Author: kasmir

One of the smaller yet enthusiastically Europhile member-states in the lead up to the May Parliamentary elections.

Estonia has seen a confused history as a state. Located at the top of the Baltic region and south of the Gulf of Finland with the Baltic sea at its West and Russia on the East, it belonged to Denmark from 1219 to 1329, parts of it joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth from 1582 to 1583, and most of its part were under the Teutonic Order as well, to the Swedish Empire from 1558 to 1710 (mainly to get protection from Russia and Poland), then to the Russian Empire from 1721 to 1918. It saw a brief period of 22 years as an independent republic until the Soviet occupation in 1940, with a brief German occupation from 1941 to 1944, gaining again its independence in 1989.

This transition from one power to another has left a mark on the Estonian people, and partly explains the country’s embrace of the West. During the rule of the Teutonic Order, Germans became dominant in the commerce, government, and church for at least five centuries. Swedes, in turn, founded the University of Tartu in 1632 (a project of King Gustav II Adolf of Sweden). Estonia also witnessed the struggle between Catholicism and Protestantism and the victory of the latter.

A national awakening took place in the late 19th Century resulting in the First Estonian Independence of 1918, obtained through the German-Russian Brest-Litovsk Treaty and secured by British and Finnish support after an attempt by the Soviets to regain control of the country in 1919. The Second Independence was obtained thanks to the implosion of the Soviet Union, elections held in 1990, the new constitution of 1992 and new elections, and the withdrawal of Russian troops in 1994. The new century saw Estonia to orient more to the West and joined both NATO and the European Union in 2004.

Also during this time the country pioneered in the field of electronic democracy with the introduction of an e-government in 2005, so that even elections are being held via the internet, as well as social services and banking systems. Also, most of the past decade saw an economic growth of 7% per year and an increase of GDP per capita of 45% in 2000 to 67% in 2008. Sweden and Finland are being accounted as the main foreign investors. The crisis of 2008 affected the country by placing the annual growth between 2.6% and 3.5%. In 2011, during the Eurozone crisis, Estonia adopted the Euro as its currency.

The 1.3 million people nation, as a result of its past and recent history, has a positive stance when it comes to the European Union. For instance, a 2008 poll showed that 82% support membership, with 78% perceiving it as generally favourable and 56% regarding it as a source of economic stability. This is significantly above the support in other member-states. The Estonian people also think that the Union should focus more on international coordination in order to deal with issues such as terrorism, developing science and technology, foreign policy and defence, energy, environmental protection, and crime. 96% of Estonians support a closer collaboration between the EU members. Even though only 19% of Estonians think that their voice counts in the EU, 66% is optimistic about the future of the Union and 76% supports monetary union.

The crisis of 2008 has not even touched drastically upon the optimism among the Estonian People, and the 24% think that the EU is more effective in weathering the storm, while 63% think the Union can defend its economic interests abroad. Even 70% think the Union will end stronger after the crisis. On the same track of EU trust, 56% trust in the European Union, the 72% percent feel a citizen of the Union and appreciate the free movement within the Union and the peace among its members.

With a 57% percent of trust in the European Parliament, it is little surprise that by 2009 participation in the elections were of 43.2%. And as a result, Estonia gained six Representatives, two of them being of the Centre Party/Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, one of the Reform Party/Alliance of Liberals and Democrats, one of the Pro Patria and Res Publica Union/European Peoples’ Party, one of the Social Democratic Party/Socialist Group, and an independent with the Greens-European Free Alliance. Two of the representatives belong to the Foreign Affairs Committee, one to the Economic and Monetary Affairs Committee, one to the Women’s Rights and Gender Equality and Employment and Social Affairs Committees, one to the Transport and Tourism Committee, and one to the Constitutional Affairs Committee.

For the upcoming elections in May, the latest polls casts a preference for the 26-9% for the Social Democratic Party with two seats at the Parliament, a similar trend for the Centre Party with a 27% and two seats as well. The Reform Party follows with a 21-4% and a single seat, with the Pro Patria and Res Publica Union with 16% and a seat at the Parliament.

March 2014 came with a surprise for the country with the election of the 34 year old Taavi Roivas as Prime Minister by the President Thomas Hendrik Ilves, with a support of a centre-right and centre-left coalition (the Reform Party and Social Democratic Party), and with security as a priority following the Russian aggressive attitudes on the Baltic states and the invasion and annexation of Ukrainian territories.

Apparently the Russian actions had no significant impact on the preferences shown by the polls, perhaps just because the confidence of Estonia in the EU as a source of peace drives the people to think that it can also secure a peaceful situation with Russia, whilst treating a NATO intervention as a resort for the worst of the cases. But this only takes account for the foreign policy and national security. It seems that, for Estonians, the focus is placed more on the standard of life, trade and socio-economic issues when it comes to the European Union and its elections. The only effect of Ukraine and Crimea has been only on the appointment of the new Prime Minister. Regardless, the country is optimistic while sailing on the dark waters of uncertainty and after having weathered the storm of the 2008 crisis. The only source of instability, as a fact, could be Russia and its actions over the Russian population living in the country.

But beyond this, it seems that Estonia will keep its pro-Western and pro-EU attitudes for some time to come. Perhaps Russian actions will end drawing the country closer to the European Union. After all, Estonia and Russia share a common yet not so pleasant history.

[In this column, we take a look at the possibilities of the digital sphere for engaging the public on a broader scale, have a brief moment with co-ownership and try to find answers where everyone is looking.]

Looking at Facebook these days, there has been a great couple of changes and not just in the numbers and ways that Mr. Zuckerberg is harvesting our data and making it all more ad-friendly. One major change that has occurred in the time from a few years ago to now is the different style of using it. A surge of people, companies and institutions joining the network led to a professionalization of its usage; We have all become increasingly cautious with private matters being publicly discussed in a way that we would have thought normal in 2009, many of us are now friends with our employers, co-workers (because it would seem socially awkward otherwise), and are following people from all kinds of professions, backgrounds and fame. It is even possible to get paid just for being online and represent someone or even just tell people how to do so.

One thing though, are we doing that, talking to non-people people? And are we being motivated to do so?

Social media in particular stand for the technical possibilities coined as “the Digital Revolution”, something that will very likely bring changes on scales and levels not yet imaginable and that promise fundamental changes in how we conduct our affairs. So, the technology is ready – but are we? Looking at the way companies, societal institutions and organizations are conducting their social media, we are still far away from a truly interactive state of mind. The main paradigm of conducting a brand/company/ organization can still be broken down to “Look at me, I am awesome!” We are still putting posters on walls to be recognized by the world.  Be it a project worth promotion, a cause or article written, the intent of posts is an imperative one most of the time: Read! Like! Share! Promote! Invest! And we do: read, like, share and sometimes even invest. But do we interact?

Also: how do we measure social media success? In likes, people coming to our website, in comments? And what is the exchange-rate of those? How many Likes make up for a discussion in the comments, how many pageviews for a social media ‘share’?

