How the Ukraine Crisis Could Work to Iran’s Advantage
European countries have made it clear in recent weeks that in light of the most serious test of EU-Russia relations in years, they’re looking to reduce their dependence on imports of natural gas from Russia.
As the Economist noted a few days ago, “an immediate casualty is likely to be Russia’s South Stream pipeline,” which was intended to bring Russian gas through the Black Sea to Europe, circumventing Ukraine. That’s good news for projects like the Trans Adriatic Pipeline, due for completion in 2018, which would bring gas from the Caucasus via Turkey, cutting Russia out of the equation altogether. Or if the current thaw in diplomatic relations continues, it could be good news for Iran. Home to the world’s second-largest natural gas reserves, the sector has been undeveloped after years of sanctions.
Perhaps reading the writing on the wall, Iranian Trade Minister Mohammad Reza Nematzadeh said yesterday that "Iran should be considered a reliable partner for natural gas supplies to Europe,” claiming that the government was looking into a pipeline to transport gas from southern Iran to Turkey.
The Ukraine crisis may also impact the ongoing international negotiations over the country’s nuclear program, where Moscow has traditionally been Iran’s primary backer. Russia’s delegate to the talks between Iran and the P5+1, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei A. Ryabkov, hinted last month that “We wouldn’t like to use these talks as an element of the game of raising the stakes. … But if they force us into that, we will take retaliatory measures here as well.”
The P5+1 have, with fits and starts, showed signs of presenting a united front on sanctions and Iran’s nuclear program. Any division in the ranks is likely to be to Iran’s advantage in the talks going forward.
Russia and Iran have even been tentatively discussing a gas trade deal that the U.S. says would go against the terms of Iran’s interim nuclear agreement.
Iran and the U.S. are currently locked in a dispute over the U.S. decision not to grant a visa to Tehran’s pick for U.N. ambassador, a participant in the 1979 taking of hostages at the U.S. embassy. I have to imagine this would be a much bigger story, both for the media and on Capitol Hill, if Russia weren’t drawing everyone’s attention right now.
If Iran somehow comes out of this looking like a distant second on the list of states seen as threatening to the EU and U.S., and can maintain its relatively cordial relationship with Russia at the same time (the Iranian government has been studiously noncommittal in its statements on the crisis), it may turn out to be one of the unlikely winners of this mess.
The Google Annexation
NPR notes an interesting recent change on Google Maps. Visitors to Google.Ru/Maps, the Russian edition of the site, now see the Crimean peninsula separated from the Ukrainian mainland by a sold line, implying an international border. On every other version of the site, however, there’s a dotted line implying that the border is disputed:
In a statement to ThinkProgress, the company said, “Google Maps makes every effort to depict disputed regions and features objectively. Our Maps product reflects border disputes, where applicable. Where we have local versions, we follow local regulations for naming and borders.”
According to the Independent, State Duma deputy and anti-opposition enforcer Alexander Sidyakin has called on the country’s "Federal Mass Media Inspection Service" to look into how the Russian versions of sites like Google, Bing, and Wikipedia are representing the territory.
A site as ubiquitous as Google Maps is inevitably going to get drawn into territorial disputes. It was criticized by the Israeli foreign ministry a few years ago for changing its designation from “Palestinian Territories” to “Palestine.” In the 2010 “Google Maps War,” a Nicaraguan official cited the site to justify a military incursion into disputed Costa Rican territory.
Unlike National Geographic’s unfortunate recent decision on Crimea, Google's marking of the territory as disputed seems like a fair compromise between recognizing Russia’s de facto control on the ground, and the fact that no other countries have formally recognized the annexation. But if it’s “disputed” in every other country in the world, it should be “disputed” in Russia too.
