Author: kasmir

Frozen Priorities, Cold Interests and some Issues

The priorities of the United States are based, with some variety of degrees, on the same basis of the nations reviewed so far: economic and strategic/military. Alaska, as was mentioned in the previous part, it is the strategic linchpin cleavage and pivotal point for any US Arctic involvement, either in the nearby areas or the Arctic Ocean. This strategic importance is increased by the recent Russian assertive actions and the posibility of aiding Canada and the European allies, which might be affected by Russia.

The Economic Side

In terms of Economics, the first priority is to gain and secure access to resources that are present in the Alaskan Arctic areas and in the waters in front of it. Those resources are oil, natural gas, methane hydrates, minerals and marine species. Sovereignty is deemed to be exerted in order to secure those resources and to also provide better protection to the environment and develop resources in the area (Andersen & Perry, 2012; The White House, 2009). As a matter of fact, it is estimated that in the Alaskan Arctic there could be over 30 billion barrels of oil, 221 trillion cubic feet of natural gas plus additional 85.4 trillion cubic feet. Coal, non – mineral resources, zinc, lead, copper, gold, silver, rare mineral material along with important commercial fisheries, timber and fresh water are also present in the area. These are the resources that the United States can develop, exploit and take advantage. But also those are the resources that needs to be secured (Andersen & Perry, 2012; O’Rourke, 2014; Conley & Kraut, 2010).

Nevertheless, oil and gas reserves are the most important resources that can provide a certain amount of energetic independence, complementing other exploration and extraction sites such as the Gulf of Mexico or the Atlantic Coastline and sidelining sources that are far from stability along with the problem of prices should a disruption takes place (Andersen & Perry, 2012). This also provides an advantage besides the mere energetic independence in the sense that dependence on unsecure, long and vulnerable lines of supply is simply avoided. In this sense the United States faces a similar dilemmaas the one faced by the European Union[i], and at some extent Russia. This demand might increase the stakes when the competition for the control of resources unleashes and increases in intensity.

Additionally, there is the issue of the Arctic melting and the opening of new commercial routes, where Alaska is located not only in front of the Bering Strait but is also at the gates of the Northwest and Northern Sea Route. These routes, for instance, could provide China, Japan, and South Korea cheap routes to export goods to North American and European markets (O’Rourke, 2014; Conley & Kraut, 2010). Along with commercial shipping, the traffic in the area is related to resources extraction and transport, supply transit to the communities inhabiting the region, and cruise ships for tourist purposes (O’Rourke, 2014). This of course drives the United States to fulfil its own need of exerting sovereignty, not only for the control of the transit on its territorial waters (and of the Northwest Route), but also of every activity that can pose a risk to the nation itself or even to provide a fast answer to any situation of emergency in the area.

The Strategic/Military Side

This takes us to the military priorities and interest that the United States has in the Arctic in the strategic/military aspect. As a first, the Arctic was of strategic importance for the United States facing the Soviet threat during the Cold War. Even during the Second World War, the Arctic was important for the country. The prospects of an occupation of Greenland by the Third Reich and its utilization as a platform for attacks against America and the transatlantic shipping concerned the US (Andersen & Perry, 2012)[ii]. An agreement with the exiled Danish government and American military presence followed. During the Cold War the Thule Air Force Base was created. This base had the purpose of providing a forward base for the Strategic air Command’s nuclear bombers until the introduction of nuclear submarines and ballistic missiles (Andersen & Perry, 2012).

Radars of the American – Canadian Distant Early Warning network were also to be deployed at Greenland, and its extension ranged from Greenland to Alaska, all throughout the Arctic coastline of both Canada and the United States. The network and the infrastructure was completed and became fully operational by 1993, and they are still operating as the integrated defence system of the US – Canadian North American Aerospace Defence Command (NORAD) (Andersen & Perry, 2012). Additionally and during the Cold War, the area was used by both superpowers and their allies as a yard for air and naval manoeuvres and the testing of nuclear ballistic missiles (O’Rourke, 2014).

Currently, the United States seeks to be able to conduct early warning and missile defence operations, to deploy air and naval defence forces to support strategic deterrence, execute global airlift and sealift, maintain maritime presence, and the secure freedom of navigation and overflights in the Arctic (Andersen & Perry, 2012). Terrorism is also another strategic – and security – interest for the country, mainly in regards to preventing and/or mitigating the effects of terrorist attacks or the potential of such a threat in the area. Needless to say, it is also of strategic importance for the United States to secure the access to resources in the aforementioned areas – given its condition as coastal Arctic State – trough sovereignty (Andersen & Perry, 2012; The White House, 2009; The White House, 2013).

Beyond those priorities, there are some current issues that provides an idea of how much the Arctic is once again important for the geopolitical and security interests of the United States. 9/11, for instance, brought back the importance of the radar network for homeland security and terrorist attack prevention. NORAD also received maritime warning in addition to the air-space surveillance tasks it had in the light of post 9/11 activities and the melting of the ice caps. But the resuming of bomber patrol flights by Russia and the increased intensity of those flights near Alaska and Canadia Arctic air space have incresed the attention given to the radar network[iii]. Three command posts are based at Alaska and since those three posts are held by one person, he or she can draw, if not to station, advanced fighters – such as the newest Lockheed F22 Raptor – to defend Alaskan airspace (Andersen & Perry, 2012; Conley & Kraut, 2010)[iv].

Alaska is also a key, if not central, element for the United States ballistic missile defence. Indeed, one of the Ballistic Missile Early Warning System (BMEWS) radars have been deployed in Alaska[v]. A high-capacity radar has also been deployed in one of the Aleutian Islands and nearly 20 mid-course interceptor missiles are on to be deployed for the purpose of providing an anti-ballistic shield for American territory. A satellite network control facility is also deployed at the Thule Air Force Base, where it could be potentially used as an air -naval harbour with fuel facilities (Andersen & Perry, 2012).

The geographical location of Alaska itself would seem to be ideal for placing defences against missiles attacks originating from Russia, Iran, China, and North Korea. Additionally Alaska could provide a platform for operating sea – based missile defence assets like the Aegis cruisers of the US Navy thanks to the melting ice. The deployment of American nuclear submarines armed with ballistic nuclear missiles for attacks and patrols in the area have been a constant since the Cold War and it still seems to be relevant for the United States Navy for deterrence and attack purposes (Andersen & Perry, 2012; Conley & Kraut, 2010). O’Rourke (2014) mentions that Canada, the United States, and Denmark executed a joint naval exercise in Canadian Arctic waters in 2010.

The fact that the ice cap is melting could, as Andersen & Perry (2012) remark, provide a sort of operational complement for the US Navy submarines with the increased presence of surface combatants which, in turn, can use the Arctic as a strategic passage to project itself and reach any point. This could also ease any sealift as well as airlift. The F22s could fly from Alaska to any base in Japan or Europe being able to reinforce those areas following a crisis in short time, while the C-17 Globemaster transport aircraft can reach Europe or any location in the Pacific. Those airplanes can supply bases in short time as well or even carry humanitarian supplies if needed at any location in the Pacific or Europe, taking advantage of Alaska’s location (Andersen & Perry, 2012).

