Author: kasmir

Why does Syria not have Kosovo’s “luck”?

As the debate over intervention in Syria or the prevalence of diplomacy shakes and divides the international community, the question over whether Kosovo should serve as a precedent case for acting without a United Nations mandate has been raised by many analysts and scholars.

While watching the news and listening to debates on Syria, I cannot help but wonder: Why does Syria not have Kosovo’s “luck”?

The whole situation brings us back to the diplomatic negotiations of 1999, conducted while innocent people were being slaughtered on the ground. Paris, Geneva and other fancy venues for the “big powers” remind me of the time when I witnessed the Rambouillet negotiations, while not being sure whether there would be a roof over my head by the end of the day.

The Arab Uprisings took a different direction in Syria by escalating into bloody turmoil, considered to be a domestic war with international actors on the ground. The situation drew real attention from the international community quite late — or to be precise, after 2.1 million refugees fled the country and more than 100,000 people were killed as estimated by the UN.

The debate over Syria is shifting tectonic plaques in the international arena by involving big powers such as the US, Israel, Saudi Arabia, France, the United Kingdom, and Iran. Many regional states have entrenched interests in the struggle. Some countries are directly involved with support for fighters on the ground, while others stick to diplomatic efforts. However, Moscow and Washington are currently the most active international parties in leading the debate.

Lately, we have witnessed a true diplomatic battle between Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin, while the rest of the world decides which one of them is actually taking the lead by presenting more arguments against the other party.

Putin’s famous letter published in The New York Times, describing the power of the United Nations and also the respect that the five “peace loving countries” should show for the UN Charter that they created in 1945, was a key news story for international media.

On the other hand, Obama, using his well-known charismatic and emotional speeches, struggled to convince the American public of another air campaign in the Middle East — only to settle with Syria’s chemical weapons disarmament after an unexpected diplomatic opening with Syria and Russia.

The UN, State Sovereignty, and Humanitarian Interventions

Many are familiar with the first article of the UN Charter, which clearly states that the purpose of the United Nations is:

“To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace” (UN Charter, Art 1/1).

Despite the strong presence of voices calling for the respect of nations’ sovereignty and the UN contract that each state agreed upon, history has witnessed many exceptions. Quite often, states’ sovereignty has been perceived through a “black and white” dichotomy and understood along the lines of “either all or nothing,” as stated in Article 2 of the UN Charter:

“Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter” (UN Charter, Art 2/7).

Nevertheless, as world politics and circumstances have changed since 1945, and the international community has faced serious crises, the absolute principle of state sovereignty has been slightly softened. Consequently, the world has witnessed a few cases where breaches of sovereignty have been legally justified by the UN Security Council.

The UN charter, with amendments made to chapters VI, VII and VIII, incorporated human rights and clear wording as to what action a state might take in such a matter, as well as the responsibility of the international community in guaranteeing that these rights are respected.

A potential intervention by the international community would be justified in specific circumstances or if it constitutes a threat to international peace and security — these cases become an issue for the United Nations Security Council (UNSC). Yet a decision taken by the UNSC requires votes of the “big five,” the five permanent members of the council. Historically, in many cases, a veto by one of them has blocked potential interventions.

Using the Kosovo War as an example, the field presence of the UN and the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE) peacekeeping forces in 1999 in order to continue with the Rambouillet negotiations before the NATO air campaign in former Yugoslavia, show evidence of a shift towards humanitarian interventions taken and authorized by the UNSC based on Article 39, which emphasizes:

“The Security Council shall determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security” (UN Charter Art 39).

Previous resolutions — such as in the cases of Somalia (Resolution 814, 1993), Bosnia (Resolution 819, 1993), Haiti (Resolution 940, 1994) and Albania (Resolution 1101, 1997) — are prior examples of a trend towards humanitarian interventions authorized by the UNSC.

However, the cases of Rwanda (Resolution 929, 1994) and Kosovo (Resolution 1244, 1999) marked the ultimate turning points in the international arena.

The case of Kosovo in 1999 sparked heated discussions between the US government and Russia. Despite long debates about the UN charter and the legality of an intervention, the decision to intervene in Kosovo was taken by the US, supported by the UK, France and Germany, without UNSC authorization — leaving the “big five” still divided.

Almost 15 years later, the UN Security Council is similarly deadlocked when it comes to a potential intervention in Syria.

The reasoning behind many interventions – as in the case of Syria – is based on continuous human rights violations. A crucial concept in this is the UN’s “Responsibility to Protect,” established in 2005.

The “red line” that President Obama drew in the case of Syria in 2012, defined by the use of chemical weapons, has been crossed and the US administration spoke of the need to end human suffering; yet an intervention is not being seen on the horizon. Many are raising the question: Why was there a humanitarian intervention in Kosovo and not one in Syria?

Here are some key elements behind that answer.

Wrong Time, Wrong Place

The Obama administration is well aware of the Levant’s complexity, as well as the difficult domestic and international political circumstances at this period of time. Domestically, Obama is having to deal with public opinion being strongly opposed to another military campaign in the Middle East; whereas on the international stage, the US president has not obtained the much-needed support from key Western allies, while being faced with Russian antagonism.

When dealing with Middle Eastern countries, no war can be ended with a short air campaign as the one in the Balkan countries. History has shown that the US’ multiple interventions in the Middle East have known zero or very contested successes; Iraq can serve as a prime example here. The situation relates to Sisyphus, according to the Greek myth of rolling a rock to the top of a mountain, only to watch it roll back down.

*Cover image ‘KFOR Einsatz’ by Bundeswehr Fotos

In contrast to Syria, Kosovo was considered as a relatively “easy task,” as the Balkan countries were more likely to fight each other rather than an external actor. The campaign ended with no boots on the ground. One should not forget the fact that almost every country surrounding Syria is suspected of possessing chemical weapons which makes the situation even more complicated; whereas in the Balkans, this potential threat for the international community did not exist.

Russia and the US both have a long history of intervening in Middle Eastern affairs; however, until this day there has been no successful “intervention.” Indeed, any potential intervention in Syria is rooted in the post 9/11 political context and American public opinion is less keen on unilateral interventions, compared to the time of the Kosovan conflict.

Intervening in Syria might also increase the spillover effects into neighboring countries, which could have a “boomerang” effect for the US government. Bashar al-Assad issued a clear warning in his interview for CBS news: ”You should expect everything. Not necessarily from the government.” This clearly states that in case of a possible intervention in Syria, the US should be prepared for serious consequences, and possible retaliatory action from any party involved in the conflict.

Lack of Support by the “Gang”

When the US was seriously debating a military intervention in response to August’s chemical weapons attack, US President Barack Obama struggled to gain support from major allies. While in the case of Kosovo the coalition of Western powers was strong and persistent, on Syria, US public opinion appears to be divided and Congress did not give a green light for unilateral intervention, showing a lack of willingness to authorize another conflict in the Middle East.

At the same time, the British parliament rejected this issue at the very first attempt, while Germany all but withdrew from the Syrian debate. However, the French government, still bolstered by its successful intervention in Mali, was ready to intervene which would have left the US government with only one major European ally against a Russia- and Iran-backed Syrian regime.