Using digital tech that includes the ability to comment doesn’t make something 2.0 in the same sense that having legs doesn’t make us long-distance runners. When using social media, it will not do to declare what you want to communicate and to whom, but also what you want from your audience and what degree of interaction you would like to see on your Facebook page. This goes especially for organizations highly dependent on people’s emotional ties to them and nothing bonds as well as co-authorship, no matter how small the contribution.

Crowdfunding is a great example of that: you may only have invested €10, but when in the next project update the speaker is thanking “you, our awesome backers, thank you so much, this would not have been possible without you! Much love…” they mean you. They may mean you only among 10,000 others, but they do actually mean you (yes, you!) and the gratefulness is real. This has the effect that the emotional investment in the project is even stronger and the emotional rewards add immensely to what we get out of it other than the knowledge of having donated money to whichever charity we chose.

In terms of politics, policies and campaigning, the digital sphere is a double edged sword. The aim of using any kind of media for politics is predominantly an ancient, one-sided one: you want your heralds to get your message ‘out there’, want the arguments you represent to be heard, agreed with and avoid shitstorms if possible. As much as we want to engage with ‘the people’ online, a truly two-sided conversation is hardly possible, simply by strength of numbers, quality vs quantity of comments and the oft-forgotten 24-hour limit of each day. Even if tech-savvy and interested in this kind of outreach, it is simply not possible for politicians to engage with ‘everyone’, and anyone who has seen those 30-second ‘dear internet’ videos that are occasionally shot with politicians will probably agree that many if not most of them are quite frankly awful.

There are myriads of ways to provide and present information and arguments online, and while grassroots initiatives and civil society can relatively easily align their bottom-up approach with the workings of the internet, the approach of policy makers, politicians etc. to the internet is by default more on the top-down side of things. As much as they and their staff may want to include everyone, engaging with the public online is both time and resource consuming. Digital media are still on the way to reach total numbers of people comparable to more traditional media outlets to the point where it would be cost-beneficial for a politician to go online for a debate/Reddit AMA/Google Hangout or podcast instead of the next-best TV-talk show of choice.

Of course, true interactivity does not always make sense and cannot always be the aim for approaching people online (after all, you do(!) want to sell something or make a specific point), let alone it is a phenomenon where no one has found a consistent answer yet. That however is the good news, there is still lots of room to experiment. Yes, we may in the end still be putting up posters with our faces on them, run ads that basically say ‘Buy me, I am awesome!’ or invite people to events with the principle headline “We’re smart, come and listen!” but until we come up with something better, this is what we have. When wanting to get to know our audience, there is still no other way to find out than trying out different things/approaches, keep the things that worked best and work more on what didn’t. Same as it ever was.

by Moritz Borchardt

I recently completed a three month course called ‘The Age of Sustainable Development’ on Coursera with Jeffrey D. Sachs, a world-renowned economics professor, leader in sustainable development, senior UN advisor and bestselling author. During the course several topics that concern sustainable development were discussed. This article will focus on the four big topics within sustainable development: good governance, poverty, health and education which are.

Good Governance:

According to the United Nations, good governance has eight characteristics, it should be: participatory; equitable and inclusive; based on consensus; effective and efficient; accountable; transparent; responsive; and follow the rule of law. Governments in general should adhere to the principle of good governance, that is to say they should be more transparent, accountable and follow the rule of law.

But good governance also plays an important role for achieving sustainable development. It increases the level of trust and faith that people have in their government making them more likely to actively participate in the decision making process.

Poverty:

It is amazing to think that we live in a world of plenty where we have the capacity to produce enough food for everyone. But despite this, close to one billion people – that is one in seven – still suffer from hunger and extreme poverty. These people struggle daily for survival, and most of those that live in extreme poverty are in rural areas where they are unable to access basic needs such as, sanitation, health and education. Kostas Stamoulis, director of agricultural development economics for the UN, asserts that:

“Some 75 per cent of those going hungry are rural people who derive most of their living from agriculture. We have neglected agriculture for too long. For years, people felt the way out of economic difficulties was to industrialise, but that meant agriculture was neglected in terms of research and in terms of rural infrastructure … If we don’t do something now we’re going to face even more of these food security crises in the future. If you add in climate change and the fact that natural resources to produce food are declining, we’ll be in pretty bad shape.”

Geography of Poverty:

An interesting point in regards to the issue of poverty made by Sachs was that geography has a crucial role in shaping wealth and poverty. This is mainly because countries located near the coast have better access to the sea for trade purposes which landlocked countries don’t have. Having access to the sea, rivers and ports is vital for economic development, since the cost of trade done by sea is cheaper than trade done by land. It is also easier since countries don’t need to cross political borders. It may come as no surprise to know that Africa is the continent with the most landlocked countries.

Besides wealth, geography also affects the prevalence of disease. People that live in tropical and subtropical zones are those who are affected the most by infectious diseases. Poverty also contributes to the disease burden therefore creating a vicious cycle. Disease affects income, health, the ability to work and sets back children from schools. Investors are also less likely to invest in areas affected by disease. This stresses the importance of having a primary healthcare system in place to try and break this vicious cycle.

Agricultural productivity is also affected by geography as many crops depend on certain weather conditions. For example: “wheat, maize, and rice—wheat grows mainly in temperate climates, and maize and rice crops are generally more productive in temperate and subtropical climates than in tropical zones.”

Huge investments are needed to increase agricultural production and reduce the disease burden in poor countries.

Education and Health:

Economic growth depends on investments in infrastructure, machinery and people. Investing in early childhood development and primary education is crucial to give a person the best chances possible as it increases their human capital. Education increases a person’s social mobility as it helps develop their capability, potential and skills. Through education a person can have a productive life as a member of society.

The second Millennium Development goal ‘Achieve Universal Primary Education’ is close to achieving 100%. In 1990 the number of enrolments in primary education in developing countries had already reached 90%. A higher level of education is of crucial importance for economic development, solving problems within society, increasing human capital, and investment in technology and know-how.

In addition to education, having access to health is a basic need and right since 1978. It can also be classified as being a merit good as it should be universally accessible.

Millennium Development goals (MDG’s)  four, five and six stress the importance of health. Goal four involved reducing child mortality; goal five is focused on improving maternal health and goal six is dedicated to combatting aids, malaria and other diseases.

Everyone should have access to healthcare facilities, in many parts of the world we are still lacking in infrastructure and labor force. More investment is needed, as well as qualified health workers. An interesting example of what has been happening in rural Africa to improve access to healthcare is the use of community health workers (CHWs). These workers usually have a backpack supplied with a mobile phone, medicines, tests and vaccinations. Through the mobile phone there is a  link to: “the entire health system, including an expert automated system that informs the CHWs about drug doses, test results, and dates for repeat antenatal visits and vaccinations.”

Conclusion:

Within sustainable development there are many aspects to consider, it involves taking a look at the economic, social, political, environmental and cultural dimension.

