs).

Entire Mid-Eastern Africa is politically troubled:
(1) Somalia as a 'failed state' and the many refugees in Kenya
(2) South Sudan, only just independent, is extremely poor
(3) The Great Lakes with the LRA and refugee camps in Goma
(4) The unstable Central African Republic with lots of violence
Would it be wise to add more military to the equation?

You can imagine how relieved I was to learn that the United States would 'finally' do something worthwhile with its military capacity. An emotional reaction and, as it turned out, a biased one. Without any doubt a monster like Kony has to be stopped. But several aspects have been left out of the picture when Uncle Sam presented its great humanitarian deed to the world. First of all, LRA activities in the region have been on a low pitch since 2007. The rebellion against the government is not what it once was and this might open the way for non-military conflict resolution. It is however the corrupted Ugandan regime that seems to put on its brake when being asked for more democracy, pluralism and liberties.

A second noteworthy fact is that the United States are already involved in hunting down Kony and other LRA leaders. So far their tactics didn't prove very successful. It is very doubtful that stronger military pressure would be a road to result. Some would even dare to say that it might undermine regional stability even further, actually endangering the common people more than was the case since 2007. But American-Ugandan ties have strengthened during the War on Terror in Somalia. Another major strategic importance of good ties with the Ugandan authorities are the oil reserves in the nearby region. Especially now that South Sudan, with considerable reserves, became independent.

What first seemed an altruist deed to protect people now looks a lot grimmer. And it is easy to buy the 'peacekeeper' story, even when being sold by a country that has a pretty nasty record of military interventions. The reason that we are tempted to do so is that we are under-informed on the Ugandan situation, and African politics in general. The lesson I learned: stay informed or stay sceptic.

Turkish accession: some obstacles

Turkey has been a recurring topic in the past week's media. First there were attacks by the Kurdistan Working Party (PKK), then there was the retaliation of the Turkish army. Few days later there was an earthquake in the East of the country, a region were a lot of Kurds live. I first considered writing something on the Kurdish question, but that would require some research. Because I don't exactly have a lot of time right now, I will stick to more familiar terrain: what are the biggest obstacles for Turkish accession to the EU?

(1) The first issue to pop up in my mind would be the Turkish recognition of North Cyprus. In 1974 a coup d'état on Cyprus would have lead to annexation by Greece, so the Turks made a military intervention. The island has been divided ever since. The northern part declared itself independent in 1983; Turkey is the only country to have recognized it. Since Cyprus is a member of the European Union, this issue needs to be settled one way or another.

(2) Another obstacle on the road to accession is the Kurdish question I already mentioned. The EU already has talks with Turkey about accession since 2005. In the light of these talks, Turkey already expanded the rights of the Kurdish minority. At least on paper, Kurds have gained various right such as education in their own language, etc. However, relations between the Turkish authorities and Kurds remain difficult. And the EU doesn't think lightly of human right...

Do you think Turkey would make a great addition?

(3) The third, and perhaps most difficult problem to solve is one that lies with the EU itself. The public opinion in countries with notable Turkish minorities is not in favor of Turkish accession. I think of Belgium, France, Germany, etc. The governments of these countries are most sensitive to this. Strange enough, a lot of Turkish immigrants and their children aren't big fans of Turkish accession either. Promises have been made so if Turkey insists it will become a member state. But all the stalling might make that Turkey changes its mind.

I myself am a most fanatic supporter of Turkish accession. Turkey has a young and dynamic population, a growing economy and a (relatively) big army. Also, as a predominantly muslim country and gateway to the Middle East, it holds diplomatic and strategic importance. I honestly hope we can welcome Turkey in the EU within a matter of years!

Security issue or security dilemma?

Recently, the United States claimed they had prevented an Iranian terrorist attack. The supposed violence-in-the-making would have been directed against the Israeli and Saudi-Arabian embassies in Washington. A faction of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards - the country's politically influential elite army - would have been behind the plotting. The Iranian government denies all accusations, which they percieve as a framing operation set up by the United States itself. I will stay clear of declaring any truth. In stead, this article will offer a framework to analyse the tensed US-Iran relation, based on the classic notion of the safety dilemma.