Who is the Real Enemy?

A UN investigation team has clarified that chemical weapons were used in the Ghouta area on the outskirts of Damascus in August; however, confusion remains. The current state of chaos with significant infighting among opposition groups is making Syria a place of opportunities for different terrorist groups, some of them allied to al-Qaeda.

The difficulty in finding the “right enemy” is making the process more complicated; the US government has been criticized for indirectly helping al-Qaeda – the very group they have been fighting for decades – since Jabhat al-Nusra and other factions linked to al-Qaeda have come to play a significant role in the fight against Assad. Any intervention would certainly increase instability in the region, while civilians would not be protected on the ground. This also raises the question over how much trust can be put in the opposition.

As global players debate how to solve the Syrian conflict, the UN team aiming to dismantle Syria’s chemical stockpile recently arrived in the country after the passing of UNSC Resolution 2118. Parties in Syria continue to blame each other for the attack; the opposition appears very divided; and the American and Russian governments continue to represent opposing views — the situation in Syria is indeed complicated.

The recently passed UN Resolution can be considered a good step, as the five permanent Security Council members finally came to a consensus. However, despite the chemical weapons resolution, the Syrian people still suffer and there is no guarantee the situation will change in the near future.

While the international community weighs the benefits of a potential intervention against continuing diplomatic efforts, thousands of innocent civilians are being killed with millions displaced. Many people in Syria are begging and praying for an intervention while discussions are continuing on the diplomatic front.

The victims of the biggest humanitarian crisis in the Middle East are looking towards the international community, hoping that someone will respond to their call. Mass killings, refugee camps, hunger, and long-lasting high level negotiations seem to be a regular part of every conflict.

Author’s Note

Personally, I know how this feels, since back in 1999, I was just a kid who instead of living out my childhood dreams, I hoped for intervention in Kosovo

*Cover Image ‘Kosovo-1′ by Expert Infantry

Russia once more is seeking to assert its geopolitical influence in Eurasia as they had done previously in the past. First with the Russian Empire (1721-1917); then the Soviet Union (USSR) (1922-1991) and now with the Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU). Several post-Soviet States feel pressured by Moscow to join the Eurasian Union led and coordinated by Russia, making them dependent once again.

After the official dissolution of the Soviet Union in 1991, Russia, Belarus and Ukraine created the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) so that economic relations between the countries could be revived by creating a common economic zone based on free trade. In 1996, a treaty signed by Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Kyrgyzstan showed the first signs of a Eurasian integration, such as the creation of a common market. In 2000 these countries, along with Tajikistan, created the Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEC). In 2003 Belarus, Kazakhstan, Russia and Ukraine were working towards creating a Single Economic Space (SES). Ukraine left the project after a while and Uzbekistan joined EurAsEC in 2006. (Eurasian Economic Commission)

In 2007 Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan signed an agreement to create the Eurasian Customs Union (ECU) which was established officially in 2010. At the time, some critics said that Russia was once again trying to regain influence over the territory that used to belong to the USSR; “The ECU is clearly seen by Russia as a vehicle for reintegrating the post-Soviet space, including the countries that fall within the sphere of the EU’s eastern neighbourhood.” (Dragneva and Wolczuk, 2012)

In 2011, these three countries signed an agreement that would lead to the creation of the EAEU by 2015 and also discussed the creation of the Eurasian Economic Commission (EEC). The Customs Union had proven to be successful; SES and the EEC became operational in 2012. (Eurasian Economic Commission)

It is noticeable that the EAEU is based on the European Union, as mentioned above, the SES and EEC are already in place and there are discussions concerning the creation of a Eurasian parliament and perhaps a common currency. President Putin also mentioned that the union considers the principle of parity as being essential – for many that is a doubtful statement as the founding countries of the union have dictatorial inclinations and often poor press freedom. Gerhard Simon, an expert in Eastern Europe from the university of Cologne, believes that the EAEU does not only involve integrating the economy but also politics and the military – led by Russia of course. (Deutsche Welle)

For many observers, the EAEU initiative is being used by Russia to establish its geopolitical influence in Eastern Europe in an attempt to relive the ‘glorious days’ of the Soviet Union when Russia had more power and a larger sphere of influence. Just like the Soviet Union the EAEU will be coordinated by Russia.

Hillary Clinton, former US Secretary of State, sees the EAEU as a Russian effort to Sovietize the region. (Radio Free Europe). Some former Soviet countries stated that Russia has been pressuring them to join the EAEU over the EU. As president Mikhail Saakashvili from Georgia stated “Armenia has been cornered, and forced to sign customs union. Moldova is being blockaded, Ukraine is under attack, Azerbaijan faces extraordinary pressure, and Georgia is occupied. Why? Because an old empire is trying to reclaim its bygone borders”. (Varshalomidze in Aljazeera, 2013)

Joining the EAEU as a member State involves integrating and coordinating the economy, legal system, customs and military with Russia. In order for the union to be successful, they need to attract countries that have a strategic importance such as Ukraine. Ukraine is one of the biggest countries in Europe and is in the process of entering the EU through its Eastern Partnership Program as an associate member. Russia plans to retaliate to the decision to associate by adopting stricter customs towards the country. The main problem of joining the EAEU is that countries will end up being dependent on Russia and their sovereignty will be affected. (Varshalomidze in Aljazeera, 2013)

Russian president Vladimir Putin recently stated that countries that sign an agreement with the European Union would not be able to join the EAEU. (Surkov, 2013) This will  happen to Ukraine who will sign an agreement with the EU in November, 2013. Until the day of signature Russia is putting pressure on Ukraine by complicating the import of their goods to Russia. (Barbashin and Thoburn, 2013)

According to Putin, the EAEU would be based on the ‘best values of the Soviet Union’, but it is not ‘an attempt to capitalize on the nostalgic mood among the older generations’ as the main aim is to pursue economic objectives based on the EU. Many Russian have nostalgic memories of the stability and social security standards from the USSR between the 70’s and 80’s before the collapse of the Soviet Union. (Bryanski, in Reuters, 2011)

However the question remains to be answered; is this nostalgia shared by post-Soviet countries? And more importantly will the EAEU achieve the same status and sphere of influence as the EU, and if so what would be the resultant relationship between both unions?

*Cover image ‘Russian flag’ by Bryan Jones

Part 1: On the Frozen Seas of the North, a Red Dragon’s flight is worthwhile to note

Thanks to climate change in recent decades, the once always frozen waters of the Arctic are now being increasingly open to international navigation, and it seems that these new routes are not the only treasures that the ice was keeping with valuable resources among the treasures discovered beneath the melting ice. And like any treasure it has grabbed the attention of many. But this time it is not just those that have some territories or are neighbouring the region who are showing an interest in these new resources; China has been increasingly showing its interest in the area.

An analysis of the events, geopolitical interests and policies taken by every state with interests in the area will be made in a series of essays published over the coming weeks in order to provide the reader with a good insight into what is going on in the Arctic and the implications of the interests of the so called “Eight Arctic Countries”[1], as well as of an “outsider” state such as China.