Helen Clark, the Chair of the United Nations Development Group, describes sustainable development as giving developing countries an opportunity to grow and maintain that growth.

“Sustainable development must be about enabling countries to accelerate and sustain that progress. It must be about establishing a trajectory of human development which allows all people to exercise their choices and meet their aspirations, both in this generation and those to come. It must also be about enabling the benefits of development to spread to those left behind in the progress made to date.”

We need to understand, respect and improve our world, thereby challenging our generation to change their attitudes. The future lies within sustainable development and only through multi-layered cooperation (people, firms, organizations and governments) will we be able to achieve this.

Cover image ‘Eradicating polio one case at a time’ by the Gates Foundation

Dominium Maris Baltici

There is a lot of history between Sweden, the Baltic States and Russia. Since the early modern times of Europe, both Sweden and Russia have clashed over control of the Baltic region and sea. Even if the Arctic becomes the new “Baltic” or a new source of clashes between the old rivals, the Baltics States and the Baltic Sea would once again become a scenario for further and renewed confrontations. Given recent Russian attitudes, it is conceivable that the region could be another scene of major tensions with Russia over the Arctic.

In the past, Sweden’s desire to control Russian trade and the ensuing Livonian War, during which the first major clashes with Russia took place, resulted in it gaining control of Estonia and Latvia. As a result, for many years Estonia was the cradle of the Swedish Empire and turned the capital issue of every Swedish policy onwards [i]. The Baltic possessions were then lost to Russia after the Great Northern War (1700—1721), a war in which the Russian Czar founded St. Petersburg as a forward post to halt Sweden and to control the ever-contended Baltics (STRATFOR, 2009).

However, the fact that the Swedish dominance over the area ended long ago does not mean that the Baltic States are no longer an issue for the Swedish defence. In fact, Sweden considers the so-called peaceful times after the Cold War as being anything but granted, and that the use of force is very likely to be needed in future. Russia is the main state indicated in this regard, especially after the attitudes it is taking with the resuming of aerial patrols with nuclear bombers over the High North/Baltic area, cyber-attacks and protest after the removal of a monument in Estonia and the War in Georgia of 2008 (Gotkowska, 2013). Moreover and as Gotkowska (2013) remarks, other sources of unease are those related to the increase of energy resource transport in the Baltic and the presence of significant Russian minorities in Estonia and Latvia. Also, the sole presence of resources at the High North along with fishing and maritime transportation, in addition to Russian ambitions, modernization and willingness to use its armed forces are a factor in the Swedish perceptions regarding both regions.

The presence of the Russian minorities can be a source for instability in the aforementioned countries just as it happened in Ukraine in Crimea and now in the Donetsk region. As Neretnieks (2011) remarks, Sweden will, beyond any doubt, be heavily affected by any conflict in the area and the factor of the Russian minorities is regarded as one possible cause for high tensions in the area. This could have the effect of, at the very least, dragging Sweden into participating in NATO naval exercises to deter any Russian action. This scenario is becoming more and more likely day by day now that Russia is promoting unrest in its neighbouring nations to justify either interventions or territorial annexations. Once again, Ukraine and Georgia are the examples of a similar situation.

A second possible cause for tensions is a direct Russian threat of invasion of the Baltic States via a military build-up in response to Stockholm allowing its bases to be used by NATO aerial assets and NATO inviting Sweden to participate in a deployment of its forces as a deterrent in the area.

A third possible cause is a war unleashed by Russia against the Baltic States and the NATO north-east Area with Sweden collaborating in the defence of the countries and with the probability of its airspace being used for NATO operations (Neretnieks, 2011).

As Neretnieks (2011) points out, it seems that even in the worst case scenario, the Swedish aim is not to wage a confrontation with Russia on Swedish territory but in a nearby territory, with the aim of preventing Russia reaching its mainland. A quote from King Gustavus Adolphus during the Thirty Years’ War, cited by Neretnieks (2011), definitely sums up this strategic stance: “…the enemy should be prevented from gaining a foothold on the Baltic coast and that the war should be waged on foreign soil.”

Any of these scenarios are not only a matter of national defence for Sweden however; as STRATFOR(2009) points out, Sweden and the Baltic States also have strong economic ties. For example, Estonia alone receives three quarters of its total external investment from Sweden and Finland (Aruja, 2014), or about 3.65 billion Euros by 2011, as well as 12.49% in Latvia and 11.1% – 60 million Euros – in Lithuania by 2011 (Zeljković, 2012). There is a new sort of Dominium Maris Baltici (Baltic Sea dominion) that could be jeopardised by any hostile Russian action, even if tensions take place in a “far” place such as the Arctic[ii]. And the Baltic States are vulnerable to any clash between Russia, the West and Sweden. As such, so are the Swedish interests in the area which would be very vulnerable in the case of a crisis in the High North.  

The Land of Ice and Snow

But its not just the Baltic region that is cause for concern for Sweden when it comes to its competition with Russia. Finland, for instance, also plays a role in both scenarios and is an important element for Sweden’s defence policies and interests.

There is a long history between Sweden, Finland and Russia, with Sweden having controlled Finland for 6 centuries until 1808 when it was lost to Russia in the Finnish War. During that war, Sweden saw the peril of falling under Russian rule as the Russian troops advanced towards Stockholm through Swedish territory, using Finnish territory as a base to launch its attacks. Despite losing control over Finland, Sweden did manage to stop that Russian invasion but since then it has used Finland as a strategic buffer to avoid a similar situation – even aiming to prevent Finland from ever being used as a base for a similar attack – by using the Northern Area of Scandinavia as a possible scenario to do so (STRATFOR, 2009).

Sweden, despite its neutrality, played a significant role in the independence of Finland and the following Civil War (a Soviet attempt to retain control over Finland through a local communist army and party) and during the Winter War. In the first case, Swedish volunteers formed a Brigade that fought alongside the Whites in the Battle of Tampere, contributing to their victory over the Russians and their local supporters[iii]. In the second case, Sweden provided Finland with 8000 troops, supplies and weaponry (from light infantry weapons to field artillery, anti-aircraft and anti-armour artillery. Even 17 fighters, 5 light bombers, a transport aircraft and 3 reconnaissance aircraft were given as an aid[iv].  The reasons behind these moves were much the same as those today, as Sprague (2010) points out: firstly, to keep Finland as a buffer zone against any Soviet aggression and secondly because of the brotherhood between Sweden and Finland. Interestingly, the aid was planned several months prior to the aggression and the very same day Soviet troops invaded Finland, recruitment centres were opened in Sweden.

The Northern Warriors and the High North Defence: NATO and NORDEFCO

It is often thought that the Partnership for Peace and the collaboration between NATO and Sweden is something recent but during the Cold War, and despite its neutrality policy, Sweden actively sought NATO and Western assurance that they would assist in the event of a war breaking out in Europe to avoid Soviet occupation (Gotkowska, 2013). This means then that Sweden’s approach to NATO is not something new, today the changing circumstances have simply allowed the country to openly approach NATO.