A safety dilemma occurs when one state raises its military capacity and, by doing so, becomes a treath to a second state. This other state will have to decide whether to respond proportionally or to remain idle. When responding with armement, the first state may interpret this as a hostile signal undoing its initial effort; an arms race is started. Persuing the second option however means that a (percieved) risk is left unattended. This phenomenon, which involves a great deal of subjectivity, proves to be most usefull in explaining US-Iranian frictions.

Uncle Sam and president Ahmadinejad in a 'staring contest'

Let's start with the States. The US has a Cold War-era ally in the Middle East which isn't too loved by the Arab nations. This ally Israel is believed to possess nuclear arms, though it never formally confirmed or denied this. In adittion, the States supported Irak in its war against Iran back in the eighties. American support was given to Saddam Hussein (yes, the very same) because the Iranian regime wasn't too favorable for the West. This war, which continued from 1980 to 1988, is a bit forgotten by most of us but the terrible attrocities inflicted upon the Iranian people are well-remembered over there. It  is a scar that never fully healed and here is where trouble kicks in. Iran is still traumatized by its history. It still thinks that the main objective of the West concerning Iran is to install a friendly regime it can influence. Just like the one of the Shah before the Islamic Revolution. With a nuclear treath in Israel and ongoing military presence in Iraq and Afghanistan, Iran feels enclosed. The only way it sees out of this 'brutal imperialism' is a nuclear weapon of its own. Iran's nuclear program, together with its violent language when condamning Israel or the US, are only the stepping stone to the next degree of the security dilemma. Now the Iranian bomb in turn is seen as a treat to regional stability by the Americans.

The perception of both states is in this all more important than the facts. Does the US seek to overthrow the Ayatollahs? Is Iran being agressive in its nuclear program? Was a terrorist attack prevented or is it a framing operations after all? These questions might be interesting, but they do not reach the heart of the conflict. What really matters is that the US and Iran are engaged in a logic of confrontation; there is a lack of mutual trust. We aren't looking at a security issue, but rather at a security dilemma.

Join the Banana War

I have recently joined a fight of a global scale; a war that involves some of the world's major economic powers: the Banana War! To fully understand this trade conflict, it is necessary to take a look at its history first. The European common market may be internally open to competition, it has a firm tradition of protectionism. The common market was born in 1957 when the European Economic Community (EEC) was formally erected. France however feared it couldn't face the German competition. Therefore it demanded that the principle of the common market was applied to the agrarian production too. France after all is one of the most agricultural countries on the continent. To safeguard European domestic food supply, the EEC also decided to pull up barriers against food imports.

Just five companies control 80% of the world wide banana
trade. These are Dole, Del Monte, Chiquita, Fyffes and
Noboa. Don't support their exploitation-based monopoly,
Buy Fair Trade!

Now what could this possibly have to do with bananas? Believe it or not, but Europe is a producer. Spain has a small share in the EU's banana production, but the major source is again France. Easily overlooked are the French overseas territories and they practically live from banana cultivation. A lot of Europe's trading partners don't like the tariffs we handle since they give an unfair advantage to French bananas. Luckily for American multinationals, Europe has a demand for bananas which surpasses the own production capacity. The war only commenced once Europe altered its protectionist policies in favor of fair trade...

In 2001 the EU approved the "Everything But Arms"-ordinance. This nice piece of legislation granted a reduction in trade tariffs for the ACP-countries (former European colonies). For the Least-Developed Countries, trade tariffs were abolished altogether. Europe didn't demand any compensations in return, this action was inspired by ethics only! The Commission wanted to stimulate the position of fair trade products to aid the developing world. And indeed, the competitive advantage greatly reduced the price gap between fair trade bananas and the so-called 'dollar bananas'. The difference in your purse between buying Oxfam or buying Chiquita became marginal.