It is about the latter on which this time the focus will be placed, especially because of the Chinese’ “strange” pretensions in the area as well as the very nature of the Rising Power that China has; a nature that might be causing or aiding the Chinese aims, that can also bring conflicts and tensions in the Arctic as well.

Rainwater (2012) points out that China’s fast-paced economic development is forcing the country to look for resources elsewhere in order to keep its momentum as well as to secure its governmental regime by avoiding social unrest through tackling shortages of any good. This is reinforced by the fact that China has limited resources on its own territory thus giving the country no other choice. This means that China depends on those resources abroad and a strategic control and protection of them is a mandatory issue.

Oil is one of those strategic resources on which China depends and the policy implications for the country are not insignificant. Rainwater (2012) reminds us that the access and supply of oil for China depends on a very perilous route from the source to the destination due to a number of factors such as the instability of the Middle East; the naval competence with India, Singapore, Malaysia and Indonesia; the “Malacca Strait Dilemma”; and the problem of piracy at the Somalian coasts and the same Malacca Strait. All of these factors have made China develop a strong naval force to provide a protection to that vital Sea Line of Communication and the resources that travel that route to China.

But on the same track of resource access and protection (including the utilization of safer routes), Rainwater (2012) points out that the Arctic is becoming another alternative for China, an alternative that would imply an increased presence of PLAN warships in the newly opened Sea Lines of Communication at the Arctic, also increasing the potential of clashes as has happened in the Indian Ocean, the West Pacific and the South China Sea. The resources and the new shipping lines are a very tempting option for a thirsty China, and for the sake of that thirst, China, according to Rainwater (2012), has conducted at least 4 expeditions beyond the Arctic Circle and has established in 2004 a research station in one of the Svalbard Archipelago Island – in Norwegian territory – with the task of monitoring the Arctic climate dynamics and assessing its impact on China’s environment. More expeditions are planned along with new icebreakers, bulk carriers, tankers and airplanes capable of dealing with the Arctic’s maritime and aerial conditions[2].

“The Arctic belong to all of the people around the world as no nation has sovereignty over it”, said the Rear Admiral Yin Zhuo and according to Chang (2010), practically stating the Chinese claims in the area and hiding the Chinese ambitions through the expression of an Arctic belonging to none and being open for all. Guschin (2013) furthers and explains that China is now using the statements of the UNCLOS (United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea) to support view of the Arctic as a ‘common room’ or a shipping common area, along with the argument of the impact of the climate change in both the Arctic and China, and prone also to disguise its objectives under the alibis of environmental monitoring, protection of the wildlife and of the indigenous peoples that live in the area.

Indeed, even the Arctic Council is not safe from the Chinese moves, as China intends to gain a full seat as member of the Organization[3]. At first, and according to Rainwater (2012), by a full deployment of Diplomacy as a means to exert power or influence and using soft power at the same time, promoting and executing cooperation with the “Arctic Eight” in the area of environmental research, joining instances specialized in research on that matter in the Arctic like the International Arctic Science Committee. Secondly and according to Rainwater (2012) by strengthening ties with some members of the Council by facilitating capital for the resources research made by some of the “Arctics” in exchange of a support for Chinese aims at the Council. Canada is the most targeted country and has received an investment of 60 billion dollars in energy, but the aims have shifted to other nations following the reluctance of Canada to support China.

Rainwater (2012) indicates Russia, Norway, Denmark and Iceland as the other targets whose outcome from the Chinese Strategy changed from no support at all to a responsive attitude. Russia maintains a naïve stance which seems more a reluctance to allow China to get in despite the agreements of oil shipments and exploitation and exploration ventures. The same story applies to Norway, with the problematic element of the tensions that followed the election of Liu Xiaobo for the Nobel Prize. But on the cases of Denmark and Iceland, the outcome has been different, as Rainwater (2012) explains. Iceland received important economic aid, agreements and cooperation from China after its 2008 crisis, and as a consequence the country is supporting the Chinese aim of a seat at the Council. In the same way, Denmark has given a full support claiming that the Chinese interests in the Arctic are legitimate ones, thanks to investments in resource development in Greenland[4].

Oil is one of the main reasons why China is racing towards the Arctic, with the opening of alternative shipping routes through the arctic that would be relatively safer than the Middle East. Another reason according to Guschin (2013) is iron ore; currently China has two firms investing in Greenland for the extraction of 15 million tonnes of ore per year in 2015. Fishing is the other main reason why China aims to gain control of the Arctic.

It is, however, understandable to a point that the Red Dragon is being sighted in the Frozen Northern waters, especially when, for example, there are treasures such as approximately 13% of the world’s undiscovered oil, 30% natural gas, and 20% natural gas liquids – or 90 million barrels of oil, 1.669 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, and 44 million of barrels of natural gas. According to Guschin (2013), it is unsurprising that the treasures that the arctic holds would be attractive for a country that, just like every player in the game of the Great Powers, has to control and secure the access of natural resources to strengthen its power and survival not only at home but also abroad. This, combined with the fear of social unrest at home and the need to feed its economy, is driving China to increase its military power and its ambitions in other areas of the world.

The developments of China in the purely military area (the Navy) along with the Chinese “entrepreneurial” moves on the region and the manoeuvres at the Arctic Council are indeed helping China to include the Arctic as another area under its control, partially or totally, as well a manifestation of a China following the same path of previous Great Powers that faced the same or similar strategic needs, political and economic. And the Arctic can turn into a new scenario of the Chinese Rise and its consequences in the Balance of Power and World’s stability.

---

[1] See: Rainwater (2012). Race to the North. China’s Arctic Strategy and Its Implications. The countries that will be reviewed are Canada, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Norway, Russia, Sweden, and the United Stated. They are refereed as the “Arctic Eight”. Here the same reference will be used, along with the “Arctic Eight Countries” or just simply “The Arctics”.

[2] And an increased presence of the Chinese Navy is a fact that will count and will have a strategic consequence for the United States, not to mention that apparently the Chinese Navy is preparing itself to use the Arctic as another theatre of operations, following Rainwater (2012) exposition.

[3] The Arctic Council will be reviewed as well.

[4] However, and as Rainwater (2012) remarks, China has gained little but a place as an ad hoc observer at the Arctic Council. Even at that level the Council itself established in 2011 a new requirement for Observer States: recognition of sovereignty and jurisdiction of the “Arctic Nations”. This goes against the Chinese strategic labelling of the Arctic as a “global commons room”.

Sources

Chang, G, G (2010). China’s Arctic Play. Retrieved from: http://thediplomat.com/2010/03/09/china%E2%80%99s-arctic-play/

Guschin, A. (2013). Understanding China’s Arctic Policies. Retrieved from: http://thediplomat.com/2013/11/14/understanding-chinas-arctic-policies/?all=true

Rainwater, S (2012). Race to the North: China’s Arctic Strategy and Its Implications. Naval College Review, Spring 2013, Vol. 66, No. 2. 