Waiting for the Crackdown
We’ve now passed a deadline declared by the government in Kiev for pro-Russian separatists to leave the government buildings they occupied in several cities in the east of the country. The armed militants from the self-declared “People’s Republic of Donetsk” have remained in place, but aside from sightings of a few helicopters, Kiev’s promised “anti-terrorist” operation hasn’t materialized either.
It seems as though Ukraine is facing the highest risk of civil war and Russian intervention on the Ukrainian mainland since the crisis began. There don’t appear to be a whole lot of good options on the table for Ukraine’s government and its Western backers. An operation to restore control of the east—which would likely be carried out by the military as trust in the interior ministry troops who were strongly identified with former President Viktor Yanukovych is low—seems likely to spark a Russian incursion to “protect” the rights of ethnic Russians. Acting President Oleksandr Turchynov has tried to appease the seperatists demands, saying he would be open to a referendum on greater autonomy of Ukraine’s eastern regions, but that doesn’t seem to have swayed anyone on the ground in Donetsk.
Turchynov today called for U.N. peacekeepers to be deployed in the country, but given Russia’s veto on the Security Council, that seems like a non-starter.
Washington has been steadily targeting more individuals and companies for sanction, and reportedly has more measures in the works, but efforts have so far been hampered by the fact that European countries have been reluctant to go as far as the U.S. in sanctioning Russia, as well as the fact that Russia’s leaders seem for the most part not to care about the economic consequences of all of this.
Others in Washington, notably Sen. John McCain, have suggested providing weapons to the Ukrainian government. In Berlin today, an adviser to Secretary of State John Kerry said, "Obviously we are looking at that as an option.”
But unless the U.S. is really going to put the full weight of its military might behind Kiev, this seems likely to only prolong the fighting without actually tipping the balance in favor of Ukraine’s dysfunctional military.
It’s still not a forgone conclusion that Russia is preparing a full invasion. A unified Ukraine with significant autonomy for the east and a significant political role for Russian-speaking Ukrainians still seems like a better outcome for Russia than a bloody civil war on its border. On the other hand, if the long-term goal is simply territorial expansion, Putin will probably never have a better opportunity than he has right now.
At the very least, Putin will come out of this demonstrating that the post-Soviet borders are no longer set in stone. Where they still exist, it is because he has deigned not to challenge them.
As one paramilitary fighter occupying a government building in Slaviansk told Reuters, "The borders between Ukraine, Russia and Belarus are artificial and we are here to take them away."
Russia Now Spends More of Its Wealth on the Military Than the United States
In light of the increasingly tense situation in eastern Ukraine, the most eye-grabbing fact in the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute’s newly updated military spending database may be that for the first time in nearly a decade, Russia is spending a greater percentage of its GDP on its military than the United States. Russia’s defense spending increased by 4.8 percent last year and has increased more than a third under a military modernization program undertaken following the 2008 Georgia war.
Elsewhere in the world, amid rising tensions with Iran, Saudi Arabia is now the Middle East’s pre-eminent military power with the fourth-highest military spending in the world. China increased its spending 7.4 percent to $188 billion.
Algeria, where autocratic President Abdelaziz Bouteflika, already in power for 15 years, will almost certainly win a fourth term this week, became the first African country with the dubious achievement of spending more than $10 billion on its military. Oil-rich Angola boosted spending by 36 percent as well.
Overall, military spending around the world actually fell, though every region of the world increased its spending except for North America, Western Europe, and Oceania. The overall fall was driven largely by reductions from the United States caused by “the end of the war in Iraq, the beginning of the drawdown from Afghanistan, and the effects of automatic budget cuts passed by the US Congress in 2011.” The U.S. still accounts for 37 percent of the world’s military spending. European countries cut back as well.
Convergence is certainly too strong a word—there’s still a long gap between the United States and the two superpowers that follow it, and between those three countries and everyone else. But the numbers show developing countries in something of a race to catch up.