This relationship can be of absolute benefit for Sweden in the case of an Arctic-Finland-Baltic crisis, as Sweden can now have access to NATO capacities and support in the worst of the cases. As Gotkowska (2013) points out, Sweden prefers NATO since it offers advanced command structures and capabilities to execute military operations during a crisis. And those definitely benefit Sweden to manage its defence and to address any crisis in what I would call the “High North Sweden’s Strategic Triangle” (and issues): The Arctic, Finland, and the Baltics and facing Russia as the main threat[v].

The declaration of solidarity in 2009, in which Sweden expressly declared its willingness to provide assistance to any EU or Nordic nation simply made the ties with NATO stronger, and was a move that comes after the realization of the absolute involvement of Sweden in one way or another in the case of a crisis (Gotkowska, 2013). And since Russia views the West in a negative way and as an entity to be confronted, a hypothetical situation with the Arctic as the starting point and subsequently sparking tensions in the other areas is not unlikely and would mean Sweden would be forced to take an active role to protect itself and its interests.

Given the recent developments in Ukraine and the Eastern-Baltic areas of Europe, NATO has increased its strategic value for Sweden for the sake of its defence and of the Strategic Triangle. And of course it has sparked a strong debate in the country. NATO is now perceived as a must as a result of years of defence cuts, reforms and the shifting of strategic aims from National Defence to peacekeeping operations. This situation makes the country even more dependent on foreign assistance than during the Cold War and a full membership to NATO can secure such assistance during a crisis. This comes after a crude realization that Sweden cannot defend itself alone, and some current policies and mechanisms are not effective either (Salonius – Pasternak, 2013). As Ford (2014) remarks, Crimea is pushing Sweden to consider a full NATO membership as the most practical option to face Russia, as a similar situation to that of Crimea could take place with the island of Götland, a key strategic position that could provide Russia with a strategic control in the whole Baltic area [vi]. That, combined with a nearby Russian pipeline, could give Russia all the more reasons to move in. Indeed, Putin declared his intentions on defending such economic assets to the extent that Russian bombers and fighters intruded upon Swedish airspace to simulate an attack on Götland[vii].

In any case, Sweden has participated in NATO-led operations since 2009 and in the Partnership for Peace Programme within the Nordic Region and even outside Europe, such as the operations in the Horn of Africa and Libya.

The European Union came to the table as well and through the Nordic Battle Group, comprising the nations of Sweden, Finland, Estonia, Denmark and Iceland, Sweden expects to enhance cooperation with the Nordic Nations’ armed forces (Swedish Armed Forces, 2009). But Sweden has another mechanism, well related to the Nordic Battle Group: The Nordic Defence Cooperation, comprised of Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Finland. This mechanism seeks to enhance the members’ defence via cooperation and by defining the strategic needs, setting up inter-operational capacities, effects and quality, and by technological cooperation and any other forms of assistance and military integration. This general objective may also enhance the national defence capacities of the members as well as to allow them to reach an efficient production of defence assets and to enhance contributions to other operations led by UN, NATO, and the EU (NORDEFCO, 2013).

This mechanism in particular can be of extreme importance and benefits for Sweden and the other Nordic Nations not only for the sake of their own defence strategic needs and the defence of Scandinavia as a whole, but also because all of the aforementioned nations are members of the Arctic Council, having in turn their own strategic needs and policies regarding the area. All of them are facing the same military-strategic threat posed by Russia in the Arctic and will be affected in the same way if tensions between the West or between one of the Nordic-Arctic Nations and Russia, erupts.

What can Sweden do at last to face a Ragnarök unleashed by Russia? How can Sweden secure its Arctic/High North area while at the same time being prepared to secure its other strategic areas following a Russian will to drive possible Arctic tensions into those areas? In short, how can Sweden avoid and/or even manage a perilous situation taking place at its Northern Corner of the Strategic Triangle and how will that affect the Baltic and Finnish corners? The elements, problems, advantages and weaknesses have been pointed out, but these questions will be answered as a sort of recommendations and conclusions on Sweden and its High North in the light of all the previously mentioned elements in the next article.

Sources

Aruja, E (2014). Estonia. Economy. In: Encyclopaedia Britannica. Retrieved from: http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/193535/Estonia/261362/Demographic-trends#toc37274 on 14.04.2014

Ford, M (2014). After Crimea, Sweden Flirts with Joining NATO. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/after-crimea-sweden-flirts-with-joining-nato/284362/ on 02.02.2014

Gotkowska, J (2013). Sitting on the Fence. Swedish Defence Policy and the Baltics Sea Region. In: Point of View. 33. Centre for Eastern Studies. Warsaw, Poland.

Juhani & et al (n.a.). Swedish Brigade. War of Independence. Retrieved from: http://www.mannerheim.fi/06_vsota/e_ruotpr.htm on 20.04.2014

Neretnieks, K (2011). Sweden and Stability in the Baltic Sea Region. In: Nordic – Baltic Security in the 21st Century: The Regional Agenda and the Global Role (Nurik, R., & Nordenman, M. Eds.). pp 12 – 15. Atlantic Council, Washington, US.  

NORDEFCO (2013). Annual Report 2013.

(2014). The Basics about NORDEFCO. Retrieved from: http://www.nordefco.org/The-basics-about-NORDEFCO on 20.04.2014

Rare Historical Photos (n.a). A Swedish Volunteer in the Winter War, Finland, 1940. Retrieved from: http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/swedish-volunteer-winter-war-finland-1940/ on 20.04.2014.

Roberts, M (1984). The Making of the Empire. The Swedish Imperial Experience 1560 – 1718. (pp. 1 – 42). Cambridge University Press, United Kingdom.

Salonius – Pasternak, C (2013). Swedish defence illusions are crumbling. In: FIIA Comment, 6. The Finnish Institute of International Affairs, Helsinki, Finland.

Sparks, B (2014). The Warfare Historian. Finland’s Civil War 1918: Red & White Suomi and the Kinship Wars, 1918-1922. Retrieved from: http://warfarehistorian.blogspot.de/2014/02/finlands-civil-war-1918-red-white-suomi.html on 20.04.2014

Sprague, M (2010). Introduction. Swedish Volunteers in the Russo-Finnish Winter War, 1939-1940. (pp. 1 – 6) McFarland, North Carolina, US.

STRATFOR (2009). The Geopolitics of Sweden: A Baltic Power Reborn. STRATFOR, Austin, Texas. US.

Swedish Armed Forces (2009). The Pocket Guide to the Swedish Armed Forces 2009. Public Relations Office. Stockholm, Sweden.