On the soft or secondary security aspects, the Coast Guard operates between 2 to 3 icebreakers and requires 3 heavy and 3 medium icebreakers to perform operations during winter and summer seasons, plus 6 heavy and 4 medium icebreakers for a permanent operational presence (O’Rourke, 2014). Those assets are needed to perform any activity in the area related to emergency response and policing. The Coast Guard is in need of more assets and infrastructure to carry out search and rescue operations and to provide a quick response to any emergency situation.

Actions made in this regard included the establishment of a Task Force and agreements between the Arctic Countries for Search and Rescue operations (O’Rourke, 2014). Those operations are an interest and priority by default for the United States. New assets are in necessity for the United States Coast Guard to enhance its operational capacities related to search and rescue and emergency response, as well as exercising sovereignty and policing the Alaskan arctic waters.

Pending Issues

One of the reimaining issues is if the mentioned actions are enough for the United States to achieve its objectives. And also even if the priorities and issues are fully satisfied and met. Or if the contrary, more actions are needed to be implemented. It is clear at this point that the Arctic – and Alaskan – strategic importance is valued accurately. But it is one thing is to provide a correct assessment and estimation, and another is to do the actions that provide strength to those assessments and estimations. This is especially so when it is very clear that: first, the Arctic will increasingly become a geopolitical hotspot – with all of the consequences – as well as an important region hosting two sea lines of communication; and second, that cooperation and hopes of a low risk of conflict in the area are fading away day-by-day with the renewed aggressive and assertive actions made by Russia.

However, the core question is whether the United States is fully prepared to defend its Arctic area  and to defend its allies, their respective interests and territories in the Arctic/High North. And how prepared is the United Stated to address properly any highly potential situation of conflict with Russia – or China – should the Arctic become the main scenario or just one scenario of an open confrontation between the United Stated, Europe andUS and Europe. Also, how the United Stated is ready to react if Russia executes any aggression in the Baltics, Scandinavia or Ukraine, aggression that could invove the Arctic as well. The next and last part will solve these questions and provide a set of recommendations that should be followed by the United States, if it wants to protect its Arctic interests and perform well as a partner for the security of its North american and European Arctic allies.

Sources

Conley, H.; & Kraut, J (2010). U.S. Strategic Interests in the Arctic. An Assessment for Current Challenges and New Opportunities for Cooperation. Washington, USA: Center for Strategic & International Studies.

Hensley, N (2014). Russian bombers on training missions intercepted by U.S. fighter jets off coast off Alaska. Retrieved from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/russian-bombers-spotted-u-s-fighter-jets-alaska-article-1.1896572 on 16.08.2014

O’Rourke, R (2014). Changes in the Arctic: Background and Issue for Congress. Washington, USA: Congressional Research Service.

Perry, C. M; & Andersen, B (2012). Chapter 3. The Arctic Five: Priorities, Policies, & Programs. The United States. In: New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region: Implications for National Security and Cooperation (pp. 98 – 131). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.

The White House (2009). National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. Retrieved from: http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm on 19.06.2014.

The White House (2013). National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Washington DC; USA.

____

[i] Situation that is not a problem for Norway, for instance.

[ii] During World War II the North Atlantic was an important area, where supplies were transported from America to the United Kingdom. Thus the strategic need to protect that area.

[iii] See: Hensley, N (2014). Russian bombers on training missions intercepted by U.S. fighter jets off coast off Alaska. Retrieved from: http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/russian-bombers-spotted-u-s-fighter-jets-alaska-article-1.1896572 on 16.08.2014

[iv] The main command post is the Alaskan NORAD Region (ANR), and the person posted there holds also the Alaska Command (ALCOM), a – component – command of the US Pacific Command (USPACOM), and the Eleventh Air Force Command (11 AF). The 11 AF is part of the USPACOM Pacific Air Force (PACAF), and this fact allows the commander to draw the fighters or any other air asset under that command.

[v] The other two of the whole system were deployed in Greenland and in the United Kingdom.

____

* Cover image ‘Alaska National Guard‘ by The National Guard

By Tochukwu Akunyili

One might define development as the achievement of a reasonable standard of living by the members of a society. The other might define development as the provision of the basic necessities of life by the government of a state to the citizens of that state. But the cynic might well define development as what the public policies and governance efforts of a lot of African and Asian countries have attempted to achieve with minimal success since the past sixty years.

Whilst definitions may defer, it is nonetheless the case that most human beings provided with the sufficient knowledge and experiences will know and understand development when they encounter it. Here, I attempt over the top of my head to articulate the characters of a developed society and therefore what all developing countries must strive towards:

1) Democratization and Evolution of an Endemic Form of Good Governance: democracy, since developed by the ancient Greeks is hailed as the best form of governance because it satisfies the innate long-abiding long-cherished desire of each human being to be free and to determine his or her own future. Much as this desire to determine our futures and be the lords and ladies of our lives is not yet achieved in today’s (also western-style) democracies at the ideal level of direct citizen participation in state legislation and governance, developing countries must still strive towards democratization. In this effort at democratization, the peoples of the developing nations must endeavour to evolve a system that is endemic to them. In this evolution of an endemic system, they must refrain from an unscrutinised adoption of the characteristic features of the western (which these days are usually the US American- , the British- or the French-) style democracies. This is not only because such and unchecked adoption is likely to fail but because it has been failing since the curtain dropped on colonialism. Since historical evidence has shown that the adoption of the British, French or US American systems of democratic governance was for these countries the exemplar analogy of forcing the square peg in the round hole, the system of democratic governance that will succeed in these countries must therefore answer to the particular needs of the peoples of these developing countries. This system of democratic governance must be cognizant of the dynamics of life, history and culture in these societies; must bring out the best in their local systems and must be able to cohere and possibly merge with these local systems of democratic good governance.

2) Provision of an improved quality of life: this is perhaps the first goal of all (developing?) societies for even developed and autocratic societies must have the goal of improving the quality of life of their citizens.  The articulation of what the improved life consists in has been attempted by scholars from times past with varying degrees of success. With varying degrees of success because it is often the case that sometimes governments, international organizations, NGOs and academics try to limit the components of human life to a number or an indicator, say the national Average Life Expectancy or the GDP per capita. Such attempts, at best simplistic, to capture what makes the quality of human life improved or not fail because the components of human lives are multiple and qualitatively distinct such that to avail the Aristotelian fully functioning human life, states must be cognizant of the multiplicity and distinctness of human needs and endeavour to provide these. The highly lauded Human Development Report (HDR) of the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) is a classic, and so far, perhaps, the most successful attempt at capturing the various indicators of development in and components of the fully functioning human life in an index. A scanning through pages of the 2014 HDR of the UNDP offers an idea of the several components of human life.

3) Establishment of a Welfare State Structure: any developing society must lay the foundations through which it will provide its citizens with social support. This is particularly true and cogent in African states where globalization, rapid unplanned urbanization, reduction in total fertility rate (TFR) and industrialization are changing the traditional character of statehood and society. The more proactive that developing countries are at meeting the challenges posed by these changes the more easily they can avoid a social policy lacuna that will be very detrimental to their countries in the coming decades.

