Ruzanna Baldryan – Pike & Hurricane

The Dark Side of the Foreign Military Presence

Ruzanna Baldryan — Sat, 28 Feb 2015 17:54:27 +0000

On January 12 an Armenian family of seven, living near the 102nd Russian military base in Gyumri, Armenia, was murdered by an AWOL Russian soldier, resulting in mass protests demanding a fair trial on an Armenian rather than a Russian court for the murderer.

This is not the first incident with a tragic outcome involving the above-mentioned base, nor is it the first such case in the history of foreign military bases (FMBs) all over the world. And while some scientists and experts claim soldiers not to be responsible for the violence they commit, due to the pressures of the social environment in which they operate, it doesn’t stop the host communities from feeling deeply affronted. Incidents like this can be seen as a direct challenge to their day-to-day life, and even to their independence and democracy.

The Ramstein Air Base imitates an “American” environment

Foreign military bases are found in more than 100 countries globally and are not a new phenomenon. The Roman Empire at its height in 117 AD had bases from Britannia to Egypt, from Hispania to Armenia. This type of military infrastructure was also used both by the colonial empires and by the Cold War superpowers to occupy new territories, repress local dissent and support commercial operations. Modern FMBs are primarily leftovers of the bipolar post-World War Two order. Russian military bases are located mainly in Post-soviet countries and American bases are hosted by those that have lost a major war against the United States, while the United Kingdom and France maintain bases in their former colonies. India, Pakistan, Turkey and even pacifistic Japan also possess a number of external military bases. These installations become frontlines for their owners and facilitate in the justification of military interventions and wars in any country where the slightest threat to their security is spotted.

A U.S. soldier in Baghdad

Whether these bases are constructed as intelligence facilities, radar sites or refueling stations, they influence the communities living around them. Military prostitution and violence against women, as in Okinawa and Kashmir, repeated instances of nuclear and chemical weapons testing, resulting in environmental contamination and destruction of farmland, as in Guam, Okinawa, Clark and Subic Bay, are only a few examples of the negative impact FMBs can have. At the same time, although host countries expect an infusion of foreign currency, the military bases don’t necessarily bring economic prosperity, as imported goods from “back home” sold in stores within the base sent most of the money right back. Last but not least, in several instances military bases have been used in operations involving unlawful imprisonment and torture, famously in the FMBs of Guantanamo Bay and Diego Garcia.

Despite their many pitfalls, countries haven’t stopped the expansion of their military presence even after the end of the Cold War. The reason is simple: military expenditure shapes the strategic configuration of a country, allowing it to project its power and presence in the region. Some officials have claimed that military bases promote the economic and political objectives of deploying countries, securing corridors for oil and natural gas pipelines, or, in case of the United States, assisting in the fight against terrorism.

The Russian armored and air support regiments located near Armenia’s second largest city, Gyumri, operate under the 1997 bilateral agreement between Armenia and Russia. Russian presence is evaluated by Armenia as crucial, seen as vital to the security of its borders with Iran and Turkey and also in assisting in the defense of Armenian airspace jointly with domestic forces. The 102nd military base is also part of a joint air defense system for the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) and the last bastion of Russian military presence in the South Caucasus. The Five Day War with Georgia in 2008 marked the official withdrawal of Russian troops from Georgia (notwithstanding the Russian military personnel remaining in the disputed regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia), while the lease agreement of Gabala Radar Station in Azerbaijan was allowed to expire in 2012, signifying Azerbaijan’s attempt to break away from Russia’s influence and seek its own energy policy.

U.S. and ROK fighters at a joint exercise

Nevertheless, the strategically important “last anti-NATO enlargement outpost”, as the 102nd military base is known, unsurprisingly has been a source of trouble for the local population. For instance, in order to access the agricultural land within the security zone, controlled by Russian border guards, farmers from nearby villages have to go through time-consuming and complex procedures to acquire special permits. Perhaps more troubling, external bases are small models of the deploying countries. In other words, these “Americatowns” or “Russiatowns” bring their own cultural background and “attendant amenities”, such as fast-food joints or Internet cafes, together with habits and sometimes even laws, providing immunity from persecution or lighter punishments for their troops. The cases of American soldiers accused of killing two South Korean girls, or Russian soldiers similarly accused in Transnistria are undeniably vivid examples of this reality. Moreover, although the obeisance of strategically located hosting governments is in the great powers’ interest, when tragedies happen because of their soldiers, they try to avoid discrediting their own armies and downplay the incidents in the media. Which is exactly what happened in Gyumri.