The big American concerns, who grow their bananas at big plantations in Latin America using cheap labour, were not amused. Like an adult whining over some candy given to children, they demanded tariff reductions for themselves too. The World Trade Organization already ruled that the EU falsifies competition and this doesn't sort with their neoliberal dogma. Only free competition between exploitation and fair trade can lead to a better world, say the big boys. Europe has to give up on its supportive measures for fair trade. In the future the price gap will certainly rise. I urge you all to join this war, you can all help make a difference. Corporate exploiters haven't won yet; please stop buying dollar bananas and give the South a chance! Buy fair trade!

Thesis: Wallerstein 2.0

I only just proposed my thesis subject to my promotor. Hopefully, it gets approved because it is what I really want to do. My thesis subject can be situated at the crossroad of all my major interests: economic systems, development in the global South and ecology. What I hope to be preoccupied with for the two years to come is the ecologically unequal exchange. 'Unequal exchange' is a marxist idea signifying a trade in which the price of the traded good does not reflect the actual costs and benefits for both parties. Of course it's a very contested concept.

The Third World Studies Center of Ghent University

Probably the best known application of the concept is its usage in Immanuel Wallerstein's World-systems Analysis. In this theory, Wallerstein argues that a set of core nations (the industrialized North) develops by exploiting the periphery (the global South) trough unequal trade relations. Such ideas were very popular in the 70's but with the rise of neoliberalism it got more and more contested. My thesis will focus on a chance of revival for World-systems Analysis; a chance embodied by the ecologically unequal exchange or EUE.

An EUE is just like the marxist concept, only it focuses specifically on the negative effects of an economic activity on the environment. EUE-theorists claim that often such ecological costs are not included in the pricing mechanism. The result is a product with an artificially low price, the excess value being transfered to the buyer. Can you see where this is going? Indeed, the industrialized North buys not-so-eco-fiendly goods produced in the global South thus extracting the excess value. My goal is to find out whether this effect plays in the real world, outside the field of theory, and in what way it contributes to problematic development in the South.

You all burn a candle for that the promotor may set the light to green and this exciting matter comes my way!

Bush behind bars?

I try to avoid America-bashing since it has become really ordinary; a whole whiny discourse of its own. With an interest in international politics it is however hard to ignore the facts. Reality is that superpowers like the States aren't amongst the most honorable actors on the world stage. Todays newspaper offered me a topic I can't allow to pass by without mentioning: the accountability of former US-president George W. Bush for the violation of human rights.

National hero, war criminal or both?

In the light of the War on Terror, pronounced by president Bush after the September 11 attacks, a lot of policy shifts were made. The one that concerns us here is his decision to allow 'reinforced interrogation techniques' to be used against suspected terrorists. By now Guantanamo and Abu Ghraib have become concepts in itself. In military-penitentiary complexes like these, human rights may be violated to safeguard national security. In the case of Abu Ghraib sheer fun of the occupying forces also was a valid reason for mistreatment. Keep in mind that in a lot of cases the objects of torture were only <u>suspected</u> terrorists. Last time I checked guilt was determined trough a fair trial. Nonetheless president Bush allowed practices such as waterboarding to be used against people that ever got past being accused.

One of the leading NGO's in protecting human rights is Amnesty International (AI). This organization has send a thousand-page report to the Canadian authorities, requesting the apprehension of George W. Bush if he would visit the country as planned for October 20th. The Canadian responded negatively to what they called 'a stunt', but worldwide pressure is big. Bush already had to cancel a trip to Switzerland and if he would visit my country - Belgium - he would be extradited to the International Criminal Court for sure. Now, I do think Bush is responsible for some nasty stuff, but that is not the point of extradition at all. What really matters is that the United States government, and most US citizens for that matter, refuses to accept that its (former) leaders are accountable for their acts. Even, or particularly, when such acts violate the rights of individuals who can not appeal to the US judicial institutions.

The Obama administration has no intention of handing Bush over to international justice, nor does Canada so it seems. The entire topic is highly controversial in the States since the protection of national security seems to be very important to a lot of people. More important than the human rights and dignity of some Muslim guy who probably hates America anyway. All I can say is 'keep the pressure on'. Americans need to learn that they can not intervene outside their own judicial territory without being accountable to anyone.