4) Heightened proactivity with social protection issues: Point #3 above speaks of a plan that will take no less than 5 years but possibly a 10 year period or more of committed efforts to achieve. In the meantime, developing countries must use social protection to impact on citizens’ lives, creating programs that have a short gestation period. Some of these issues of social protection have high coverage in the radar of NGOs, civil society organizations and UN agencies like UNICEF (see for instance UNICEF Nigeria’s efforts at grassroots sensitization), UNDP, IOM, ILO, FAO amongst others. Some of the social policy issues developing countries need focus on include:

• Education: One cannot belabour the need for an educated citizenry. The only commentary I must add here is that high school and tertiary education curriculums must emphasize both theory and practice. Technical education must be encouraged and education must be re-geared towards empowering people not just with theoretical knowledge but with skills and knowhow that will make them independent.
• Girl Child: in development circles, it is an acknowledged truth that the multiplicity effect of achieved by the education of the girl child is great and often larger than that achieved by the education of the boy child. The reasoning goes thus that to achieve more with less development plans should focus on areas with more multiplicity effects. This multiplicity effect achieved by empowering the girl child is called the girl effect. The #girleffect is the idea that a girl appropriately raised and educated breaks a cycle of poverty, ill health, spread of diseases like HIV among others.
• Water and Sanitation: correlate directly to having a healthy living and staying disease free. It is imperative on developing nations to provide these not only to ensure a healthy citizenry but also to free up the time and energies of women and girls who usually have the task of travelling miles on foot to provide water for domestic use.
• Power and Energy: developing countries must avail citizens of affordable sources of energy. In doing this, governments must think of ways through which they will reach the millions who are at the bottom of the economic pyramid.
• Food Security: ensuring food security is a duty that is mandatory for developing countries. Faced with a lack of resources, they must still find innovative ways of providing food security through public private sector collaborations, liaison with international donor agencies and advanced in food and agricultural engineering to ensure a provision of the basic daily requirements to their peoples.
• Fully Employment Economies: each developing country must have a realizable plan for keeping its economy at full employment after a certain number of years. In the meantime, they must generate Labour Offices (the German Agentur für Arbeit could serve as a model) that will be charged with unemployment relations.
• Regionalization: developing countries must also strive for economic and social regionalization, by so doing, they will achieve at some point not just a social and economic integration but also the quasi-cultural integration much needed for the realization of the social and economic integration. This is one of the reasons why the efforts towards creating a unified economic and monetary union in the ECOWAS sub-region is welcome idea – provided the necessary conditions are satisfied and necessary checks and balances put in place.
• Transportation: having a good network of roads and rail lines is necessary not just for the movement of goods and peoples but also for the processes of industrialization and regionalization that developing countries must strive towards. Such network of roads and rails must link neighbouring countries and economies and must be expediently constructed to satisfy the already existing trade routes between these countries. The development of rail lines in a country like Nigeria where they are largely non-existent will help keep pressure off the roads since cargo is best transported by rail and since a train carries hundreds of people more than a car or bus ever can. This will enable roads last longer and reduce the spate of accidents one witnesses daily on the highways.
• Female Empowerment: development does not just mean economic or social development, development also incorporates human development. For this reason, as developing countries strive for social and economic development, they must also strive to improve their human capital. The emancipation of women through education, avoidance of early, forced and coerced marriages, provision of access to justice and provision of inheritance rights must be pursued also at full throttle.

5) Accountability: developing countries must build into their development agenda institutional safeguards that ensure accountability. The citizens of these countries must of their own accord put the flashlights on their public servants. The aim is to make public office so translucent that there is no hidden aspiration lurking behind the mind of the public office aspirant other than service to his/her people. Institutions of public accountability, like civil and customary courts, must be provided and made efficient, just and effective.

These ladies and gentlemen are ideas off the top of my head on what developing countries need for further better and a more integrated- and result-oriented development.

Your ideas and comments are welcome.

Author Biography

Tochukwu Akunyili is a graduate student of public policy at the University of Erfurt Germany. He is interested in management and development consulting, international development, climate issues and global affairs.

You can find him on his blog & Twitter

*This article was originally published on his website Tochukwu Akunyili . You can read it here.

*Cover image ‘Construction ground‘ byArttu Manninen

Background

The EU and the US had previously imposed sanctions against Russia in March for the annexation of Crimea from Ukraine after Crimea’s referendum was considered to be illegitimate since it violated the Ukrainian constitution and international law. The sanctions imposed included travel bans for citizens from Russia and the freezing of Russian and Ukrainian officials’ assets.

After the annexation of Crimea, pro-Russian protests broke out in Eastern Ukraine. The cities of Donetsk and Luhansk were affected the most as pro-Russian militants seized control of governmental buildings. Russia, the EU, the US and Ukraine have been trying to de-escalate the situation in the region ever since.

On May the 11^th, the militants in Donetsk and Luhansk declared independence from Ukraine after more referendums were held. Just as with Crimea, the vote was not recognized by Ukraine or the West. On the 25^th of May, Petro Poroshenko was elected president of Ukraine and since then progress has been made against the pro-Russian separatists.

Ukrainian forces have been fighting the separatists to restore peace and order in the east of the country. In the meantime, Russia has been accused by the west of not doing enough the de-escalate the crisis in Ukraine. There has been evidence in the past that Russia was aiding the separatists with weaponry, money and militants.

On the 27^th of June, Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia signed an association agreement with the EU as part of the Eastern Partnership Program (EaP). This agreement improves relations between these countries and the EU in terms of trade and political assistance. Although these countries have EU membership aspirations, it is important to note that this agreement is not a membership promise. Russia perceives this agreement as a threat to its interests and stated that trade with these former Soviet countries might suffer consequences.

Ukraine crisis reaches peak

On the 17^th of July, a Malaysia Airlines Flight (MH17) carrying passengers from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur was shot down whilst flying over Donetsk in eastern Ukraine. All passengers, mainly Dutch nationals, and crew members aboard the flight were killed.

Petro Poroshenko called it an act of terrorism. Ukraine blames the pro-Russian separatists for the crash. In return, Russian president Vladimir Putin blames the military campaign of Ukraine against the rebels for the crash. In a TV interview Putin stated that “This tragedy would not have happened, if there had been peace on that land, or in any case, if military operations in southeastern Ukraine had not been renewed,” and that “without a doubt the government of the territory on which it happened bears responsibility for this frightening tragedy.”

The Netherlands started a war crime investigation into the shooting down of the plane. EU representatives Herman Van Rompuy and José Manuel Barroso called for an immediate and detailed investigation into the crash.

Governments in the West accuse pro-Russian separatists and Russia for the attack on the plane with a Russian missile having confused it with a military plane from Ukraine. Russia denies being involved. US president Barack Obama supports the investigation and claimed that separatists were obstructing the investigation and were moving evidence. He also stated that it is Russia’s responsibility to stop rebels from interfering with the investigation.

Additional sanctions

After the attack on flight MH 17 there has been pressure on the EU to act. However, due to fighting between the government and separatists, access to the crash site is difficult and is hampering the investigation.

On Tuesday the 29^th of July, the US and the EU announced additional sanctions against Russia. Obama said that the sanctions were focused on weakening Russia’s economy so that the price for supporting the rebels would become higher. US sanctions targeted three Russian banks by banning US citizens from banking with them. President Obama also said that the energy, finance and armament sector would also be affected. The president stated that “if Russia continues on this current path, the costs on Russia will continue to grow.”

The EU also adopted sanctions targeting Russia’s economy. Russian institutions owned by the state will have limited access to EU markets. An embargo on the trade of armaments will be imposed and Russia’s access to sensitive technologies in the oil sector will be restricted.