So far Russian-Armenian joint investigations have not revealed much about the motives behind the murder. Nevertheless, the great resonance of the case with the Armenian public has demonstrated its importance. The incident altered the positive attitude and trust the Armenian population had towards the Russian military presence in Gyumri. Nevertheless, the idea of dismantling the base, expressed by a great number of people, would be sure to have far-reaching national security implications and change the balance of power in the region, with Russia losing its last ally, and hence its presence, in the South Caucasus.

Although nobody is happy with the mayhem or death caused by foreign presence, we should acknowledge that the arms race and clash of interests between West and East is not likely to fade in the near future. But while the great powers are playing their geopolitical chess game, racing for greater power and presence on the global scale, we should demand they don’t forget the impact their actions have on their smaller neighbors and allies, which are more than just their “fortresses of interest”.

By Ruzanna Baldryan

Picture 1: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Europe District, licensed under CC BY 2.0

Picture 2: The U.S. Army, licensed under CC BY 2.0

Picture 3: DVIDSHUB, licensed under CC BY 2.0

The post The Dark Side of the Foreign Military Presence appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

Back to the Roots

Ruzanna Baldryan — Mon, 29 Dec 2014 20:31:02 +0000

In 2009, during the World Economic Summit in Davos, Switzerland, Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan publicly criticised Israeli President Shimon Peres for the Gaza operations in his famous “One minute” speech. His unexpected walk from the stage later during the event as a sign of protest, was the first big act, marking the deterioration not only of Israeli-Turkish ties, but also of Turkey’s loyalty towards the West.

Criticism of Israel and the West reached its peak this year, during his speech at the Organization of Islamic Cooperation. Erdoğan, this time holding the position of President, accused foreigners of loving oil, the cheap labor force of the Islamic world, and Middle East ern conflicts.

The world, and especially the US, started wondering what was happening to this ninety-year partner of the West, dedicated to the idea of the “Turkish model”, based on democracy, secularism and market economy. Just a few weeks later, high ranking Turkish officials made yet another set of controversial announcements. This time they “revealed” that Muslims discovered the Americas before Columbus and that Muslims were first to discover that the Earth is round.

According to many experts, in the 1920s Turkish leader Mustafa Kemal Atatürk’s geopolitical shift towards the West was an attempt to “catch up” and gain the benefits of modernization. The same policy was followed by his successors due to economic dependence on the Marshall plan. Thus, the partnership between the West and Turkey remained tight for the more than eighty years.

Turkish foreign policy started changing drastically after Erdogan’s “Justice and Development Party” (AKP) came to power in 2002. According to Turkish activist and student Duygu, who was among the anti-government protestors in Gezi Park in 2013, during its first years of rule the AKP was a quite tolerant center-right party. The party was open to everyone and even social democrats supported the AKP. The fact that Turkey had always suffered through coups and military rule, along with other factors, soon contributed to a shift in the party.

Turkey acknowledged that its lenghty fifty-year campaign to join the European Union is unlikely to be fruitful. The EU, led by France and Germany, seems apprehensive to accept this large country, with its lower level of economic development and its totally different culture.With accession an unrealistic prospect for the near future, Turkey felt justified in its non-compliance with the Copenhagen criteria. The West’s perceived inactivity in the Kurdish issue was another factor that incited Turkey’s gradual shift towards the East.

The party started to implement a new ideology called Neo-Ottomanism. Its main aim is to combine Islam and democracy, as well as to create a link between Ottoman legacy and the modernist Republican era. According to Duygu, AKP and Erdoğan brought about new laws such as the abolition of a ban on headscarves, attempting to outlaw abortion, and banning the sale of alcohol in shops after 10 pm.

Along with these domestic changes, Turkey started shifting its position on the geopolitical chessboard of the Middle East. It started “rediscovering” its old neighbors and started trying to have “zero problems” with them. This entailed the intensification of economic and cultural relations with the Turkic states of Caucasus, Central Asia and Balkans, along with other Middle East countries that were once part of its empire. The announcements about “discoveries” can hence be understood as an attempt to gain favor among other Muslim countries, however ridiculous they might sound to the rest of the world.