*Cover image ‘Frigate and tanker‘ by Torbein Rønning

Nagorno-karabakh, a mountainous region within Azerbaijan located near the country’s western border with Armenia, was a disputed territory long before it was part of the USSR. Despite being in Azerbaijan the majority of the population is Armenian by ethnicity and historically was part of Armenia. But it was not until the dissolution of the Soviet Union in the mid 1980’s and early 90’s that the conflict intensified. Both Azerbaijan and Armenia were incorporated by the USSR in the early 1920’s and the Russians used the underlying tension in the region to their advantage: “as part of their divide-and-rule policy in the region, established the Nagorno-Karabakh Autonomous Region, with an ethnic Armenian majority, within the Soviet Socialist Republic of Azerbaijan”. (BBC, 2013)

In 1988, with the collapse of the Soviet Union, there was an attempt to reunite the Karabakh region with Armenia which led to unrest in the region. Azerbaijan and Armenia became officially independent from the USSR in 1991, Karabakh then declared independence from Azerbaijan and became known as the Nagorno-Karabakh Republic. However its independent status was not recognized by most countries. (BBC, 2013)

Not long after its declaration of independence, a large ethnic conflict known as the Nagorno-Karabakh War broke out. At the beginning of the war Russian forces fought alongside the Azeris, but later shifted sides in favor of the Armenians. By the time the war ended in 1994 with a ceasefire, Armenia had seized control over Karabakh and seven provinces surrounding the area belonging to Azerbaijan. Karabakh now shared a border with Armenia and Iran. (OSW, 2011)   

Despite the ceasefire there has been no permanent peace agreement in the region. To the rest of the world the dispute does not attract a lot of attention as it is seen as being a frozen conflict, a remnant from the immediate post-Soviet era.

Since 1992, the OSCE Minsk Group has been mediating the conflict in order to reach a peaceful resolution. Not a lot of progress was made, as both sides impose conditions that the other side is not willing to accept; Armenia will not remove its army from the occupied provinces until Nagorno-Karabakh’s independence is recognized and Azerbaijan is only willing to discuss the issue once it has its territory back – territory which makes up 20% of the country. (United States Institute for Peace)

The actual source of the dispute has been the object of some debate. Some say that it is an ethnic dispute powered by nationalism, whilst others say that the underlying source has to do with geopolitics that involve other international actors, such as Russia sustaining its influence in the region and Turkey, which had previous conflicts with Armenia, and played a major role during the Armenian genocide. Turkey also supported Azerbaijan during the war and cut its ties with Armenia in 1993. (United States Institute for Peace)

But according to the International Crisis Group (ICG), circumstances in the region are not that predictable. Clashes, provocations, and ceasefire violations between Armenia and Azerbaijan happen quite frequently, and in recent years both countries entered into an arms race: “ Oil-rich Azerbaijan’s defence budget for 2013 is $3.7 billion, almost one billion more than Armenia’s entire state budget. Armenia increased its own defence spending by 25% this year, to $450m.” (The Economist, 2013)

One example of these provocations occurred in 2012 when Azerbaijan organized the extradition of army Lieutenant Ramil Safarov from Hungary where he was serving a prison sentence for killing an Armenian army Lieutenant during a NATO sponsored language course. Once Safarov arrived in the capital of Azerbaijan, Baku, he was pardoned and greeted by President Ilham Aliyev. As a result, Armenia cut its diplomatic relations with Hungary. (Jabarian, 2012)

Armenia retaliated by declaring that it would revive the airport in Nagorno-Karabakh so that flights could be held. In recent years the provocations between Azerbaijan and Armenia have become more intense. Both countries feel skeptical about the Minsk group when it comes to solving the conflict, mainly because Russia has geopolitical interest in the region and is also a co-chair of the group, not to mention that it has been supplying arms to both sides. During a G-8 summit it came to light that “apart from the large-scale Russian military deployments to the Russian base at Gyumri, Armenia after 2010 and support for Armenia, Russia had also sold Azerbaijan a reported US$ 1 billion in weapons”. (ICG,2013)

This is reminiscent of Russia’s ‘divide and rule’ tactics used during the USSR era, using duplicity to maintain its influence in the region by supporting both sides. In doing so both countries will be more focused on the conflict instead of Russia’s influence and interest in the region which continue to interfere in the resolution of the conflict.

In the meanwhile many people are being displaced from their homes and economically the conflict is costly for the territory. Recently the relationship between Russia and Armenia has become strained as Serzh Sargsyan, the president of Armenia, declined Moscow’s proposed Eurasian Union in favour of the European Union. But this was short lived as once again Russia exhibited its power over the region by providing arms to Azerbaijan and increasing the price of gas delivered to Armenia, which then had little choice but to repeal its EU aspirations. (The Economist, 2013)

The frozen conflict between the two countries has been in stalemate for 19 years and their stability has been shaken by provocative actions on both sides. Russia, with all its influence in the region, should reaffirm its position as a mediator and stop supplying arms to both sides as it only intensifies the tension between the neighboring countries and does not contribute at all to the resolution of the conflict; assuming that it is serious about resolving it.

*Cover image ‘At the “border” of Nagorno Karabakh‘ by ale_speciale

The SNP has unveiled its independence white paper. But how realistic are its tenets?

Scotland joined England over 300 years ago after the Acts of Union were signed in 1707, following Scotland’s failed attempt of colonizing Panama that left the country nearly bankrupt. Now, the citizens of Scotland have the opportunity to decide whether the country should become independent again through a referendum on September 18, 2014.

The independence debate has been around for a long time but rose to prominence in 2011 after the Scottish National Party (SNP), led by Alex Salmond, won an outright majority in the Scottish parliament.

On November 5, 2013, I had the opportunity to attend the launch of “Academics Better Together” – a group campaigning against independence. Many important issues were raised, such as education, public services, security, and so on. Amongst the speakers was Alistair Darling — a Labour Party politician, former chancellor of the exchequer, and leader of the Better Together campaign — who believes that Scotland has more influence and opportunities as being part of the United Kingdom.

Among the many arguments for and against independence, GDP, North Sea oil, currency, finances and the entrance to the European Union (EU) are central to the overall debate. According to the SNP’s pocket guide Choice, there are ten main pro-independence points. But how solid are they?

The Issue of Debt

In 2013, the UK experienced one of the highest GDP growth rates among European member states. According to the European Commission, the UK’s GDP growth rate in Autumn 2013 was 1.3% along with Poland and Estonia. If Scotland separates itself from the rest of the UK, this figure might change. Scotland will have to assume part of the UK’s national debt, which is estimated to be approximately £1.39 trillion.

I posed this question to Darling, who answered that the national debt of the UK would most likely be divided based on the share of population.

As of mid-2012, the Office for National Statistics (ONS) estimates the UK population to be at 63.7 million. Of this figure, 5.3 million people live in Scotland. According to a report of the Select Committee on Economic Affairs of the House of Lords, Scotland will have to shoulder its share of the UK national debt, which would amount to around £93 billion, based on the share of population. While this is considerably less than the overall UK debt, Scotland’s GDP makes up only 10% of the United Kingdom’s combined GDP, meaning that this will have a significant economic impact on an independent Scotland.