However, whether or not these sanctions will change Russia’s attitude in resolving the Ukraine crisis is yet to be determined. Russia claims to be innocent but how true is this? Almost all agree that the reality is that a Russian surface-to-air BUK missile, fired from the rebel-held area of Donetsk near the Russian border, shot down MH17. If Russia is truly innocent, where else would the separatists have gotten their weapons, and training, from?

*Cover image ‘sanctions‘ by Asian Media

The reasons behind the engagement of women in terrorism

Female participation in jihadist terrorist groups has been increasing in recent years. But what is the reason behind this shift? Could it be because Islamist terrorist groups that used to ban women from taking on violent roles have changed their approach? Or is it the opposite; have female jihadists grown tired of being in the background?

Women used to be kept away from violence and their participation in terrorist groups was limited to sheltering fugitives, raising funds, gathering intelligence, oiling machines and hardly ever went beyond that.

Revenge, Redemption, Relationship, Respect and Rape.

Mia M. Bloom, author of Bombshell: The Many Faces of Women Terrorists, argues that female terrorist motivations vary from terrorist group to group. The author identifies five main reasons why women engage in terrorist activities and suicide bombing, namely: revenge, redemption, relationship, respect and rape.

Revenge is a main driver for women to turn to suicide bombing, as they want to avenge the death of a beloved. Reasons such as redeeming themselves or gaining respect also play a role in their decision. Some women resort to terrorist acts to restore their honour after being raped, as they would be seen as a martyr, dying for their cause and therefore restoring their honour.

Gender-neutral, Feminine Honor and Social Structures

Ken Sofer, Associate Director of the National Security and International Policy team at American Progress along with Jennifer Addison (no additional information), argue that radicalization is a gender-neutral process and that it occurs due to a mixture of economic, political, and social factors, including economic conditions, lack of political rights, or military occupation. Factors such as stress and psychology also play a role in turning a radical into a terrorist.

Both authors believe that the incentives for women to carry out suicide attacks are related to their experience within a conflict zone and their desire to redeem feminine honour. Feminine honour refers to their purity and is considered to be very important in communities located in the Middle East and Southern Asia. If a woman’s purity is violated, such as in the case of rape, the shame she feels is shared by her family. Terrorism in the form of suicide is viewed by radicals as martyrdom as a way to achieve redemption and to restore their honour. The inability of having children is also seen as a loss of honour as it leads to divorce. It can also damage a woman’s reputation as she is seen as being “unmarriageable”.

Social structures that encourage inequality and dependency for women also create pressure that would influence a radicalized woman to commit terrorist acts such as suicide. Suicide in this case can be seen as a way to reach an equal social status. Dependency is also a strong factor because many women don’t have access to education and when their husbands die they struggle to maintain their families. Some terrorist groups take advantage of this situation and promise to take care of their families if they agree to commit a suicide attack.

Equal participation, Nationalism and Religion

Lindsey O’Rourke, Postdoctoral Research Fellow in International Security and U.S. Foreign Policy at the Dickey Center for International Understanding at Dartmouth College, argues in her research that the reasons and conditions that encourage women to become suicide bombers are similar to men’s.

Around 95% of suicide attacks carried out by women were executed against foreign forces that occupy their territory. They want to maintain the sovereignty of their territory for their ethnic group. Lindsey states that the motivation that drives suicide bombers (both male and female) is loyalty towards their communities and grievances against the occupying foreign forces.

Humanitarian Aid, House Chores, Better Life, Supporting Fellows

There are different perspectives and reasons as to why women want to go to conflict zones, such as Syria and Iraq. Some of the women who travel to Syria marry jihadists and fighters. Others go in pursuit of a better life. Many claim that they want to carry out chores for male fighters such as cooking, cleaning and delivering humanitarian aid. These women believe that they are providing support to fellow Muslims.

Media, Lack of Female Security Staff

Female participation in terrorist groups is sometimes encouraged by the leader of a group as women attract more attention from the media. They are being used as propaganda tools to encourage men to join or increase their participation in terrorist activities.

Women are also being used as suicide bombers as they look less suspicious in public areas since they are good for hiding bombs, sometimes under their religious attire or with fake breast implants or pregnancy as they attract less attention. This allows them to be overlooked by counterterrorism measures; for example being able to pass through a security checkpoint in a conflict area without being detected.

Countries need to step up their efforts to counter this increasing threat. They need to hire and train more female personnel to conduct security checks on women, mainly in conflict zones, so that explosives can be detected and an act of terrorism can be prevented. The perception that a woman is weak and incapable of conducting terrorist acts has to be changed. Times have changed not only for women in the West but also for those female jihadists who want to be considered as equals and actively participate in the terrorist organization.

*Cover image ‘Elderly Armenian Woman Guards Home‘ by United Nations Photo

Matteo Renzi’s new offer of a United States of Europe is a beacon of hope both for the continent and for Italy itself.

“For my children’s future I dream, think and work for the United States of Europe”

“Matteo Renzi”

n a recent speech, the Prime Minister of Italy Matteo Renzi made a statement that was of great surprise for the European Union and for Italy itself. A great surprise for the European Union because it takes steps on one of the most polemic, complicated yet desirable and needed issue: a much more closer and stronger political union rather than a mere economic one. A great surprise for Italy since it sets the course the country, under the lead of Mr Renzi, will take now that it has taken the lead of the EU this week. it also depicts the role that Italy – according to Matteo Renzi – is to play, as part of plans to turn it into an important actor within the Union’s politics (as it was mentioned in my previous article about Italy). And it is also a good indication that a country that had a hard decade by being hit by the crisis is ready to rise again and play an important role in the construction of the European Union.

But what is exactly the “United States of Europe” idea that the Italian Prime Minister strongly supports and wants to push for? It worth to be mentioned that this idea is quite old, Winston Churchill being among the first voices claiming for its creation. He stated that such step was a necessary one at some point as the nations unwilling to unite would have to be left behind. He also stated that the United States of Europe would overcome the material power of a single state while including the contributions of small nations to the common cause of rebuilding and strengthening Europe. Most importantly, the idea of the United States of Europe would have as main aim the provision of peace, safety and freedom.

How would the “United States of Europe” a la Renzi be? Clearly one of his main objectives is to have Italy make have an important contribution to the project of the European Union. But he also has another objective in mind: to tackle the worrisome rise of populist (and nationalist) Eurosceptic parties by the offering an ideal of a Europe that does not stands only on the sole economic realm but also can sail through the unchartered waters of the political realm. This path is to be taken while reminding everyone that Europe has both a past and a destiny impossible to escape and mandatory to fulfil – and that only a strong unity can help Europe to face many of the challenges it faces, external and/or internal.

This is indeed a huge objective and a great opportunity for Italy – and Renzi himself – to contribute to the rescue of the European Union after the Eurocrisis and the spark of anti-European sentiment all across the continent. Beyond any doubt, this will the main pillar of his foreign policy which, in turn, is on to be reinforced by other objectives that might appear unrelated to the idea of the “United States of Europe”. In reality, they are very close and they might even be the complementary and specifictopics that can aid on the materialization of the USE. The push for certain reforms on structure and fiscal areas are the first of these complementary and specific objectives. The economic growth is the second. Fiscal flexibility is the keyword of these complementary objectives. Additionally, energy security, migration, youth unemployment, investment for medium- and small- enterprises and tax reforms are the other topics that Italy seeks to work on during its six-month Presidency.