Erdoğan’s authoritarian style of governing, and the new limitations it has imposed on Turkish domestic life were questioned by what started as an environmental movement, but quickly turned into anti-government demonstrations in Gezi Park in 2013. It was the largest wave of protests in recent memory, as hundreds of thousands took to the streets in order to prevent the demolition of the park in service to the commercial needs of the government. Trying to contain international commentary highlighting elite corruption, as well as the mass demonstrations, Erdogan banned access to Twitter and YouTube, which only served to bring even more international attention on the domestic issues of Turkey.

Despite this crackdown, his domestic popularity remains strong, as evidenced by his reelection to the Presidency this year. Moreover, in large part due to his pro-Islamic and pro-Arabic policies, Turkey is among the main powers competing for leadership in the Middle East, along with Iran and Saudi Arabia. Perhaps most telling, the Ak Saray, the “White Palace”, newly constructed presidential residence of Recep Tayyip Erdoğan, is the world’s biggest palace. The Turkish leader, who is preaching unity, solidarity and alliance in the Islamic world, seems to want to become its leader or, as it is often said in jest, its Sultan.

Nevertheless, Erdogan still faces a number of challenges ahead. His policy of gradual disengagement from the West has the potential to damage the Turkish economy, and therefore is met with resistance from the country’s economic sector. Additionally, Erdoğan’s rival Güllen, a US-based preacher of an Islamic community that has supporters even in the “inner circle” of Erdoğan, is actively undermining him and attempting to build a “parallel” state.

This anti-Western policy shift brings Turkey closer to Russia. Despite their different approaches to the Syrian and Crimean issues, Turkish refusal to comply with Western sanctions against Russia over Ukraine, was the first signal of a thaw in Russian-Turkish relations. The fact that, after the scrap of the South Stream gas pipeline, Russia announced plans to not only expand the Blue Stream pipeline for Turkey but also build another pipeline system, means that sooner or later Turkey will become a major gas hub for Europe.

On December 16, 2014 Erdoğan blamed the EU for keeping his country at the EU doorstep for fifty years, adding that he doesn’t care about their opinion about Turkish policies in Syria or domestic raids against opposition media anymore. His vision for Turkey seems very different from Ataturk’s. It is less secular, caring less about EU accession and more about its power and position in the Middle East. The loss of this secular buffer zone may have many unpredictable outcomes, both in the evolving crisis centering around the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria but also for the future of the Middle East as a whole.

By Ruzanna Baldryan

Image Credit:

Picture 1: World Economic Forum, licensed under CC BY-NC-SA 2.0

Picture 2: Number 10, licensed under CC BY-NC-ND 2.0

The post Back to the Roots appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Grand Chessboard 2.0

Ruzanna Baldryan — Fri, 28 Nov 2014 11:47:34 +0000

On October 9, 2014, Armenia signed the corresponding accession treaty with the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU) of Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. It officially joined the ”East’s EU” as many western experts like to say. Whilst the treaty awaits the ratification of the parliaments of the above mentioned three member states, the West recalls the Euromaidan, the Crimean crisis, and other Russian attempts to recreate the USSR, seeking the revival of a bipolar world system which can bring on a new Cold War.

The Eurasian Economic Union (EEU), unlike the EU, was initially only an economic union, which has undergone economic integration since 1995. The Eurasian Economic Community (EurAsEc) was established in 2000 by Russia, Kazakhstan, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan; it became a Customs Union on January 1, 2010 with an agreement signed by Russia, Kazakhstan and Belarus. (EurAsEc) was officially dissolved this year in order to prepare for the new union.

These stages of economic integration prepared space for a common economic zone for the free flow of goods, services and assets where the key sectors such as energy, transport and agriculture will be coordinated by common policies. The EEU is already an existing institution which has its headquarters in Moscow, includes a population of 171 million (with Crimea 173 million), a total GDP of $2.4 trillion, 20% of the world’s natural gas, and 15% of the world’s oil reserves. Members of the Union are free of Customs duties, they allow a free flow of labour, and may import customs-free raw material from each other, thus increasing the production of related goods and trading alliances as well as.

Belarus and Kazakhstan, particularly Kazakhstan, unlike Russia, insists on an economic integration which solely limits the union’s geopolitical role in the international area and doesn’t let it turn into a block equivalent to the EU or ASEAN just yet. Furthermore, politicisation is unacceptable as they believe it may lead to the escalation of an East-West confrontation.