However, the SNP’s argument is that Scotland has enough revenues coming from North Sea oil and gas to cover its expenses. The SNP claims this asset is worth £1 trillion and that it will last for another 40 years. Their plan, as stated in the Choice guide, would be to create an oil fund with the revenue and use it as an asset to borrow against.

North Sea Oil

But there are a number of fundamental problems with this argument. One major issue of relying on oil is that it is a volatile resource, as admitted by SNP Finance Minister John Swinney in a leaked paper to the ministers of the Scottish government: “[The] high level of volatility creates considerable uncertainty in projecting forward Scotland’s fiscal position.” There is no guarantee how long the oil and gas supplies will last and it is very difficult to predict annual production figures.

Another important issue with regards to North Sea oil, according to the House of Lords, are the costs of decommissioning exhausted oil fields. Currently, the UK shares this cost, but an independent Scotland would see a considerable reduction in its revenues as a result. Even though Scotland receives a lot of revenue from oil, this resource is unpredictable and would more than likely not make up for the subsidies received from the British Treasury

In the light of this, it is hard to see what sense there is on basing a large majority of an independent Scotland’s economy on North Sea revenues. These revenues currently allow more public spending per head of population in Scotland as opposed to England. However, by putting this money in an oil fund instead, public spending would decrease and cuts will have to made. The question is, which budget will be cut? The SNP have yet to answer this question.

Scotland and the EU

Another vital question concerns Scotland’s place within the European Union. The SNP Choice guide states: “Scotland would remain part of the EU. EU law doesn’t allow for Scotland to be unilaterally kicked out on independence. And, EU law also makes clear that Scotland can’t be forced to join the euro.” But how true is this statement?

According to Article 299 of the European Commission (EC) Treaty: “The European Communities and the European Union have been established by the relevant treaties among the Member States. The treaties apply to the Member States.”

This is important for a number of reasons. Currently Scotland, as part of the UK, is part of an EU member state. However, if Scotland were to become independent, then it would no longer be part of the UK, nor arguably the EU. This is contested by the SNP. A territory seceding from an existing EU member state is unprecedented but, according to the EC, the European treaties would no longer apply.

That is not to say that Scotland could not join the EU after becoming independent, but simply that automatic entry, or continuing as part of the EU as it already is, would not be allowed by the EU commission or by member states. As reported by the BBC, former EU Commission President José Manuel Barroso said in relation to Scotland’s independence referendum: “A new state, if it wants to join the European Union, has to apply to become a member like any state. In fact, I see no country leaving and I see many countries wanting to join.”

According to Article 49 of the same treaty, any European country can apply for EU membership as long as the principles of European Commission Article 6(1), regarding democracy, freedom, human rights and the rule of law, are respected. If Scotland, as an independent country, followed these principles, it would be eligible to apply for EU membership. However, this would rely on all the other EU member countries, including the remaining part of the UK, giving their consent for Scotland to enter. The rest of the UK will not have to apply for EU membership, due to the principle of state continuity.

An interesting problem in regards to an independent Scotland’s EU standing is that, if it were to be allowed back in, it would set a precedent for other EU independence movements such as those in Belgian Flanders and Spain’s Catalonia and the Basque region. As a result, it is entirely possible that countries like Belgium and Spain would vote against its re-entry to discourage such movements.

Borders, Free Markets, and the Queen

Another important point raised by the audience during the event was the issue of potential future passport border control between Scotland and the rest of the UK. If Scotland enters the Schengen zone, as other EU member countries have done, then border control between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom, which is not part of the Schengen agreement, would be inevitable.

The SNP also mentions in its Choice guide that by being an EU member, Scotland would be able to access the free market. For this to be true, Scotland would have to be accepted as a member — the application process for which might last years. According to Darling’s research as reported in the Telegraph, the average waiting time for a country to be accepted as an EU member is ten years, not the 16 months previously mentioned by Salmond.

The Choice guide also mentions that the Queen would continue being the head of state and that the currency would remain unchanged. It is quite clear why the SNP would state this; the current monetary union within the UK allows for Scottish businesses and industries to have access to wider UK markets, due to the common currency and financial system.

However, the aforementioned report of the House of Lords suggests that if an independent Scotland continued to use the pound as its currency, it “would raise complex problems of cross-border monetary policy, multiple financial regulators and taxpayer exposure and could only come about, if at all, on terms agreed by the UK Government.”

In others words, the idea of an independent Scotland simply continuing to use sterling as its currency is not as simple as it may seem. It comes with myriad problems and complications which the SNP has yet to elaborate on.

Realistically, the only option for Scotland to continue using the pound with no central bank of its own, would be to link its currency to the Bank of England rates which, after independence, would be a foreign bank. As mentioned in the Financial Times, the UK government is highly unlikely to allow UK taxpayers and the Bank of England to be a lender of last resort to a foreign country.

To paraphrase Darling, what sort of independence is that?

*Cover image ‘Scottish and British flags‘ by The Laird of Oldham

The definition of organized crime varies from country to country but it is almost certain that one can find it in one form or another all over the world, in every society. It is a problem that has been present for many centuries in many shapes and sizes and is an issue that continues to adapt and evolve with us today. Organized crime affects countries and citizens by threatening their peace and security through violence and disrespect to human rights and ultimately jeopardizing the economic and social development of societies in the world.

One of the goals of public policy is to focus on solving this problem by trying to identify the origin, scale, damage, and seriousness caused by organized crime so that solutions can be proposed to mitigate its effects on society. However, fighting organized crime has a strong effect on public policy makers as it is resource intensive; both financial and personnel resources need to be allocated to combat organized crime. (Finckenauer, 2007)[1]

Organized Crime

James Finckenauer defines organized crime as mainly “the ability to use, or a reputation for use of, violence or the threat of violence to facilitate criminal activities, and in certain instances to gain or maintain monopoly control of particular criminal markets.” Another important aspect of organized crime mentioned by Finckenauer is the corruption of public servants and officials who assist criminal organizations in their activities. This is done mainly by bribing the servants to inform them when they are in an investigation spotlight. (Finckenauer, 2007)

Organized crime primarily focuses on obtaining profit by using any means necessary. This is sometimes done by providing legal products and services in an illegal way, but more usually through providing illegal services and products that are generally in short supply. Such illegal products and services include drugs or counterfeit goods and services include prostitution, gambling, human trafficking, robbery, fraud and so on. The fact that these types of activities are illegal, and therefore hard to find, makes them profitable businesses. (Finckenauer, 2007)

It was after the collapse of the Soviet Union at the end of the 1980’s when organized crime began to seriously expand and become a global issue. Individual governments were not able to react fast enough to this growth and became unable to control the global dissemination of organized crime. (Sullivan, 2012)

Nowadays organized crime continues to develop in line with the evolution of technology – as noted by the United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime (UNODC) – and crime gangs have access to the increasingly sophisticated technology and are using ever more advanced methods to increase efficiency and profit margins. In recent years many such gangs have also developed international connections resulting in the appearance of large international criminal networks operating across borders. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

Since becoming a global issue, organized crime has diversified, with illegal products being transported from one country to another, and even from one continent to another. Such multinational organized crime has a profound effect on governmental agencies and institutions by undermining their power and promoting corruption in companies and politics, ultimately empowering outlaws and reducing economic growth and social development. (United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime)