Zeljković, N (2012). Scandinavian investments in the Baltic States and Nordic-Baltic cooperation. Norden Centrum, Nordic Monitor. Retrieved from: http://www.nordencentrum.pl/publikacje/monitorn/item/8-scandinavian-investments  on 14.04.2014

[i] This is also known as the “Dominium Maris Baltici” policy, or in other words, the Swedish aim to gain control of the Baltic Sea to further its geopolitical and economic interests. See: Roberts, (1984) pp. 16 – 17.

[ii] STRATFOR (2009) accounts that the current prosperity of the region is pushing Sweden to lead and take advantage of it.

[iii]See: Juhani & et al (n.a.). Swedish Brigade. War of Independence. Retrieved from: http://www.mannerheim.fi/06_vsota/e_ruotpr.htm on 20.04.2014. And: Sparks, B (2014). The Warfare Historian. Finland’s Civil War 1918: Red & White Suomi and the Kinship Wars, 1918-1922. Retrieved from: http://warfarehistorian.blogspot.de/2014/02/finlands-civil-war-1918-red-white-suomi.html on 20.04.2014. It worth to note that even Estonian and Swedish volunteers, along with Finnish troops, fought in the Estonian War of Independence.

[iv] See: Rare Historical Photos (n.a). A Swedish Volunteer in the Winter War, Finland, 1940. Retrieved from: http://rarehistoricalphotos.com/swedish-volunteer-winter-war-finland-1940/ on 20.04.2014.

[v] The reader must keep in mind that the three corners of the triangle are highly interconnected with each other and that any crisis in one could and would have effects on the other two, affecting its core: Sweden’s main territory.

[vi] The value of the pipeline is of $ 11 billion and transport 55 billion cubic meters of gas to Western Europe, according to Ford (2014).

[vii] See: Ford, M (2014). After Crimea, Sweden Flirts with Joining NATO. The Atlantic. Retrieved from: http://www.theatlantic.com/international/archive/2014/03/after-crimea-sweden-flirts-with-joining-nato/284362/ on 02.02.2014.

*Cover Image ‘Aircraft_Fighter_Jet_Saab_JAS-39_Gripen_1‘ by mashleymorgan

Looking at recent developments all over the globe, be it in Ukraine, Turkey, or Venezuela, there seem to be a number of structural lessons and questions that can be taken away from them in regards to a societal or civil society point of view.

The first of them is one of those old lessons that every law student learns in his or her first session of legal theory: laws can be seen as man-made and ultimately what the people, not just scholars and lawyers, believe them to be. As long as broader parts of society believe that whatever the ruling parties are telling them is true, change on a wider scale seems unlikely. Claiming ownership, or not, of existing behavioural rules or laws of any kind would seem to be a crucial aspect in any attempt to actively change society since staking or accepting such claims is linked to the basic questions of societal change and activism. [This scene from HBO’s Game of Thrones illuminates that idea quite nicely.]

Taking some sort of non state-driven change in a society as a smallest common denominator from the various definitions of civil society, one core question at the beginning of any approach towards action or analysis has to be consequently to define the purpose of a civil society and, in doing so, answering the question whether civil society actors want to improve society or form it after their own ideals. In other words: do we accept the existing laws and rules or do we want to implement new ones? Here, age-old quarrels are to be had, time and time again.

Following more evolutionary over revolutionary approaches would most likely lead to actions that try to solve problems inch by an inch, building one school after the other and thus strengthening society from the ground up. In reality, these approaches tend to be more open towards cooperation with ‘uneasy allies’ such as sub-structures of authoritative states, companies and competing opinion leaders on a case by case basis, trying to make the best of the situation at hand and seeing the betterment of society as the core goal of civil society activism.

In the light of this, more revolutionary approaches would – while probably still maintaining local activism as one mainstay of their overall activities – put a stronger emphasis on thinking about the bigger picture of social developments. Here, there is a larger focus on the society’s wants, perceived needs and how to get there. Any step or means taken needs to further the development of society towards the intended end result. In practice, actors following this approach tend to be more political, at least in thinking, with a lesser inclination towards cooperating with actors that do not follow their own ideas and interpretations of what should be. These two approaches are of course not mutually exclusive; just because an actor cooperates with a government on a small scale, it does not mean that they are in political agreement, nor does a strong philosophical underpinning by default mean that the actor in question has an absolutist aim to its implementation. It is however probably a good idea to remember those basic questions about the purpose of civil society and the strategies derived from that once in a while and answer it honestly.

As important as these questions and strategies are though, it is important to ask them time and time again and see if and how the answers to them change. Regardless of where or what we work on, rejuvenation is an important part of any development, be it in a public institution, struggling Gen-Y tech firm or NGO following the ideas of the Baby Boomer generation. While there is good reason that ‘rising through the ranks’ or having ‘a career’ usually takes time and experiences are what make people, it would certainly be foolish to equate a lack of experience with a lack of ideas or talent to bring to the table. In the same way that we cannot expect to be taken seriously ourselves when we don’t grant the same to others, we cannot by default expect the solutions that have worked in the past to work in the 21^st century. Of course, this cannot imply a general genius of younger generations, but rather stress the point of cooperation between the generations and the transfer of knowledge among them. For what it is worth, there is as much a point to be made why the generation 65+ should be consulted on the design of user interfaces for digital devices as there is to ask the generation below 30 about philosophies of strategy. Obvious or boring as it may seem to reiterate those questions of what, why and who, especially in social sciences and civil society where everyone wants to save or understand the world and has a claim to the one whole truth, it might help to remember where we come from, through philosophy, culture, generation, etc., in order to not take ourselves any more seriously than we take others. Societal and social changes are dependent not just on activism and loud voices, but also an understanding of what is being said and done in the broader public.

In trying to achieve that, it helps to know what we are saying and even more so to know how to explain our perception of reality in understandable terms. In the end, any kind of activism and civil society activities are just an offer to the larger society to join in, no more, no less. Asking some age-old questions once in a while though might just help us with that all-important sales pitch.

—

Author’s note: this essay started out as a ‘lessons learned’ of a conference on the state, perspectives and strategies of civil society in Belarus, written from an outsider’s point of view, but ended up being about some more structural points in civil society and social change. It was originally written for the Belarusian organization EuroBelarus.

Author Biography

Moritz Borchardt is graduate student at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy in Erfurt, GER. Being a native German from Lower Saxony, Moritz spent his pre-MPP years at the universities of Erfurt, Vilnius and Jena, graduating with a degree in Governmental Studies in 2011. Having a weakness for old school hats and civil society, he is interested in those areas where personal development is positively or negatively affected on a larger scale (i.e. Impacts/challenges of digital media, suppression of civil society) and structural shifts in societies writ large. He is currently writing his master’s thesis on the self-perception of contemporary Belarusian civil society actors.

You can find him on LinkedIn, Facebook & Twitter

*Cover image by Wonderlane

After what happened to Crimea in Ukraine, many people have started to wonder what will happen to the three breakaway states of Abkhazia, South Ossetia and Transnistria.