For this reason, the EEU has four decision-making and executive institutions equivalent to the European Commission and EU Council but nothing equivalent to the Parliament or Court of Justice.

Though it is too early to talk about the EEU turning into a distinctive pole of influence, this new single economic market, which was ignored by the West, continues its economic and strategic trajectory. Armenian accession proved that the project is ongoing, and now, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan are expected to join the union soon.

But what about other Post-Soviet countries that have the potential to participate in the “new great game”?

Although western experts claim that Russian leadership tends to broaden the EEU as much as possible bringing about the Moscow’s intention to build the new Union on the best values of the Soviet Union, at the current stage, the Soviet resurgence doesn’t seem to be realistic.

Georgia, from the first day of its independence from the USSR, has had a Western orientation and has not forgotten the 5-day war of 2008, making it is still too early to talk about its possible integration. Moldova has during the recent years had tighter trade links with the EU and Georgia than with Russia, and has signed the Association Agreement with the EU, showing its broad interest in having closer relations with the EU.

Azerbaijan has never shown enthusiasm for joining either EU or EEU integration projects so far, except for claiming they were not ready for any integration as of yet.

The Ukrainian crisis is an ongoing one, leaving us with vague tools to predict future developments.

Central Asian countries on the other hand, are in some sense more manageable for the diplomatic efforts as they depend on the Russian labour market. Seasonal work in Russia shapes the social stability in these countries and compensates for the lack of jobs back home, as it facilitates migratory and capital flows, which affects the GDP. Of course it doesn’t mean that there are no issues regarding their integration.

Central Asian countries have stronger commercial and trading links with China rather than with Russia. Turkmenistan possesses the fourth largest gas resources in the world but due to a price dispute with Russia, fulfills its own gas policy. Turkmenistan is China’s largest foreign supplier of natural gas and plans to supply gas to the EU, India and Pakistan.

Uzbekistan is not stable in the sense of foreign policy and has experience of joining and then withdrawing from regional organizations, such as GUUAM and the Collective Security Treaty Organization.

The accession of Kyrgyzstan is questionable because of the Chinese factor. Although the Union threatens to reduce China’s influence in Central Asia, Nicu Popescu assumes Kyrgyztsan may be the “gate” that will let Chinese goods into the EEU market partly because of the corruptibility of customs officials

The presence of Russian troops in the Tajik-Afghan border as well as the GDP of Tajikstan, for instance, which is affected by the Russian slowdown due to dependancy, should play a key role in the accession of Tajikstan which is still being negotiated.

China abstained from the Union, potentially competing with its own project the ”Silk Road Economic Belt”. It is already a member of the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation (SCO) where Russia and China share hegemony for certain economic and security goals. Besides, Chinese suggestions to create a free-trade zone between SCO member states, has been ignored so far.

Apart from the Post-Soviet countries, in 2013 it was suggested that some European countries, such as Cyprus, Greece and Turkey, would be welcome members to the Union, which would require their withdrawal from the EU bloc (unrealistic). Moreover, Iran and Syria have recently showed their interest in the EEU as well.

The EEU promises to be the most advanced project of regional cooperation in the short-term perspective. Nevertheless, the sanctions imposed on Russia, followed by the oil price slide, may threaten the economic benefits of the member states. As we live in the globalising world where the economic crisis of one country may have a butterfly effect, the ever-changing situation leaves us with vague tools to predict the future. Time will show if the EEU may develop further and lead to the creation of a political component or not.

By Ruzanna Baldryan

Image credit:

Picture 1: kremlin.ru, licensed under CC BY 3.0

Picture 2: Eurasian Economic Union, no copyright

The post The Grand Chessboard 2.0 appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The “Boiling Pot” of Identities

Ruzanna Baldryan — Thu, 30 Oct 2014 15:44:05 +0000

The pro-democratic protests in Hong Kong dubbed the “Umbrella movement”, are one of the biggest protests China has seen since the ’89 Democracy Movement in Tiananmen Square. The protestors don’t step down and demand resignation of the city leader Leung Chun-ying as well as Beijing to make democratic concessions on election rules in Hong Kong as they were promised before.. According to some specialists, protests are extremely threatening for Beijing as any violent measures in China’s financial hub may affect its own economy as well as financial markets worldwide.