Finckenauer defines corruption as being a characteristic of organized crime. For Buscaglia and van Dijk, both corruption and organized crime are connected and are created by the weak power of the state and civil society in controlling these activities. They see the issues as being interconnected because the increase of organized crime often leads to the growth of corruption in the public sector in numerous countries. (Buscaglia, Edgardo, and van Dijk)

In Europe alone, organized crime is a huge issue. In the 1990’s agencies in Europe defined the term “organized criminal group” as being made out of a structured consistent group which commits crimes for profit by using violence and corrupting public servants. (Buscaglia, Edgardo, and van Dijk)

One such organized crime group type is the Mafia, which is structured hierarchically in a pyramidal fashion with the members normally connected through honour, ethnicity, family or oath. Most of these kinds of groups have Italian origins, and nowadays several countries have mafia, such as Japan, the United States, Russia, and China, amongst others. (UNODC)

Public Policy and Organized Crime

Within a governmental system, public policy can be considered as a system of laws that establish regulatory measures and create action plans in order to solve problems that affect society. Public policy makers (i.e. a government or state representatives) must decide which problems require the most attention and allocate funding priorities based on their agendas and political opinions. (Kilpatrick)

Organized crime is a huge global problem and prevention initiatives are necessary; measures from permanent to temporary public policies need to be implemented. Public authorities play a leading role in this process together with several actors, such as local authorities, NGO’s and the private sector, that have to participate so that crime can be combatted and prevented from happening. (International Report Crime Prevention)

The notion of crime prevention being a public policy area in its own right is a relatively new one; more often it is still considered a goal or an initiative that needs coordination by a number of different public policies. However, as illustrated above, it has proven a useful tool in the fight against organized crime. “Measures evaluating the cost of violence provide an indication of the level of spending against which to assess the cost of public policies on violence prevention.” (International Report Crime Prevention)

Whilst combatting organized crime through public policy is clearly an effective strategy, the  effects on policy makers can be sizable in the allocation of financial and personnel resources. It is very important to monitor the efficiency of any public policies that are implemented but it is especially important to monitor the effectiveness of any policies that are intended to combat organized crime due to the amount of money and resources needed to fight such a large problem; money and resources that can be put towards other uses such as education and healthcare.

*This Article is based on the original work made for the Lecture “Organized Crime and Corruption”, which is part of the Master’s Curriculum at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy in Erfurt, Germany

*Cover image ‘corruption‘ by Evert Haasdijk

Despite UN mediator Matthew Nimetz’s best efforts, for over 20 years Greece and Macedonia have been deadlocked in a long-term dispute over Macedonia’s name. Nimetz has been mediating the dispute since 1995 but until now no solution has been found to satisfy both countries. But how did the dispute come about and why has the dispute lasted so long?

The key to answering the first question is to understand Macedonia’s history. Until the early 1990s Macedonia was one of the six republics that formed Yugoslavia under the presidency of Josip Broz Tito, along with Bosnia and Herzegovina, Croatia, Montenegro, Serbia, and Slovenia. (BBC, 2012) The Yugoslavian republic of Macedonia was created and named by Tito in order to prevent Serbia from taking over control of the area and therefore acquire more power in the country. Around that time Macedonia became officially known as the People’s Socialist Republic of Macedonia. (Tito’s plan, 1999)

After Yugoslavia was formed in 1944, a huge campaign was organized for the newly created republic; history books were re-written by scholars according to the instructions of the communist league in Yugoslavia and maps drawn that demonstrated the extent of their territory extending as far as the northern half of Mount Olympus. (Gatzoulis and Templar, n.d.)

However, the area that Tito named as the Republic of Macedonia only comprised a small part of the original geographical area that made up ancient Macedonia, known as Vardarska Banovina, which included large parts of Bulgaria and Albania, as well as Greece – a large part of which is still known today as Macedonia.

After Tito’s death in 1980, nationalism among the individual Yugoslavian republics began to intensify and in 1991 the Yugoslavian citizens voted for independence by referendum and a new constitution was passed despite Albanian opposition. After the break up of Yugoslavia, several countries went independent including the Republic of Macedonia. It was after Macedonia’s independence that the dispute with Greece began; Greece did not accept the new country’s name due to the northern Greek province also named Macedonia. (BBC, 2012)

To make matters worse, after the declaration of independence, the People’s Socialist Republic of Macedonia officially changed its name to the “Republic of Macedonia”.  The country also appropriated symbols originally from northern Greece for its new flag displaying the Sun of Vergina and new currency with Thessaloniki’s white tower in the background. And, according to the country’s new constitution, Macedonia claimed the original territory of Vardarska Banovina (ancient Macedonia) for itself, the majority of which nowadays lies in Greece. (Gatzoulis and Templar, n.d.)

Unsurprisingly, Greece saw these actions as being provocative and decided to enact a trade embargo against Macedonia in 1994 in which no commercial products were allowed to cross the northern Greek border. It was only in 1995, after Macedonia decided to change their flag and currency and amend their constitution to state that the country did not have any territorial claims outside its present borders, that the embargo was lifted. (Gatzoulis and Templar, n.d.)

The embargo lasted 20 months in total and caused negative consequences for both countries. Macedonia lost approximately 40 million dollars per month, which reduced its export profits by 85%, and Greece had its reputation stained while they were holding the presidency of the EU. It also highlighted the EU’s inability to restrain Greece’s conduct and the lack of enforcement of any common foreign policy. (Kajfes, 2011)

Greece maintains that Macedonia, despite changing its constitution, still wants to claim lands belonging to it simply because successive Macedonian governments have refused to change their country’s name. The Greek government has in the past used this, and Macedonia’s appropriation of Greek culture and identity, to its advantage to stir up nationalist feelings at home in order to gain support for its actions such as objecting to Macedonia joining international organizations. (Kajfes, 2011)

The naming issue became such a problem that the United Nations (UN) was forced to work to reach an agreement in 1995 which stated that Macedonia would be provisionally recognized as being “The Former Yugoslav Republic Of Macedonia (The FYROM)”[1] in order to allow Macedonia to participate in international organizations without Greece’s objection. (Gatzoulis and Templar, n.d.)

However, despite this agreement, Greece continued to object to Macedonia’s efforts to join international organizations. The most infamous incident happened during the 2008 NATO Bucharest conference when Greece blocked Macedonia’s invitation. This was considered to be a violation of the 1995 agreement between both countries as Macedonia had applied using the FYROM name. (EurActiv, 2012)

As a result, Macedonia appealed to the International Court of Justice in the Hague in 2009 and in 2011 the court ruled in favor of Macedonia confirming that Greece’s behavior had been inappropriate. (BBC, 2012)

How do you solve a problem like Greece & Macedonia?