For those interested in this particular case and its details; you can always take a look at Bugliosi's The Prosecution of George W. Bush For Murder. I haven't read it myself, but it was suggested to me by a good friend. He called it 'comprehensive', for whatever that is worth.

How aid really functions

Ever since the Second World War, several aid programs for the Third World have been called into existence. Most of these initiatives can hardly be called a success. This failure of development aid is partially due to the creative exploits made by the industrialized North. Indeed a lot of misuses exist and today's objective is to expose them.

DEFINING AID

Most important is to give a proper definition of what development aid is. The accepted standard is the 'Official Development Assistance' (ODA) as put forth by the OECD countries. A lot of spending included in ODA is highly controversial. For instance, up till 1990 it was allowed to book military aid as development assistance. Just think of all the 'developing' the United States have done in the Vietnam War... Less striking examples of such misfits include the administrative costs a country makes to deliver aid and the costs attached to the first year of shelter for refugees and asylum seekers. All these positive reductions contribute to a higher number of delivered aid while the benefits for development remain a mystery.

Military assistance is NOT development aid (or is it?)

Another curiosity is the inclusion of humanitarian aid; the kind of emergency aid raised to combat the results of a natural disaster or a food crisis. This is not development aid in a strict sense, yet it was good for almost one tenth of all ODA donated in 2008. My personal favorite amongst the ODA misfits is however debt remission. In 2008, debt remissions made up a staggering 28% of all ODA. While it is true that debt remission lightens the burden that lays on a country it remains an exploit due to the way it is used. The instrument of debt remission is addressed only to avoid default and to keep countries borrowing.

A NOBLE GESTURE

So far for cheating trough accountancy. Up to another sore now: the motives for aid. Why is it that developed countries allocate part of their wealth to the not-so-wealthy? It will not surprise you that 'contributing to a better world' is not the main incentive. A most effective way to make motives for aid visible is to take a look at who is receiving it. If development really was the goal one could expect ODA to flow mainly to the Least Developed Countries (LDC's). Yet a lot of financial means are dedicated to middle-income countries. Between the lines you may read that donor countries subsidize the local purchasing power to the benefit of their own export.

Is world-wide development even possible?

A more explicit manifestation of economic motives is the so-called 'tied aid'. This is to be understood as ODA given under the condition that the money is spent on purchases in the donor country. Old-fashioned and vulgar subsidizing. It is sound to assume that this type of aid will be applied least in the LDC's as their purchasing power is lowest. Figures show that in 2005 almost half of the ODA destined for LDC's was tied aid.

Next to economic motives, geopolitics are an important factor too. At the end of the Cold War, in 1991, Egypt and Israel had a joint share of 41% in the development assistance provided by the United States. Inescapable in this light is the war on terror which provided a new boost for geopolitically motived aid. In the period 1999-2003, means donated by OECD countries to Pakistan increased tenfold. In 2009 Afghanistan and Iraq were the biggest receivers of US paychecks.

CONCLUSION

The facts and figures displayed in this post show a grim image of development aid. Numerous multilateral efforts have been made to correct the highlighted mistakes, but to no avail. My prediction is that until 2015 - the end date for the fulfillment of the Millennium Development Goals - governments will continue as they are. In little over three years time they will come to the conclusion that it didn't work out quite as they planned. But we ought to be confident that civil organizations will remind them; that they will point out their mistakes. And just maybe 2015 can be the start of a new practice of actual development.

Working on the looks

Blogger has some great standard templates you can edit yourself. There is also a nice assortment of images you can pick for a background. Finding one that fits your specific blog is however a little harder than you'd suspect. Therefore, I made myself a custom background and uploaded it to Blogger. It's a mosaic of politics-related logo's. Do you recognize any? I myself find it a lot better than the rather lifeless solid-color background I used until recently. Feel free to comment on the new design, it's only a try-out!

This post is - sadly - a short one since I have lots of work to do. University wants me to pick a subject for my thesis real soon. Maybe something to blog about next? :p