Italy Asks for Help in Dealing With “Biblical Exodus” of Migrants
Italy is currently dealing with what one official called a “biblical exodus,” as nearly 6,000 migrants have been intercepted and picked up by the navy, on boats from Libya, in past four days. The migrants come from countries including Syria, Eritrea, Somalia, Nigeria, Gambia, Mali, and Senegal, and the recent uptick is likely the result of warming weather.
More than 15,000 have reached Italy this year, and this year’s influx may rival the Arab Spring year of 2011, when a record 64,000 reached the country’s shores. Hundreds of thousands more are though to be waiting in Libya to make the dangerous journey in rickety boats. The Italian navy began an operation to spot migrant boats in transit after two disastrous shipwrecks off the island of Lampedusa last year that killed 350 people.
The death rate of the Africa-EU crossing is about 10 times what it is at the U.S.-Mexico border, and some critics say the Italian navy's operation has actually made things worse by encouraging people to undertake the journey in less seaworthy boats with the expectation they will be rescued.
Italy feels, with some justification, that it's shouldering a major burden on behalf of the rest of Europe. More than half of the people who enter Europe do so through Italy, most planning to eventually make their way to Northern Europe. Already the largest recipient of EU aid for migration, the Italian government, which takes over the EU’s rotating chairmanship in June, argues it needs more funds to address the problem.
At the same time, human rights groups have criticized the grim conditions inside the camps set up for new arrivals—26 migrants underwent a gruesome hunger strike to protest the conditions at a holding facility in Rome in January—and critics say the issue has only become an overwhelming crisis “because of the bad management of Italy's asylum system.”
Italy is currently in the midst of a plan to move migrants to camps throughout the country so no one region becomes overwhelmed. Meanwhile, the influential Lega Nord party has argued for years that migrants should be barred from entering entirely.
The migration of people from Africa and the Middle East to Europe is one of the major stories of the last few years. And as long as the economic gulf between Europe and the countries across the Mediterranean continues to grow, and political conditions in North Africa remain unstable, the issue likely isn’t going anywhere.
Syria’s War Economy
Even at an annual growth rate of 5 percent, which seems extremely optimistic, it would take Syria 30 years to get back to its pre-war GDP, according to a recent analysis by Jihad Yazigi, a visiting fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations who writes about the country’s economy on his website, the Syria Report.
After three years of war, the country’s poverty and unemployment rates are both over 50 percent, deficits have increased by over 10 times, and foreign exchange reserves are dwindling.
According to Yazigi’s analysis, Syria’s economy has fractured in two. In regime-controlled areas, basic services and goods and still largely available and salaries are being paid. Perversely, the fact that the country’s population has been reduced by 15 percent though refugee flight and war casualties as well as the fact that those who are left have lower purchasing power, makes it easier for the government to keep everyone paid and maintain services like water, electricity, and health care.
In rebel-controlled and disputed areas, it’s a different story: Between 30 and 40 percent of the country no longer possesses basic services.
Yazigi writes of the emergence of a parallel “war economy”: “As security has collapsed, an informal economy comprising looting, kidnapping, and smuggling has become an important source of income. Entirely new business networks, often illicit, are emerging and new groups and individuals are being empowered at the expense of the traditional business class.”
He singles out the country’s northeastern region, home to significant agricultural and energy resources, which has now “developed an economic life of its own with the development of a particularly buoyant oil trade and the enrichment of a new class of tribal and rebel leaders.”
The more troubling aspect of this, he writes, is that “significant sectors of the economy now live and thrive off the conflict, creating a growing pool of individuals and groups that have no interest in seeing the conflict end.”
While it will take Syria decades to recover from the human and economic costs of this war, there are, as always, some people who are making out very well.
The World’s Murder Capitals
The U.N. Office of Drugs and Crime released its 2013 Global Study on Homicide this week. Overall, the number of murders in the world is relatively stable—even declining slightly—but the most striking finding in the report is how geographically concentrated homicide is become.