Within Eurasia there are many breakaway states, but their history is not always well known. In a previous article published on GPPW we discussed the dispute surrounding the Nagorno-Karabakh region. This article will focus on Abkhazia and South Ossetia which are two breakaway states of Georgia along with Transnistria, a breakaway region of Moldova.

The four regions mentioned above share a similar history; they are all post-Soviet frozen conflict zones, barely recognized internationally and have experienced Russian military intervention in the past.

Abkhazia and South Ossetia in Georgia

Fig 1: Abkhazia and South Ossetia

As can be seen on the map above both the Republic of Abkhazia and the Republic of South Ossetia share borders with Russia. During the Soviet Union, South Ossetia held an autonomous status within Georgia but after the disintegration of the USSR, Georgia distanced itself from Russia awakening feelings of independence in South Ossetian leaders.

South Ossetia declared independence in 1991 triggering the 1991-1992 war as Georgia tried to regain control of the territory by force. Abkhazia followed suit and declared independence in 1992 leading to another war from 1992-1993.

Georgia tried once again to regain control over South Ossetia by force in 2004, and in 2008  went to war with Russia for five days but failed to annex the region in both instances. After the end of the brief war, it became clear that Abkhazia and South Ossetia would never be part of Georgia again. The citizens of these regions are being protected by Russian military forces, enjoy Russian citizenship and therefore have no desire to be part of Georgia. As mentioned by Foreign Affairs Magazine: “The Russian security services operate freely within these enclaves, and Moscow has awarded Russian citizenship to many of their inhabitants.”

Both  regions were only recognized by Moscow as being independent states after the 2008 war.

Transnistria in Moldova

Fig 2: Transnistria

Transnistria, also known as Trans-Dniester declared independence from Moldova in 1990. For two years after declaring its independence Transnistria faced instability in the region with conflict escalating within its territory. This instability led to the War of Transnistria in 1992 between the Moldovan government and Russian separatists which lasted four months. After the war, a demilitarized zone of 10 km was established and enforced by the Russian military who were already present in the region. Kashi asserts that “To date, there are approximately 2,000 Russian troops stationed in Transnistria, who guard huge weapons and ammunition stockpiles.”

People in this region hold Russian citizenship and most of the population are ethnic Russians. Transnistria also relies heavily on Russian troops for protection. Until today the region’s independence has not been recognized internationally, not even by Moscow.

After the Russian annexation of Crimea, concerns in the international community surrounding the future of  breakaway regions such as Transnistria started to grow mainly because most of the population is ethnic Russian. After the events in Crimea the Transnistrian government expressed interests in joining the Russian Federation. But will this region have a similar fate as Crimea?

People’s opinion

Below are a series of graphs based on public opinion surveys conducted in the breakaway regions by  Gerard Toal, director of the Government & International Affairs program at Virginia Tech University in the US and John O’loughlin, a Professor of Geography at the University of Colorado.

Was the dissolution of the Soviet Union a right or a wrong step?

As illustrated above, most of the population of the breakaway regions believe that leaving the Soviet Union was a step in the wrong direction. It shows that these regions are very pro-Russian.

Do you trust the current Russian leadership?

The graph above shows that citizens of  breakaway regions have faith in Russian leadership. They favor the presence of Russian troops within their regions and claim that they can “sleep well in their beds” due to the presence of these troops.

What is your preference for the political future of your entity?

As illustrated above interesting opinions throughout the regions can be seen as some favor independence and others integration with Russia. In Transnistria, becoming part of Russia would be a move welcomed by the population whilst in South Ossetia and Abkhazia the situation would be more complicated. Most people in Abkhazia favor continuing independent while South-Ossetians would seem to prefer joining Russia.

Conclusion

Russian annexation of these regions would be condemned by the international community and be highly opposed by Moldova and Georgia. However Russia might use the years of economic and military support against them to persuade them to join the Russian Federation. It also important to bear in mind that the history of these countries is completely different from Crimea’s. These breakaway regions have been living in isolation for more than 20 years; they have experienced war and violence within their territory and, as seen on the graphs above, not all are willing to give up their hard earned independence.

Cover image ‘South Ossetians & Abkhazians protest for recognition‘ by Blatant World

On the 27^th of March 2014 I had the honour to attend the annual conference of the European Defence Agency (EDA) entitled “European Defence Matters”. Over 500 participants were present from various sectors ranging from the government, military and industry. During the conference the importance of pooling and sharing resources and research and innovation were highlighted as a gateway for the future. Further cooperation, political will, unity and trust between the members were also stressed as being necessary to improve Europe’s defence capabilities and to obtain capabilities not attainable on its own.

The event started with a welcome address by the chief executive of the EDA, Claude-France Arnould. She stressed the importance of acting on behalf of defence ‘Now’ and ‘not tomorrow’ as we are being surrounded by challenges in both security and defence that are not only present outside of Europe. As we have recently seen with the case of Crimea they can occur very near to or even within in the European neighbourhood. This is why defence matters.

As Mrs. Arnould  mentioned in her opening speech “Europe cannot have the ambition to be a security provider, to stand for its values and interests without the capacity to sustain this ambition. The political will is there let’s make sure that the implementation is not missing.”

The opening speech was followed up by a keynote speech by the Greek Minister of Defence and the Italian Under Secretary of Defence.

Keynote Speeches

Dimitris Avramopoulos, the Greek Minister of Defence also representing the current EU Presidency, emphasised that European cooperation is about enhancing political stability, not only on a regional level but on a larger scale. He asserted that Europe needs to “learn to stand as one”, and went on to say that “European cooperation in the field of defence and security, is not just another European project. It has become one of the most critical pillars for European democracy, integration, cohesion and growth.” He also stressed that the EDA has an important role for improving EU capabilities and that political will is vital.

General Domenico, Italian Under Secretary of Defence, also representing the upcoming Presidency of the EU, underlined that “defence is relevant for the economy, central in our identity and political strategy”. The General stated that the EDA can act when it comes to uniting the members.

After the speeches it was time for the first debate panel focusing on pooling and sharing resources between members.

Panel 1: European Defence Capabilities: Pool it or Lose it?

This panel discussed the necessity of cooperation for European defence in order for it to move forwards. One of the main points discussed in this regard was that strategic and defence movements must become more coordinated and transparent. The practicalities of cooperation were also discussed, with the panel raising the point that the mind-set of EU countries has to change with greater trust fostered between the member states for effective cooperation.

A key question discussed by the panel was perhaps the most obvious: why should EU members pool and share?

General Patrick de Rousiers, Chairman of the EU Military Committee, argued that there are many reasons as to why we should pool and share resources. He asserts that it is getting harder for countries to be able to afford to sustain capabilities on their own and that working together cqn lead to more efficient results. However, he concedes that strong industrial and political will is necessary to make this possible. Alexander Vershbow, NATO Deputy Secretary General, echoed these remarks saying that current defence and security resources “were insufficient for only a national approach”.