But this great opportunity has to face some important obstacles. At the moment, the struggle waged by the United Kingdom regarding the nomination of Juncker for the Presidency of the European Commission, leading to a crisis where the UK is on the potential brink of leaving the Union, is just one. In turn, Italy has to face with Britain’s own ideas regarding the path the European integration should take, opposed to its own. And as a second obstacle, Italy has to convince the EU rich countries that to ease the fiscal rules is not a path towards a public overspending (again).

Beyond any question, Italy is not only on the verge of putting an end to a turbulent half a dozen years, but also to play a big role in Europe and even in the world by influencing and – hopefully – materializing or at least preparing the Union to take the very necessary step of a full political Union. That Union is not only for the sake of, as Churchill said, the small European nations but for the Union and the continent itself. Europe is at the crossroads of becoming an important actor in international politics and in the security and stability of the world, not to mention its economic role that it plays currently. This United States of Europe might make Europe not only united, but strong and ready to face together the adversities to come.

Let’s hope that Italy can make of this presidency the greatest of recent history, if not a milestone itself for the European Union and the world. If it does so, the name of Renzi will go to the history books as the man that saved and reshaped Europe. And Italy, in turn, could give to Europe a contribution as important as the Renaissance in the 15th century, bringing back again the light to a continent that like in those times, is sailing under a huge black storm. The outcome could be simply significant for the nation itself.

Image: ‘Herculaneum – flags EU and Italian’ courtesy of Elliott Brown via Flickr, released under Creative Commons.

Analysis of the state of Italy in the wake of the European elections and the agenda of Matteo Renzi.

The two last decades has been unstable for one of the important nations of Europe, especially in two areas: politics – with Berlusconi as one of the main protagonist – and economics. To make matters worse, both areas had merged after thefinancial crisis of 2008, by which Italy was among the first European nations to be affected, and reaching as a consequence 123% of GDP in public debt – the second highest in the Eurozone. This last period is the one that has taken its toll on the country, compromising its stability. By earlier 2008, Berlusconi assumed the seat of Prime Minister for a third time; in November of the same year, Italy was declared in recession.

Those two events were the starting point: from 2009 to 2013 Italy saw the downfall of Berlusconi and the conformation of three different coalitions that named three different prime ministers in the “post-Berlusconi era” (Mario Monti, Enrico Letta and Matteo Renzi). Of course, Berlusconi’s party – the People of Freedom Party – and Berlusconi himself played an important role in the political crisis but after his trials and convictions, his power was never the same again. In the same way, the crisis was a central actor in the Italian situation. Austerity policies were applied with different receptions from the politicians and the people. Votes of confidence were given to Berlusconi in 2009 and 2011, but the increasing debt and pressure on the economy led to his downfall. However, in the cases of Mario Monti and Enrico Letta, austerity programmes also led to the dissolution of their premierships. In the case of the former, left-wing and protest parties gained ground in the regional polls, while in the case of the latter protests led to Letta’s resignation.

This year the current prime minister, Matteo Renzi, had to face a hard challenge, posed mainly by the former comedian Beppe Grillo, whose party (Five Star Movement) won a 26.5% share of the vote while Berlusconi’s party (Forza Italia) took 18%. The Democratic Party, the party of the current Prime Minister, got 33% of the vote. What can be deduced from these results and the current political trends? In the first place, Renzi has to face the same challenge that his predecessors faced: economics.  Even more, he is facing the task of leading the recovery of an economy that was among the most hard-hit in Europe. Grillo and his Five Star Movement are also a challenge, at least for the pro-EU side of Italy and the political stability of the country.

Is there then a light at the end of the tunnel for Italy? As a matter of fact, the victory means that Italy it is still a strong pro-EU nation, despite the fact that even Mr Renzi has called for reforms to be made in Brussels while praising the Union itself. The other element that might provide a light within the storm is the economic ideas of Renzi. His “Renzinomics” stands on less austerity and the creation of jobs and growth, via reformation of tax system, the labour market and bureaucracy. Surprisingly, he aims at reforming the senate by reducing its power, and also wants to introduce a new electoral law in which the winning party could be able to avoid the path of conforming coalitions. Instability then would be tackled by these reforms and the economy could receive an important amount of oxygen. That Italy will receive the rotating EU presidency is another cornerstone of his politics – not to say an important boost – where he aims to give Italy an influential voice in the Union.

There are big challenges for the country itself, which now stands at a crossroads: it can take the path of a so desired – and needed stability – or to go back to the unstable path of populism and demagogy.

Image: ‘Consiglio Europeo, conferenza stampa di Renzi’ courtesy of Palazzo Chigi via Flickr, released under Creative Commons.

By Daniel Jones

The 2014 European elections will be remembered in the UK as a time in which the debate as to the direction in which Europe is heading was more polarised than it has
ever been before. Europhiles now find themselves swimming against an ever-strengthening current of rejection of an ever-closer union, their voices lost within a
sea of cries demanding British ties to the European Union be severed once and for all. This can be attributed to the looming threat of a referendum which will, in all
likelihood, see Britain pull up the drawbridge to its European neighbours, and to the popularity of Eurosceptic party which has swallowed up more ground on the right of
the political spectrum faster than Nigel Farage has been able to finish off those pints of ale with which he is famously pictured.

Additionally, the 2014 elections will also be remembered for drawing attention to the Eurosceptic cause, and for compelling Europhiles to make a stronger, more
vocal case for Europe. While, in the lead-up to these elections, social media became littered with images of voters visibly rejecting UKIP’s policies through torn-up leaflets, many across the country were turning to the party as a means by which to turn back the clock on perceived troubles, such as high unemployment, strong levels of immigration and lingering domestic financial difficulties. The party’s triumphant victory in these elections, and its infiltration into Scottish territory – an occurrence
which would have otherwise been unimaginable for a nation which has long advocated the embracement of left-wing ideals – has helped UKIP to shake off its
image as a target for much ridicule, and has instead placed it among the contenders to become kingmakers in the Westminster Parliament following the 2015 General
election. However, is the groundswell of UKIP support symptomatic of a more general unease with domestic policy being outsourced to the European institutions?
This article examines the cases of Greece and Germany – the former being widely perceived to have been most adversely affected by the recent global economic
downturn, the latter seen to be a soft ‘leader’ in Europe – to find out.

Against a backdrop of governmental fracture, soaring levels of unemployment and a Troika seizure of the country’s financial reins in an attempt to regain control
over a national debt crisis which threatened to spiral out of control, it comes as little surprise that the more sovereignty Greece has found itself obligated to sacrifice to
the EU, the more support for this international body has dwindled. For example, Nanou and Verney (2013) found that negative attitudes towards the EU in Greece almost tripled in the three year period from November 2009 to November 2012 (those holding a negative opinion of the EU rising from 14% to 49% respectively).

The 2014 European Parliament elections have seen this increased hostility towards supranational representation translated into a victory for Syriza, a left-wing party
which has advocated the reversal of austerity measures put in place by the EU, and the return of three neo-Nazi MEPs from the Golden Dawn party.