Enlargement Commissioner Štefan Füle once commented that to solve the Greece and Macedonia problem:“It takes two to tango”. (Langer, 2010)

The two decade long dispute is currently being mediated by UN representative Matthew Nimetz, but despite the Greek and Macedonian prime ministers meeting frequently since 2010, there has been no further progress in finding a solution. Furthermore, the Macedonian government has recently reinforced their stance and threatened to leave the negotiation process with Macedonian Prime minister Nikola Gruevski declaring that no resolution involving changing the name of the Republic of Macedonia would be supported. (Ordanoski, 2011)

Macedonia has also recently initiated an aggressive policy of appropriating the cultural and historical heritage of Greece, mirroring the country’s actions of the early 1990s. It renamed the capital city’s airport, Skopje, ‘Alexander the Great’ (king of Macedon in the North of ancient Greece), erected a 36m tall monument of the same hero in the center of the capital and built a large Greek Orthodox church nearby. These actions have proved to be a major setback in the negotiations between both countries and many people believe that the current Macedonian government is using the dispute for its own purposes to gain more votes for being patriotic or, in case of political failures, to use it as a scapegoat. (Ordanoski, 2011)

Since no progress has so far been achieved, the negotiation process between both countries has moved back into stalemate[2]. Macedonia has said it is willing to set a time frame to end the stalemate and ultimately solve the dispute that is preventing them from entering the EU and NATO (Balkan Insight, 2011). But actions speak louder than words, and its recent provocations have done nothing but help to further alienate Greece and make negotiations even more difficult.

With the current economic crisis that has hit Greece particularly hard, the name dispute has been somewhat overshadowed. Macedonia, too, is dealing with the consequences of the crisis both economically and politically, and the dispute is doing nothing to help. (Slovenia Times, 2012)

With the crisis distracting attention and neither side’s willingness to find a solution, there is no doubt in many people’s minds that the name dispute might continue for many years to come.

---

[1] UN Resolutions #817 of April 7 and #845 of June 18 of 1993

[2] A stalemate can be considered to be an equilibrium in which no-one is satisfied nor achieves their objectives.

*This Article is based on the original work made for the Lecture “International Mediation”, which is part of the Master’s Curriculum at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy in Erfurt, Germany.

European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) focuses on coordinating the relationship between Europe and its neighboring countries. This is extremely important for the maintenance of stability and peace in Europe. Over the last decade the ENP has been broadening its scope and is moving towards the western Balkans and Eastern European countries.

What is Neighborhood Policy?

The European Neighborhood Policy (ENP) was created in 2004 and focuses on promoting prosperity, stability and guaranteeing security for Europe and its neighboring countries. It also encourages dialogue among countries so that any cross-border disputes and problems – such as with Greece and Macedonia – can be solved. The European Neighborhood and Partnership Instrument (ENPI) assists the ENP throughout its actions and financially. (European Commission-Europeaid, 2012)

The EU promotes integration in the Western Balkans as a means to achieve stabilization. This is why the EU launched the Stabilization and Association Process (SAP) in 2000, which offers neighboring countries an opportunity to gradually enter the EU. (EU Institute for Security Studies, n.d.)

The European Union (EU) possesses a consistent neighborhood policy to coordinate the relationship with its neighboring countries in the east and the south: “Our Neighbourhood Policy provides us with a coherent approach that ensures that the whole of the EU is committed to deeper relations with all our neighbors. At the same time, it allows us to develop tailor-made relations with each country.” (Štefan Füle, Commissioner for Enlargement and European Neighborhood Policy)

How does the ENP broaden its influence and scope?

The ENP primarily uses enlargement as a tool to encourage good governance, promote stability and strengthen security, amongst other goals. This enlargement has naturally led to the expansion of the EU into the Western Balkans as well as into Eastern European countries such as Armenia, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Georgia, Moldova and Ukraine which form part of the Eastern European Partnership (EaP). (EU external action, n.d.)

The EaP was launched in 2009 in Prague (Czech Republic) with the primary objective to: “support political and socio-economic reforms of the partner countries, facilitating approximation toward the European Union”. (Council of the European Union, 2011)

It is hoped that the EaP will treat the six new candidate member countries as a regional bloc and promote the creation of free trade areas between them. They will also receive millions of euros for financial help together with technological knowledge and security advice. In return, these countries have to promote democracy, the rule of law and obey human rights policies. (BBC, 2009)

Why is the ENP important in terms of guaranteeing security?

The combination of the EaP and the EU’s consistent neighborhood policy has become very important because what happens in eastern and southern Europe can affect the EU as a whole. (EU external action, n.d.) For example, the current territorial disputes in Eastern Europe between countries such as Armenia and Azerbaijan, around the Nagorno-Karabakh region, and Moldova and Ukraine over the Transnistria territory are inhibiting progress in the region as a whole and preventing the expansion of the EU into the east as well as causing tensions between Russia and Europe. (New Europe, 2012)

The Transnistria dispute is particularly interesting due to its links with Russia and the Kremlin. Transnistria is an independent state, with limited international recognition, located along a thin strip of land between Ukraine to the east and Moldova to the west. Moldova, like most of the international community, does not recognize the state as independent and considers the Transnistria territory as belonging to it. Transnistria is also under considerable influence from Russia being a former soviet state and with Russian troops still stationed there. The EU and the rest of the international community do not consider the governmental system of Transnistria to be democratic which has caused some tension between the EU and Russia, given the West’s agenda of introducing democracy to former Soviet countries. Additionally, Russia planned to give states such as Transnistria their missile technology. (Paraipan, 2005)(BBC, 2012)

The Transnistria dispute is not unique in eastern Europe; the break up of the former Soviet bloc led to a number of wars and similar territorial conflicts such as the aforementioned Nagorno-Karabakh conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan. One of the aims of the Eastern European Partnership (EaP) is to work towards the resolution of these disputes and conflicts. (BBC, 2012)

EAP as an example to the Balkans

The Western Balkans, an area with a similar history to that of the former eastern bloc, should take the Eastern European Partnership (EaP) as an example to follow. There is little doubt that it is exactly what the Western Balkans need after their post-war experience. During the Thessaloniki EU-Western Balkans summit in 2003, it was argued that the Balkans’ future is inside the EU. (EU Institute for Security Studies, n.d.) But without a similar initiative to help in resolving disputes such as Greece and Macedonia’s, there is little chance for Macedonia to join. Similarly, disputes such as the one between Kosovo and Serbia make it harder for the EU to accept Serbia as a member despite its candidate status.

Good neighborhood policy combined with a similar style of partnership to the EaP for the Balkan region could help solve Greece and Macedonia’s name dispute, and others, and to successfully integrate Macedonia and other Balkan countries into the EU.

*Cover image ‘european commission‘ by Stuart Chalmers

*This Article is based on the original work made for the Lecture “European Neighborhood Policy And Beyond”, which is part of the Master’s Curriculum at the Willy Brandt School of Public Policy in Erfurt, Germany. It was published in cooperation with the Friedrich-Ebert-Foundation.

Is there a direct link between youth unemployment and the rise of the far-right in Europe?

In recent years, there has been a notable increase in the number of neo-Nazi demonstrations and groups in Europe. Many commentators suggest this rise is related to the number of unemployed people and the economic crisis in the European Union (EU). But how true is this?