According to the report, a group of countries—all of them in either the Americas or Africa—accounting for just 11 percent of the global population are the location of 46 percent of the world’s homicides.
Honduras has the world’s highest homicide rate at 90.4 murders per 100,000 people, and it’s not even close. Venezuela is next with 53.7. Belize, El Salvador, Guatemala, and Jamaica all have rates around 40.
The Americas overtook Africa as the region with the world’s most murders in this year’s report, accounting for 40 percent of the world’s homicides, though that's a somewhat misleading figure as there are wide geographical variations among and within countries in the region. The rates were driven largely by gang and drug violence. The Americas were also the only region where shooting accounted for the majority of homicides.
The world’s safest country, in terms of homicide, is tiny Liechtenstein, which didn’t have any murders in 2012, but there are a number of countries, especially in Europe and East Asia, with rates lower than 1 per 100,000.
Homicides are concentrated by gender as well. Men accounted for 95 percent of the perpetrators and 79 percent of the victims of homicide in 2012, a rate that is “consistent across countries and regions, irrespective of the homicide typology or weapon used.” Overall, one in seven homicide victims in 2012 were men between the ages of 15 and 29 living in the Americas.
The one encouraging bit of news for Central America in the report was that a controversial truce negotiated in 2012 between El Salvador’s two largest gangs, the Mara Salvatrucha and Barrio 18, halved the country’s homicide rate, which had been the second-highest in the world. Unfortunately, this week brought news that the rate of killings has since increased again.
Introducing Mrs. Modi
BJP leader and likely future prime minister Narendra Modi has based much of his personal appeal on his humble beginnings as the son of a tea seller who carried hot kettles up and down the cars of trains in his native state of Gujarat—in case you didn’t get the message his party opened tea stalls as a campaign stunt and he brought a tea seller with him to file his candidacy—as well as his current ascetic bachelor lifestyle. But both images were complicated a bit this week by his first public admission that he has legally been married since he was 17.
Modi was wed in an arranged marriage to a woman named Jashodaben, then 18, who now goes by the name Jashobaden Chimanlal Modi—they had been betrothed when he was 3—but he abandoned the marriage and his own family just a few weeks later, leaving to travel the country on his own. The two haven’t seen each other since.
The existence of Jashobaden hasn’t exactly been a secret, or even an open secret. Now a retired schoolteacher living on a pension of about $233 a month, she was discovered by reporters in 2002 living in a one-room apartment, and she’s been giving interviews to curious reporters for years. But likely due to advice from his legal advisers, this week saw Modi’s first public acknowledgment that he’s married, when he put her name down as his spouse in his nomination form to run for parliament.
As the Times of India notes, he had “left the column blank in the last four state assembly elections in 2001, 2002, 2007 and 2012.”
Modi has, in the past, used the fact that he doesn't have family dependent on him as evidence of his incorruptibility. The fact that he actually has a wife living in near-poverty doesn't exactly bolster that argument. Interestingly, given Modi’s past as a militant Hindu nationalist and accusations of complicity in violence against Muslims, Jashodaben taught in a predominantly Muslim school.
The acknowledgment may prompt some more scrutiny of Modi’s early years, which seem to have gotten the full George Washington cherry tree treatment from his supporters. (According to one story, as a boy he swam alone through a crocodile-infested lake to reach a submerged temple.)
Jashodaben doesn’t seem bitter and says she supports Modi’s candidacy, but the picture she painted of their brief relationship in an interview with Indian Express isn’t exactly flattering:
Did he ever tell you he was leaving you or quitting the marriage?
He told me once that “I will be travelling across the country and will go as and where I please; what will you do following me?” When I came to Vadnagar to live with his family, he told me “why did you come to your in-laws’ house when you are still so young, you must instead focus on pursuing your studies”. The decision to leave was my own and there was never any conflict between us. He never spoke to me about the RSS or about his political leanings. When he told me he would be moving around the country as he wished, I told him I would like to join him. However, on many occasions when I went to my in-laws’ place, he would not be present and he stopped coming there. He used to spend a lot of time in RSS shakhas. So I too stopped going there after a point and I went back to my father’s house.