Given the upsurge in support for Eurosceptic parties on British shores, it is tempting to draw parallels and conclude that a comparable anti-EU sentiment has
unwantedly flourished in Greece . However, it is worth noting that the conditions under which opposition to EU governance has proliferated in the Hellenic Republic
are discernibly dissimilar to those which are felt on British shores – where the Troika has become a ubiquitous presence in the day-to-day management of Greece’s
financial incomings and outgoings, Britain has found a convenient scapegoat for its recent economic difficulties in the shape of the EU’s freedom of movement policy.
The Mediterranean nation’s misrepresentation of its financial situation – and thus, lack of readiness to enter the Eurozone – has been held responsible for the
economic turmoil it has experienced in recent years. Britain, on the other hand, has been content to take a step back and point a finger at its Southern European
counterparts for lighting the fuse which caused the economic bubble to burst, and which in turn necessitated the bankrolling of what seemed to be European neighbour
after European neighbour.

Turning our attention now to the opposite end of the spectrum of difficulty in weathering the recent global economic downturn, and to a European nation viewed
as sitting at the altar of financial solvency and credibility, Germany has not been left unblemished by the events of recent years in terms of opposition to the EU. Whilst
the EU has continued to cultivate support among a majority of Germans (a poll by the German Marshall Fund finding in 2011 that 76% of Germans supported
supranational representation), the panoply of bailout requests which the German people have found themselves obliged to finance appears to have dented support for
the common currency project (with the aforementioned poll finding that only 48% were in favour of monetary union).

German disenfranchisement with monetary union has given rise to Eurosceptic party Alternative für Deutschland (AfD), which does not advocate
severing ties with the EU in line with its counterparts in other European nations, but instead calls for a looser union of nations, focussed solely upon free trade.
Following the most recent elections in 2013, and mere months after its inception, the party did not surpass the 5% threshold necessary to enter the German Bundestag.
However, the absence of restrictions in this year’s European parliamentary elections allowed the weight of responsibility and strain the German people felt at being
obliged to finance many of its European neighbours’ bailout packages to be converted into political representation, with AfD gaining seven MEPs.

It is perhaps Chancellor Merkel’s pivotal role in key decisions over the course of the Barroso Commission Presidency – including the conditions imposed upon
Greece in exchange for its bailout packages, the mitigation of the British threat to leave the EU, and the appointment of recently-elected Commission President
Juncker – which has served to offset any potential diminution in support for the EU project. Nonetheless, the position which Chancellor Merkel has found herself in is a
unique one, and it cannot be expected that the EU’s 28 Member States seek to use their national office-holders as figureheads to plug potentially declining levels of
support for the European project. This informal German leadership of the EU, coupled with the ideology of the AfD party and the reasons behind its entry into the
European Parliament, lends itself to the conclusion that a ‘soft’ form of Euroscepticism has permeated the German borders, albeit one which deservedly
merits the attention of the incoming Commission and European leaders.

The EU has found itself as the target for much of blame for the recent economic downturn in Europe, and it consequently comes as little surprise that
pockets of Eurosceptics across the continent have increased in size and grown in number in recent years. As has been identified in this article, the reasons behind
popular disenfranchisement with the European project vary from one nation to the next, however the outcome is the same – the image of the EU is not universally
positive, and to many it is now seen as an obstacle to economic and social stability. Where once the Eurosceptic parties may have been the subject of ridicule due to
their outlandish and unconventional policies, their entry into the European Parliament following the elections of May 2014 ought to make their colleagues sit up and take
notice and put an end to any form of apathy in the fight for championing the European cause.

The democratic deficit and the bureaucratic nature of the Brussels machinery have long been a source of concern for those peering into the finer workings of the
EU from the outside. This being said, significant steps have been taken in recent years to address these imbalances, starting with ensuring that political groups in the
European Parliament designate a candidate for the Commission Presidency prior to elections taking place. Nonetheless, if the EU is to effectively mitigate the threat
presented by the increased representation of Eurosceptic parties, it must ensure that it takes further, and more significant, steps to reform. This year sees Jean-Claude
Juncker taking over the Commission Presidency from President Barroso. One of his most salient priorities must be to bring the EU closer to the people it seeks to
represent. Although they have now been afforded political credibility, it does not appear probable that the Eurosceptic parties will seek to pull down the walls of Fortress Europe from within over the course of this parliamentary term. However, with prevention always coming as a more preferable option than cure, it would be
judicious to suggest that the EU begin to streamline and reform its activity now to make it a Europe for the people, and by the people once more.

Author Biography

Daniel Jones is a Masters graduate in European Politics and Law from the University of Glasgow and currently works with the Scottish Government.

Social Media Link: @danieldjones

Bibliography

Euroscepticism rises in crisis-weary Germany, EU Business, < http://www.eubusiness.com/news-eu/finance-economy.ca8>, accessed 14 July 2014

Nanou, K. & Verney, S. (2013), The Eurozone crisis has increased soft Euroscepticism in Greece, where Greeks wish to remain in the euro, but no longer trust the EU, London School of Economics and Political Science.

*Cover image ‘eurosceptic-anti-eu-graphic ‘ by EU Exposed

Recent xenophobic occurrences in Zambia against Rwandans were a surprise to many. The African centre for violent xenophobic outbursts normally resided in South Africa, though routinely given a temporary pass due to historic legacy of Apartheid.

The Zambian case however is a stark reminder that the issue of xenophobia is not limited to a  state or its economy but may be a systemic issue in the regional economic integration of Southern Africa and more broadly African integration itself. Maybe African states and businesses don’t trade because deep down they don’t trust each other. It’s a difficult proposition to ponder having just had Africa day in May, but the concerted effort and diligence at which regional integration is taking place would suggest that building closer ties with neighbours is not necessarily high on the agenda beyond what is suggested by agreements and organizations such as the TFTA (Tripatite- Free Trade Agreement) and the SADC (Southern African Development Community).

The National Immigration Policy Survey conducted in six SADC states, Botswana, Namibia, Mozambique, Swaziland and Zimbabwe, aimed to ascertain the views of people living in urban areas about their perception of foreigners. The first notable fact was that people across the region grossly exaggerated the number of ‘foreign citizens’ in their countries. There was also a big difference in views from migrant-sending states and migrant-receiving. The strongest views therefore came from South Africa, Namibia and Botswana. The finding there showed no typical ‘xenophobe profile’ in the countries; meaning the poor and the rich, the employed and the unemployed, the male and the female, the black and the white, the conservative and the radical, all express remarkably similar attitudes.

Within the SADC context these three countries are the economic hegemons and by default have the most to gain or lose in the regional integration debate depending on perception. What is clearly evident however, is that there is no ‘regional consciousness’ – implying a participation in regional grouping interests which are greater than the sum of its parts-  in the region. Perceptions therefore indicate that to be ‘foreign’ in the SADC is to be black African moving to another country. This reality has very direct implications on not only immigration issues but commercial issues too.

Speaking about the xenophobic attacks in South Africa in 2015, Lynette Chen, CEO of the NEPAD Business Foundation said, “The recent xenophobic attacks in South Africa, have negatively affected Africa’s socio-economic integration efforts; disrupted business operations and strained business relations for local companies with an African presence. Business leaders and captains of industry, xenophobia is our problem and we have to take ownership and become part of the solution.”