But the economic crackdown is not the only problem that may occur as a result of the protests. The protests in the country of 22 provinces, 5 autonomous regions, 4 municipalities, 2 special administrative regions, 1 claimed province, and 56 officially recognised ethnic groups may put some administrative units of China in a complicated situation. Although the majority of the population is being classified as “Han”, which roughly can be translated as “ethnic Chinese” or “Chinese native stock”, China is a mixture of many culturally, linguistically, and regionally diverse groups.

According to a Shanghai student Jack*, though “Han” is the largest nation with 90% of the population – more than 1 billion people in China – the province serves a vital cultural role and people better identify with their native province than with China. The protests raised identity issues in a seem-to-be “homogeneous” China proven to be especially true in the case of Tibet and Xinjiang Uyghur autonomous areas or the special administrative regions Hong Kong and Taiwan.

Hong Kong people have a strong feeling of local identity since they have a totally different historic background than those of mainland China: the education they have received is considerably different from the communist one, the difference in law, and the Cantonese being the official language. According to Khaira, who is originally from Guandong province but identifies herself with Hong Kong since she moved there when she was ten, these are the main reasons some of Hong Kong people don’t identify themselves with China. Even if they accept the fact that they are part of China they emphasise that they are different. The majority is not proud to be Chinese and don’t like when other people treat them as such. She explained that it is natural because China has room for development in many aspects.

According to Robert who is among Hong Kong protestors, the cultural differences are so obvious that sometimes the Hong Kong people’s attempts to stop Chinese tourists from disrupting their culture with Chinese tendencies (bargain in every shop, never line up and so forth) makes Chinese people believe Hong Kong people have a sense of superiority.

But Hong Kong student protestors (especially the Hong Kong Federation of Students and scholars who play a key role in the protests) proved that they see themselves as different from other Chinese people and any other protestors of the world. Unlike the protests in Arab countries or in Ukraine – where protests would end up in everything being smashed and burned down Hong Kong student protestors are polite and quiet: they don’t pollute, they recycle their garbage, and they even do their homework in a study area on a main road. This campaign doesn’t have a leader, as the Hong Kong people self-initialised occupying Mong Kok square and the causeway bay.

One other cultural difference is that the student protestors believe in non-violent resistance just like Gandhi and M. Luther King once did. They didn’t fight back when they were attacked with teargas from riot police. They see the protests as the embodiment of the values they should have in their society and this is why they avoid physical confrontation and hatred. The protestors expect to have a universal suffrage that China promised them in the Sino-British joint declaration of 1984. And all they ask for is to have a constructive dialogue with the government, which still refuses to talk to the protestors.

Such cultural differences exist in Xinjiang Uygur, Tibet and other regions as well. It is not only for the sake of “enduringness” of Chinese civilisation and unification against the “Western culture” that ruling elites spread the idea of national unity. Neither is the promotion of the “China dream” (which is about the better Chinese society of tomorrow) by General Secretary of CPC Xi Jinping, done only for him to be imprinted in history books. In a country of so many ethnic groups and of regions with different levels of economic development it is the unification of race that guarantees Communist party to stay in power.

Although China continues its economic and strategic trajectory, Beijing faces a certain dilemma due to the protests. The government can’t repeat the Tiananmen-style methods as the protestors avoid violence as they are far more disciplined than the crowd of the 1989 Democracy movement. On the other hand, as many specialists emphasise, if Beijing agrees to negotiate with protestors it will show their weakness and the protests will spread to other regions with requests for democracy which is a real threat to the ”Middle Kingdom”. But China is a country of honour, which as we know even in ancient times could lead nations to take disproportionate risks.

Even though the events in Mong Kok square change rapidly and it is unknown what will happen tomorrow, one thing is clear: the identity issue won’t solve itself and the risk of escalation will involve other regions of China. The protests were the first steps for the government towards acknowledging the deep rooted issue of identity differences and absence of national unity and are certainly going to be a new test zone for Beijing durability. The protests are now a zero-sum game and the only option to overcome what appears to be a win-lose situation (reached most probably via use of violence) is to make some step-by-step concessions to reach a win-win solution.

*All names were changed to preserve anonymity.

By Ruzanna Baldryan

Image credit:

Picture 1&2: Pasu Au Yeung, licensed under CC BY 2.0

The post The “Boiling Pot” of Identities appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.