Still, the revelation seems unlikely to sway the election, which began this week and will continue until May. He has a healthy lead in the polls and if accusations of complicity in an sectarian massacre that resulted in 1,000 deaths didn’t derail his rise to power, the fact that he ran out on a two-week relationship when he was 17 probably won’t. (And of course, Modi won’t be the only world leader whose marital status is a bit ambiguous.)
But assuming Modi wins this month, it will be interesting to see how life changes for the suddenly rediscovered Mrs. Modi.
What’s Driving Chinese Officials to Suicide?
Xu Ye'an, the 58-year-old deputy chief of China’s Bureau for Letter and Calls, killed himself under mysterious circumstances in his office this week, the latest in a series of high-ranking officials to commit suicide recently.
Simon Denyer of the Washington Post reports that the deaths have led to speculation over whether President Xi Jinping’s high-profile and wide-ranging anti-corruption campaign is “putting so much pressure on his ruling Communist Party that some members were being driven to take their own lives.”
The circumstances leading up to the deaths lend some credence to this idea. Xu was not known to be under investigation, but one of his senior colleagues was recently fired for violating party rules, and his office—responsible for handling citizen complaints—has been the target of corruption allegations in the past.
Xu’s suicide follows that of Li Wufeng, the senior information office official referred to as China’s “top Internet cop,” who jumped to his death from his sixth-floor office in March. The South China Morning Post reports that Li had been “questioned several times by Communist Party discipline officers over the past few months, but the nature of it was unclear.”
Zhou Yu, a senior Chongqing police official who hanged himself in a hotel room last week, had been instrumental in now-disgraced Mayor Bo Xilai’s crackdown on organized crime. Bo, who had been a rising power in the Communist Party, was sentenced to life in prison last year on corruption charges.
Other recent suicides include a building safety official in the city of Fenghua, where an aging apartment building had recently collapsed, and a senior official at a state-owned power company.
The timing of this could all be just a coincidence. China does have a fairly high suicide rate by international standards. But given the scale of Xi’s crackdown—182,000 officials were punished last year, according to official numbers—and the kind of sentences that these officials can face in the worst cases, it wouldn’t be surprising if some officeholders were under more stress than normal.
Putin Book Blocked by British Libel Laws
Last year Britain passed a new defamation act that advocates hoped would “change the landscape of free speech” in the country. The law raised Britain’s previously very low standards for defamation and aimed to crack down on the practice of “libel tourism,” which had allowed the subjects of unflattering press to bring suits against publishers in Britain—even if neither of the parties was based in the country.
Over the years a number of individuals, including the late Russian billionaire Boris Berezovsky and Saudi businessman Khalid bin Mahfouz, had filed defamation suits in British courts over material published in the United States.
The standards may be tougher now, but it’s still apparently difficult to publish accusations against powerful individuals within Britain.
Cambridge University Press recently declined to publish a book by Karen Dawisha, a professor at Miami University of Ohio and author of several books on Russia, which alleges that President Vladimir Putin and some of his associates were involved in illegal financial activity during the 1990s.
The full correspondence between Dawisha and the publisher is featured on Edward Lucas’ blog at the Economist. While the publishing house didn’t cast doubt on Dawish’s claims, it did note that in England, “a libel claimant can require the writer and publisher to prove truth, which in the case of your book, would be extremely difficult to do.”
They claim that if a suit were brought by one of the figures named in the book, “even if the Press was ultimately successful in defending such a lawsuit, the disruption and expense would be more than we could afford, given our charitable and academic mission.”
The book will likely eventually be published in the U.S., and will probably get even more attention given the “pre-emptive bookburning,” as Dawisha described it, that it was subjected to in Britain.