The issue of xenophobia is therefore not an issue of criminality or an issue that should be marginalised but is a real problem for African development and integration. Having the necessary agreements in place is part of the challenge in encouraging intra- African trade but the real work to be done is to get people to see each other as part of a whole vital for the development of the African dream and not as strangers. To combat the scourge, states and regional institutions would need to make a conscientious effort to educate their respective populous on the economic and intellectual benefits of regional integration.

Author Bio

Chiziwiso Pswarayi is currently a Masters in International Relations candidate at the University of Cardiff. Chizi’s interests include Southern African politics and migration issues.

Cover Image ‘Say No to Xenophobia‘ by HelenSTB

Since Ukraine elected its new president Petro Poroshenko in May, progress has been made in the Ukraine-Russia crisis. On the 20^th of June the new president revealed a peace plan composed of 15 points to de-escalate the situation between pro-Russian insurgents and the government in eastern Ukraine. These steps include, amongst others, the decentralization of power, the establishment of a 10km buffer zone on the border between Ukraine and Russia, the restoration of local governmental functions and disarmament. Poroshenko also declared a ceasefire between the 20^th and the 27^th of June which was monitored by OSCE and Russia.

The map below illustrates the Ukrainian regions that are pro-Russian:

Fig 1 :2014 pro-Russian unrest in Ukraine by RGloucester

The EU is supporting the proposed peace plan and has urged Russia to also back the plan amidst threats that further sanctions might be applied against the country. The EU has also prohibited goods within its territory of Crimean origin due to the ongoing Russian occupation.

The Russian president, Vladimir Putin, stated on the Kremlin’s website that he would support the general terms of the proposed peace plan: “We need to ensure that all fighting is stopped. Ultimately the political process is the most important. It is important that this ceasefire lead to dialogue between all opposing sides in order to find compromises acceptable for all.”

Pro-Russian separatists only agreed to the ceasefire on the 23^rd of June but stated that they would not put down their arms unless governmental troops left eastern Ukraine. But the very next day the temporary truce was put at risk as a military helicopter belonging to government forces was shot down killing nine people. Alexander Borodai, leader of the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic stated at the time that “there has been no ceasefire and, judging by everything, there will not be any”.

On the 25^th of June, Putin urged Ukraine to prolong the truce and to hold talks with the insurgents. He also revoked a parliamentary resolution that allowed Russia to use its forces in Ukraine, a decision welcomed by the EU.

On Friday 27^th of June the truce was extended by three days and Ukraine, Moldova and Georgia signed an association agreement with the EU. Poroshenko has already labeled the 27^th as the most important day in Ukraine’s history since its independence and upon signing the agreement announced: “Today I make a unilateral declaration that by signing this agreement with the EU, Ukraine is a European state, sharing common values of democracy and rule of law, and has underlined its sovereign choice in favor of EU membership”.

The agreement signed with the EU as part of the Eastern Partnership Program (EaP) is focused on trade and political assistance. Trade barriers will be lowered and democratic reforms will be encouraged. The three countries ultimately want to be part of the EU as member states, although it is important to remember that the signed agreement is not a promise of EU membership.

Herman Van Rompuy, the president of the European Council, said that the agreement is “not the final stage of our cooperation” but he also did not make any promises of membership. Most EU citizens are against expanding the union further, which is already seen as being too large.

This has sparked a reaction in Russia as the three former Soviet countries move ever closer to Europe. The agreement is perceived as a threat to Russia’s interests in the region and the Russian government has claimed that trade with Ukraine, Georgia and Moldova might decrease. Ukraine exports 24% of its goods, consisting primarily of metals, grains, machinery, equipment and food, to Russia worth around 15 billion dollars yearly. In response, the EU has argued that the agreement will enhance Ukraine’s exports to the union by 1.35 billion dollars a year.

On the 30^th of June the ceasefire ended and the Ukrainian government began a full-scale military manoeuvre against pro-Russian rebels. Since military operation resumed, governmental control has been reestablished in several areas near the border with Russia.

The 5^th of July marked a turning point for the Ukrainian government forces. Insurgents unexpectedly left two of their bases north of Donetsk that had been occupied for over three months. Igor Strelkov, the main rebel commander, stated that had they not retreated, the insurgents would have been “exterminated in the course of a week, two weeks at most”. He also confirmed that Russia has not provided any assistance to the rebels during the three months of their occupation.

This begs the question of why – could it be that Russia is genuinely worried about further sanctions? In any case it would appear that the EU has managed to convince Putin that the situation in Ukraine cannot continue the way it is.

It would seem that President Poroshenko is doing a good job in reestablishing control in Ukraine, especially considering that he only took office the 7^th of June. But although some advances have been made, Ukraine still has a long path ahead of it before any meaningful stability will return to the country.

*Cover image ‘gv Photos of the Day 3055 ‘ by FuTurXTV

The Flight of the Arctic Eagle

The wind roars and the snow flurries from the frozen soil as if awakened from a long dream under the Northern Lights. A red maple leaf flutters in the wind between the Vikings, who look on in fear as a brown bear appears from the pine forest along with all the creatures of the Ragnarök. Fear gives way to astonishment, and perhaps relief as well, as on the winds an eagle suddenly appears to face off the bear. The maple leaf darts towards it, and the Viking warriors realise that the leaf has been wise. Perhaps the eagle is the answer to defeat the Bear, bringer of the Ragnarök, and set the peace once and for all in the Northern Lands and Seas. But that, they realise, depends on the resolution of the eagle.

The United States is the only nation that can truly deter Russia and also control the presence of other nations in the Arctic for a number of reasons. Firstly, the United States is the greatest partner and ally of some of the reviewed nations and it is the leading nation of NATO. This means that the United States has been the main guarantor of Europe’s security, including the Arctic[i], since 1945, as well as that any move by Russia will not only contest Europe’s interests but also those of the United States [ii]. In the light of the current events where Russia is securing its interests via military power while colliding or challenging Western interests, the Arctic is again a new area where the United States (and NATO) have to act in order to secure the northern flank of Europe against the renewed Russian threat. Thirdly, the United States is the only nation with the strategic assets (and power) needed to deter Russia and secure the Arctic.

Any action that the United States takes in the Arctic region can determine the outcome of any event in the region but unfortunately it seems that the country has little interest in the area. This is not a surprise at all due to the fact that the current Obama administration simply does not have a clear foreign policy strategy; the Arctic is simply falling victim to the president’s lack of vision and negligence in strategic matters. It is an attitude and a short-sighted political view that is putting not only the USA at severe risk but also Scandinavian nations and Europe as a whole. Worse still, the economic interests of the United States in the Arctic region might not be fully protected at all. This is a particularly dangerous aspect now that the competition for power and resources between the Great Powers is resuming after a deceptive decade of unipolarity and liberal assumption of a stable and peaceful world where diplomacy, cooperation and institutions would be the road onwards[iii].

But before proceeding with the criticisms and pointing out the economic and strategic interests of the United States in the Arctic, let us review first the policies and strategies that had defined the ways to meet those objectives and strategic interests.