Tim Rowntree, the Director of OCCAR, stated that countries have to build confidence amongst each other so that pooling and sharing can take place. A strategy is necessary: “We need to plan further ahead so we can align nations.” This idea was supported by General Sverker Göranson, the Swedish Chief of Defence, who said that countries should trust each other so that plans could be shared. He stated that this should start off with a small groups of countries so that it can be expanded later on.

Though trust and transparency are necessary steps for European defence to take, it is clear that it would take time to be achieved as there would be an initial reluctance. As mentioned by General Patrick de Rousiers, increasing transparency and trust is not that easy since it encroaches on countries’ sovereignty. However, Alexander Vershbow argues that we should learn from the success stories and mistakes, that incentives should be created to encourage countries, and that nationalistic approaches to defence capabilities acquisition have to be overcome.

Two countries that are an excellent example of mutual cooperation are Belgium and the Netherlands. Within the EU this cooperation is considered to be one of the most far-reaching examples of military collaboration. For over 15 years, the Dutch and Belgians navies have been working together closely when it comes to maintaining fleets and training personnel, and they even unified their operational command. They are also currently discussing expanding cooperation into the field of aeronautics, clearly illustrating how military cooperation can expand further within the EU. More info about this cooperation can be seen here.

As stated by Ine Eriksen Søreide, the Norwegian Minister of Defence, it is time for the EU to step up and take over control of EU security.

Panel 2: Securing the Future through Research and Innovation

This panel focused on Europe’s defence industry and on what could be done to maintain technological advantage. Amongst the panellists were members from the defence industry and politics.

The defence industry in Europe is responsible for innovation, growth and jobs in the sector, but due to budget cuts the amount of funding that goes into research has reduced significantly. However, despite these reductions, Europe continues to be a leader when it comes to cutting-edge technology.

The panel discussed a number of key questions for the industry: how long will its status as a leader last, and what can be done to ensure that Europe does not lose its current position?

Bernhard Gerwert, Chief Executive Officer at Airbus Defence & Space argued that there is no innovation without budget. Companies will not invest in technological fields that will not be used. Companies want to know what the demand of countries is before channelling financial resources into research.

Michael Gahler, Member of the European Parliament, Committee on Foreign affairs & Subcommittee on Security and Defence, underlined that the decline in defence budget could result to loss of time and experts in the field. He also stated that there should be a review of EU defence.

Overall, the panellists agreed that there should be a clear overview on future demand before companies invest in cutting-edge defence technology.

After both panel discussions reached an end, Catherine Ashton gave a keynote speech on the importance of defence capabilities to reinforce the Common Security and Defence Policy of the EU.

Keynote Speech

Catherine Ashton, head of the EDA, stressed that “peace and stability in Europe could be more fragile than we thought. Defence matters for a number of reasons, but recent events remind us that it matters first and foremost because it provides security to our citizens.”

The European Council highlighted four capabilities that are in need of further development such as cyber security, air-to-air refuelling, drones and satellite communications. These are also the four capabilities on which the EDA focuses. European defence can only be successful if reinforced by these capabilities.

As stated by Mrs. Ashton: “One of our most valuable instruments and one of the greatest strengths of the EU is the comprehensive approach. It is about the effective combination of diplomatic, military, political, financial and other instruments. But most of all it is about the broadest possible vision of what security is about. In this respect, comprehensiveness means investing in early warning, being prepared and conflict prevention just as much as in crisis response, stabilisation and peace-building, development and policy dialogue. It also means to systematically and closely work with partners on the full range of issues that may pose security risks. Cooperative and comprehensive – that is the way forward.”

By this time the conference was nearly finished, but it had been a very interesting and educational day for me. I learned a great deal about European Defence and the role of the EDA in it. I definitely agree that cooperation is the way forward, although this will take time since the gap in confidence has to be bridged by many countries. Once trust is established countries will become  even more united as their relations become more transparent. I believe that the EDA has an important role in achieving this by building a network of trust between the members. Pooling and sharing our resources through cooperation will  also allow us to expand our capabilities beyond national borders. As Catherine Ashton mentioned, this is vitally important as peace and stability in Europe could be more fragile than we previously thought. It is time for the EU to step up and take control of EU security cooperation. As Mrs. Arnould made perfectly clear, the time for action is now – not tomorrow.

Cover image ‘European Defence Agency Chief Executive Claude-France Arnould‘ by European External Action Service

Russian president Vladimir Putin once described the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 as the ‘greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the 20th century.’ It is no secret that Russia has trying to recover its geopolitical influence in former Soviet states to become a regional hegemon once more. But these states, freed from Russia’s control, became open to new spheres of influence, particularly from the European Union. With Russia pursuing a new Eurasian Union and the EU looking towards the East for further expansion, is a new geopolitical dilemma unfolding?

Eastern Promises

In 2009, the EU launched the Eastern Partnership programme (EaP) to improve its relationship with post-Soviet countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova, and Ukraine. Even though the EaP does not promise EU membership, it does not exclude the possibility. The partnership is focused on promoting political and economic cooperation as well as sharing EU values, such as democracy.

As Andrey Kozyrev, a former Russian foreign minister once stated: ‘Russia is doomed to be a Great Power.’ Indeed, Russia signed an agreement with Belarus and Kazakhstan in 2007 to create the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) which was officially established in 2010. In 2011 the ECU members signed another agreement to launch the Eurasian Union in 2015 which will, somewhat ironically, be based on the EU model with a Single Economic Space and Eurasian Economic Commission already in operation.

Power and Influence

It was not until recently that the struggle for influence in the region intensified between the EU and Russia. Armenia and the Ukraine are two good examples of this. Both countries were negotiating an association agreement with the EU and both put aside their EU aspirations after Russia’s interference.

In September 2013, Armenia decided to join the Eurasian Union after Russia increased gas prices and provided arms to neighbouring Azerbaijan. Two months later, the Ukraine did not sign the association agreement with the EU due to Russian pressure, leading to protests throughout the country. After talks between Putin and Ukrainian president Viktor Yanukovych in December, Russia offered a generous discount on the price of gas and offered to buy Ukrainian government bonds.

However, it is not only Armenia and the Ukraine which have experienced pressure from Russia. As Georgian President Mikhail Saakashvili stated: “Armenia has been cornered and forced to sign a customs union which is not in this nation’s interest or in the interest of our [South Caucasian] region. Moldova is being blockaded, Ukraine is under attack, Azerbaijan faces extraordinary pressure, and Georgia is occupied.”

Geopolitical dilemma

It is clear that through the Eurasian Union, Russia wants to reunite as many post-Soviet countries under its leadership as possible, either voluntarily or by persuasion. But why is Russia doing this? Is it trying to regain its lost power, or is it simply a response to feeling threatened by the EU and its continued interest in the east? Perhaps, it’s a little of both – for Russia, the Eurasian Union offers an opportunity to thwart the EU’s expansion into the East and offers an alternative to the EU where it can assert its power.