“White Power”

According to the Danish Center for Holocaust and Genocide Studies, Neo-Nazism emerged after World War II and, as the name suggests, has its roots in “traditional” Nazism, consisting primarily of extreme nationalism, racism and xenophobia.

However, although very similar in ideology to Nazism, the neo-Nazi movement differs slightly, focusing hatred more toward foreigners and immigrants and less on anti-Semitism. That said, Jews, along with other ethnic groups and anyone who does not fit the “White Power” philosophy, are still targeted and many neo-Nazis deny the Holocaust.

Germany has one of the largest neo-Nazi parties, National-Demokratische Partei Deutschlands (NPD), created in 1964. As of 2012, the report by the German intelligence service (Verfassungsschutzbericht) stated that there are approximately 6,000 neo-Nazis living in the country.

According to German law, Nazi-related organizations, symbolism and Holocaust denial are prohibited. This raises the question as to why the NPD has yet to be banned.

So far, three attempts have been made. The first was in 2003 by the federal government, which failed due to the number of state-employed informants within the party influencing its decisions. The second attempt in 2011 suffered a similar fate for the same reasons.

The most recent attempt in 2012, despite receiving the support of all 16 German states, was derailed when, in March 2013, German Chancellor and leader of the ruling Christian Democratic Union Angela Merkel declared they would not try to ban the NPD. Merkel’s decision was politically motivated, stating that she “did not want to risk failure a second time round as that could help legitimize the NPD in the eyes of some voters.”

But other reasons also played a role. By banning the NPD, it would become harder to monitor its movements as well as increase its publicity.

“Glorification of Nazism”

In the same month, the United Nations General Assembly officially adopted a resolution on the “glorification of Nazism: inadmissibility of certain practices that contribute to fuelling contemporary forms of racism, racial discrimination, xenophobia and related intolerance.”

It expresses concerns about the expansion of extremist political parties and movements, such as neo-Nazi groups in several parts of the world. It also points to violent manifestations and terrorism driven by extreme nationalism, discrimination, intolerance and xenophobia.

The resolution was approved by 120 countries. Canada, the US and the Marshall Islands voted against it, while 57 nations decided to abstain from voting. Among those that abstained were all the members of the EU, which presents a curious fact since the rise of neo-Nazi movements are increasing in many of these countries.

Perhaps this can be explained by the fact that the resolution only voices concerns and reaffirms prior resolutions against racism and xenophobia, rather than implementing any practical measures to tackle it.

Another explanation is simply that the abstaining countries support freedom of expression. Neo-Nazi groups commonly use freedom of speech laws to legitimize their movement and attract attention to themselves.

More worryingly, they are also gaining momentum by recruiting younger people as members. Neo-Nazi groups, including Heimattreue Deutsche Jugend (HDJ) — translates as the “German Youth Faithful to the Homeland” — have been discovered using methods such as camp holidays, designed to instill Nazi values in young people. During these camps, children were “put through military-style drills… were taught that foreigners were ‘enemies of the people’” and given courses in “racial science,” which taught the need to “restore blood purity.”

Other Neo-Nazi groups such as the NPD use less direct but nonetheless effective methods, often using music to disseminate their far-right values in an effort to indoctrinate a new generation of neo-Nazis. Most commonly, this is done through circulating “schoolyard CDs” to youngsters containing radical far-right hip-hop, with explicitly violent and nationalist lyrics.

State Organized Forgetting

Further empowerment of neo-Nazi groups in recent years can also be attributed to the increasing denial of the Holocaust among certain young people in Eastern Europe. Many agree that better education in schools is essential to reverse the trend.

As stated by Professor Michael Shafir, an expert in post-Soviet countries: “Holocaust denial in post-Communist East Central Europe is a fact.” This can be related to the communist legacy of “state-organized forgetting” that was prevalent with the Soviet Union’s “de-Judaization.”

However, the real question is why has support for far-right political parties risen in recent years? Can it really be related to youth unemployment and the growing influence of neo-Nazi groups?

According to Danny Dorling, an Oxford University professor of Human Geography, during the summer of 2013, an average of 26 million people were searching for employment in Europe. As stated by Dorling himself: “In 2013, those officially labeled as unemployed account for almost a quarter of all people aged under 25 across the European Union.”

Overall, in the EU, the rate of youth unemployment stands at approximately 22% and, in countries affected most by the European economic crisis such as Greece and Spain,  unemployment has hit more than 50% of the youth workforce.

The rise of neo-Nazi parties in Europe has mirrored these increases in unemployment. According to Richard Evans of New Statesman, in the 2012 elections in Greece, a neo-Nazi party known as Golden Dawn unexpectedly won 21 parliamentary seats during the first election and 18 seats during the subsequent reelection and, in France, the Front National received 18% of the votes in the 2012 presidential elections.

In addition to the rise in support for far-right political parties, an increase of neo-Nazi marches has also been seen in Europe. For example, according to Tanweer Ali, a research associate at the Foreign Policy Centre in London, since last summer in the Czech Republic the rate of social exclusion, unemployment, and waves of ethnic tension between Czech extremists and the Roma population have been increasing. This has led to numerous anti-Roma protests which reached a peak on August 24, when eight different towns were experiencing protests at the same time.

Several observers, including Evans, have started to note a certain parallel between now and Europe in the 1930s that saw Adolf Hitler’s ascent to power. The increase ofNationalsozialistische Deutsche Arbeiterpartei (NSDAP) popularity in Germany was closely related to the high rate of unemployment in the 1930s. Nazis blamed the main political parties for the economic crisis and the youth were attracted by its ideas and promises of a better life – explaining why the large majority of votes in favor of the Nazi party were from first-time voters.

Direct Link?

Such direct comparisons, whilst compelling, do not necessarily mean there is a direct link between youth unemployment and the growing popularity of neo-Nazi movements in Europe. It is hard to prove that there is any immediate correlation, simply because it is still too early to make assumptions.

The economic crisis in Europe began only six years ago in 2008, so statistics are still limited and the concurrent rise in both neo-Nazi movements and youth unemployment could be a coincidence.

However, it is undeniable that such far-right groups and parties have been on the rise in recent years. It is arguable that the discontent which arose after the financial crisis due to skyrocketing unemployment, spending cuts, and austerity measures throughout many European countries has at least in part fuelled far-right movements.

This is evidenced in far-right parties’ rhetoric, blaming immigrants and foreigners for such problems, as well as some like the NPD to pursue more moderate, though still ultra-conservative, policies in an attempt to attract more discontented voters.

Most commentators agree that, regardless of any link between the increase in far-right movements and the rise in unemployment, governments must work to create more jobs by offering economic incentives to companies for hiring young people, as well as work to improve Holocaust education in schools.

Each year, many students complete their university studies and struggle to find a place in the job market. If nothing is done to help alleviate the problem, then it is entirely possible that the feeling of dissatisfaction amongst young people, seen in many protests worldwide since the advent of the economic crisis, will continue to grow. And for some, the allure of nationalism and the far-right with its simplistic answers and convenient scapegoats might be hard to resist.

*Cover image ‘Neo Nazi Rally In Trenton, NJ’ by Bob Jagendorf