The policies and strategies

Generally speaking, the United States has been slow to react to the current changes in the Arctic, according to Perry & Andersen (2012). Different factors might provide an explanation: from the focusing of the Bush administration on the War on Terror to the mentioned lack of strategic clarity of the current administration and its undeniable retreat from the international arena. The first strategy and policy regarding the Arctic, was, however, introduced on January 2009 by the Bush administration. This document recognizes the United States as an Arctic Nation due to Alaska, an important strategic territory, that has the following objectives in the area: first, to fulfil national and homeland security needs in the area; second, to protect the biological resources and the environment; third, to secure sustainable development; fourth, to strengthen cooperation via the institutions working in the region[iv]; fifth, to include the local native people’s voice in decision making matters; and sixth, to enhance the scientific monitoring of environmental issues (The White House, 2009).

The thematic areas covered by this strategy were: International governance (or international cooperation); extended continental shelf and boundaries issues (or to define the areas under US sovereignty and where it can exploit the resources within); international scientific cooperation (environmental research); maritime transportation (secure international commerce in the Arctic waters); economic issues and energetic resources; and environmental protection and conservation of natural resources (The White House, 2009).

A new Strategy came in 2013 under the current Obama administration which has three main frameworks. The first of them is the advance in security interest by enabling naval and air assets to operate on the waters and in the airspace of the Arctic region to support commerce, obtain awareness of activities and evolving Arctic infrastructure and capabilities. This in order to support commerce and scientific activities to the national defence itself. The second framework is to exert an Arctic stewardship by protecting the Arctic, its environment and also to promote research in order to understand the region. The third framework is designed to strengthen international cooperation (The White House, 2013).

There are four main principles that guide the actions to be taken within these frameworks. The first is a promise to safeguard peace and stability in the region, by aiming at preserving the Arctic as a conflict-free area while supporting the free transit and promoting a peaceful resolution of conflicts (The United States Presidency, 2013). This in particular is an aspect to be criticized in the light of the recent actions of Russia and the consequences of the Obama’s foreign policies, not to mention the potential negative impact that are waiting their turn to manifest (this wishful and idealistic approach at least in the Arctic, as a start). The second is the utilization of the best available information to take decisions, by solid scientific knowledge. The third is the pursuit of innovative arrangements to develop, resource and manage capabilities aimed at the meeting of the objectives. The fourth is the intention to consult and coordinate with the Alaskan Native populations (The White House, 2013).

In the security area there are two policies and strategies that are to be reviewed: the Department of Defense Arctic Strategy and the United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030.

The first has a similar approach to the Obama Presidency’s strategy: a secure and stable region where US interests and national homeland are protected and secured and where cooperation is the common dynamic when solving disputes. As for objectives, it has two: to ensure security, support safety and promote defence cooperation and the preparation for different challenges and contingencies. As key actions there are the exertion of sovereignty and protection of the homeland; engaging both public and private sector to improve awareness; preservation of freedom of the seas; evolving Arctic capabilities according to the ongoing conditions; supporting existing agreements and looking for new ones; providing support to civilian authorities; partnering with other institutions and agencies to support both human and environmental safety; and supporting the Arctic Council and similar organisations to ensure cooperation and the rule of law (Department of Defense, 2013).

However this strategy has two potential challenges for these objectives. The first is the possibility of inaccuracies in the projections and that fiscal constraints might block the pace of many Arctic capabilities constructions (Department of Defense, 2013). But if this strategy makes good on recognizing possible risks to its objectives and activities, it still fails in recognising at least in the first instance, the real problem.

The biggest challenge is not inaccurate projections causing problems for resources and potential economic activities but the fact that assessing the Arctic as a stable scenario with cooperation as the main activity is an incorrect assumption. The recent events in Ukraine and Crimea and the fact that emergent or re-emergent powers are choosing other paths, should set alarm bells ringing for the United States and push the nation to increase its Arctic military assets in a similar way to Canada, Norway and Denmark, instead of relying on an assessment that relies on a wishful and confident stance without taking into account the real strategic reality; a reality that might involve military units and tension.

The second strategy in the security sphere, the United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030, recognizes the strategic and security implications for the country as a result of the opening of the Arctic Ocean, while manifesting itself to be on the way to prepare and address those new implications, ranging from terrorist threats to securing early warning system located at the area (NORAD). The Bering Strait is assessed as an important element since it allows the Russian Fleet to connect its European fleet with its Asia-Pacific fleet, and also because of its potential to become a high-traffic commercial route. Thus, as a general objective, the US Navy seeks to ensure its preparedness to operate in the area to promote stability and protect the national interests. Under the 2010 National Security Strategy frameworks and the 2013 Arctic strategy, the US Navy will base its actions on the following frameworks given by the aforementioned documents: first, to achieve security of the United States, its citizens, allies and partners; second, to support an international order led by the US that promotes peace, security and cooperation; third, to advance the interests of the US; and fourth, to strengthen international cooperation (United States Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, 2014)[v].

However, the core “Arctic” objectives of the US Navy differ, which include the securing of US sovereignty, providing homeland defence and ready naval forces to react to any crisis as well as preserving the freedom of the seas and promoting partnerships within the US government and with US allies abroad[vi]. To do so the strategy is divided into near-term, mid-term and far-term operations. In the near-term, defined as 2014 – to 2020, the US Navy will keep its provision of capability and presence with a focus on open waters, while training its personnel in Arctic operations and undertaking scientific expeditions under an environment of co-operation with allies. In the mid-term, defined as 2020 – 2030, regional exercises will take place with partners while operating in the then ice-free open waters of the Arctic and there will be a pursuit of a full-time Arctic presence. In the far-term, defined as 2030 onwards, the US Navy aims at supporting more sustained operations in the area framed within the aforementioned key actions and objectives.

The problems and drawbacks of these policies will be analysed in depth in a later part, but in the next article of the series the strategic interests that should drive the United States into the Arctic area will be reviewed in order to explain why the Arctic matters for the country and why, after all, it is an area that has to be on the priority list of the policymakers of Washington (and the Pentagon), especially in the light of recent Chinese and Russian activities, not to mention the strategic dilemmas faced its Arctic and European allies.

Sources

Department of Defense (2013). Arctic Strategy. Washington DC; USA.

Perry, C. M; & Andersen, B (2012). Chapter 3. The Arctic Five: Priorities, Policies, & Programs. The United States. In: New Strategic Dynamics in the Arctic Region: Implications for National Security and Cooperation (pp. 98 – 131). Cambridge, Massachusetts: The Institute for Foreign Policy Analysis.

The United States Navy, Chief of Naval Operation (2014). The United States Navy Arctic Roadmap for 2014 to 2030. Washington DC; USA.

The White House (2009). National Security Presidential Directive and Homeland Security Presidential Directive. Retrieved from: http://fas.org/irp/offdocs/nspd/nspd-66.htm on 19.06.2014.

The White House (2013). National Strategy for the Arctic Region. Washington DC; USA.

—

[i] By “Europe” it must be understood that the author means not only the countries within the continental mass but the European Union as a whole.

[ii] Hurting European interests is at some point a way to hurt American interests as well.

[iii] The United States also fell victim of the wishful approach that followed the end of the Cold War.

[iv] A surprising statement coming from an administration known for its voice against cooperation and multilateralism.

[v] The other actions are based in the objectives of the reviewed strategies.

[vi] The key actions to do so are: Maritime security, Sea Control, Power Projection, Freedom of Navigation, Search and Rescue, and Disaster Response/Defense Support of Civil Authorities (United States Navy, Chief of Naval Operations, 2014, pp. 17 – 18).

—

Cover image ‘USS Connecticut surfaces through the ice during exercise.’ by Official U.S. Navy Page