*Original cover image

*This article has originally been published on Sharnoff’s Global Views

The world has kept an eye on the epicenter of development in the region. Balochistan, an emerging sovereign economy in Asia, has held successful dialogues with the United States to start a multi-billion project in Reko Diq.

After turning down the proposals by China and India, Balochistan’s Secretary of Petroleum and Natural Resources was invited by US authorities to finish the deal.

China was very keen to have the project in the interest of newly discovered gold mines in the region. The project will be inaugurated on October 22, the day Balochistan will celebrate its 16th anniversary.

Balochistan sets examples for developing countries

The country has one of the fastest growing GDP’s in the world with a ratio of 20 percent. Since independence, 22 new universities and medical colleges have been built. Three leading international universities have shown interest in opening campuses in the cities of Quetta, Turbat and Gwadar. The International Monetary Fund ranked the country in the top ten, while the World Bank ranked it in the top 15 for doing business. The Economist hailed the country as most financially liberal in the region.

Since Pakistan accepted Balochistan as a sovereign nation, the country has maintained very friendly relations with the neighboring countries. Pakistan’s premier signed a gas project after the worst energy crisis hit the country.

Now Balochistan will export gas to Afghanistan and Pakistan through pipelines. Balochistan has been negotiating with the Iranian government on Iranian-occupied Balochistan for greater autonomy and self-determination. Many Baloch from Iran have migrated to Balochistan since independence which has made the Iranian authorities more cautious, and human rights violations have decreased.

Gwadar, the industrial hub of the country, has become one of the best tourist spots in the region. The largest port in the country is a model for the other cities in the world. In the last 10 years, the city’s population has doubled. Some of the world’s largest corporations have regional offices in the city, and it has become one of the best cities for job opportunities.

High-speed rail will start functioning in all the major cities of Balochistan connecting to Gwadar. The metro system in Gwadar will be completed in two years, which will be the most advanced ever built in the region. Balochistan is planning to build two other major ports after the master plan of Pasni was completed by the help of China. The new ports will be built in Jiwani, a suburb of Gwadar city and Ormara, 230 km (143 miles) away from Gwadar.

Secular, democratic and pluralistic

Balochistan is becoming very diverse because people from neighboring countries are emigrating for better lives. Since independence, 50,000 Hazaras have returned to Balochistan. They were targeted and forced by the militant groups to become refugees in different countries before independence.Pashtuns are enjoying new-found equality. Regardless of religion, ethnicity and color, the country provides equal opportunities to all its people.

The country is submitting a bid for hosting the 2058 Asian Games.

It has seen a rapid growth in the world of sports. Football and cricket are the most popular sports in the country. Last year, Balochistan won the first two matches in the AFC cup. And, the national cricket team has qualified for the upcoming ICC world cup.

While previously unknown and neglected, today many people know Balochistan for being a lucrative and prosperous land.

Author Biography

Changiz Baluch is from Balochistan, Pakistan. He is currently based in the USA and is a Fulbright recipient of Community College Initiative Program. He is also a freelance writer and human rights activist focusing on Balochistan. His interests include popular culture, sports, Literature and movies. Other activities include blogging and contributing to Sharnoff’s Global Views, The Baloch Hal and Bolan Voice. 

You can find him on WordPress & Twitter

Cover image ‘Balochistan‘ by watchingfrogsboil

On March 16, 2014, Crimeans voted to join Russia in a referendum that was supported by Russia and denounced as illegitimate by Western powers and Ukraine.

The Ukrainian government said that the outcome of the referendum would not be recognized, with Oleksandr Turchynov, Ukraine’s interim president, labeling the referendum as being a “great farce” and stating that it “will never be recognized either by Ukraine or by the civilized world.”

How did pro-EU rallies in Kiev lead to a pro-Russian referendum?

Crimea had been a part of Russia since its annexation in 1783 until it was given to Ukraine in 1954 by Nikita Khrushchev, leader of the Soviet Union at the time and a Ukrainian by birth. Currently Crimea is an autonomous republic with its own parliament and a population composed of 60 percent ethnic Russians, 24 percent Ukrainians and 12 percent Tatars.

As pro-EU rallies in Kiev became increasingly widespread and violent, Ukraine’s stability and security became ever more vulnerable. This provided the opportunity for pro-Russian gunmen to seize control of Crimea, occupying governmental buildings in the capital Simferopol on February 27. This then led to Russia’s intervention after the its parliament approved Russian President Vladimir Putin’s request to use military force in Ukraine on March 1. Five days later, the Crimean government voted in favor of asking to re-join Russia and declared a referendum on the decision.

Referendum Results

While the Russian intervention might have seemed extreme, the majority of Crimeans welcomed the move with many seeing the Russians as protectors from the chaos and the newly elected government of the pro-EU protesters. Since the beginning of the crisis, Putin’s popularity increased around 10 percent, his highest popularity rate in three years.

It is unsurprising then that Mikhail Malyshev, the official electoral chief of Ukraine, declared on March 17 that approximately 97 percent of the Crimean population voted in favor of a union with Russia, with a turnout of 83 percent. On the same day, Crimea ceased to abide by Ukrainian law. By the end of the month, it will change to the same time zone as Moscow and adopt the ruble as its official currency.

But how accurate and fair are these results considering that the Tatar and the ethnic Ukrainian population of Crimea, who make up 36 percent of the republic’s total population, claimed that they would boycott the referendum?

They question the legitimacy and fairness of the referendum since voters did not have the option to maintain the status quo. The only available options on the ballot paper were joining Russia or furthering devolution – phrased in such a way that implied a sovereign Crimea. This was important because the Crimean government stated that if the peninsula became sovereign it would still seek to join Russia and break off relations with Ukraine.

Sanctions

The US and the EU agreed on sanctions against Russia to begin from March 17 which include travel bans for Russian Citizens and asset freezes of 21 Russian and Ukrainian officials who are considered as the enablers of the referendum. President Barack Obama also stated that more sanctions may be imposed and that if Russia continues to ignore the West’s warnings it would “achieve nothing except to further isolate Russia and diminish its place in the world.”

But whether any of these sanctions will have a tangible effect on Russia, its citizens or the Crimean people is yet to be seen. Dmitry Rogozin, Russia’s deputy prime minister, took to Twitter to state that the sanctions will only affect those with assets abroad: “Comrade Obama, and what will you do with those who have neither accounts nor property abroad? Or didn’t you think of that?”

No end in sight?

With the Ukrainian government recently reporting that it prevented Russian troops from moving into eastern Ukraine and pro-Russian protests occurring in cities close to the Russian border such asDonetsk and Kharkiv, there have been concerns that more Ukrainian territories will follow in Crimea’s footsteps.

The extent of the fallout from the referendum is yet to be known in its entirety, but with the yes vote encouraging other pro-Russian groups it has become a potential reality. And if Russia continues to ignore the warnings of the West by supporting such groups it might irrevocably jeopardize its economy and further strain diplomatic relations with Western countries.

*Cover image ‘Republic of Crimea‘ by P.L