geopolitics – Pike & Hurricane

FYI, the name’s Macedonia

Louis Louw — Sat, 22 Feb 2020 15:40:58 +0000

While recently scrolling across Google Maps to untangle the web of Balkan nations, my attention was caught by a newly etched-out national entity. Or at least so I thought. In truth, after some further investigation into the matter, what I had glimpsed was less a newly forged nation and more the latest installment in a longstanding dispute over the nomenclature of Macedonia, upon which both the “former” former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia (FYROM and now North Macedonia) and Greece lay historical, territorial and identity claims.

Fast-tracking things a bit, this topsy-turvy dispute, which ostensibly spans all the way back to the conquests and spoils of Alexander the Great, took a new turn at the fall and partitioning of Socialist Yugoslavia. Ever since, both sides across the border have been involved in some feisty name-calling, with both sides refusing to back down on their claim over the cultural and territorial heritage of Macedonia. Underscoring this hard egg-or-the-chicken-first stance, a Greek veto all but barred the FYROM from ascension to the EU and by extension opportunities for development, growth, and prosperity.

Let them eat marble statues!

Fuelled by what it perceived as unfair treatment, the FYROM government ramped up its rhetoric by decreeing the fateful Skopje 2014 project, which was supposed to tie the FYROM closer to the glory of its, imaginary, epic past. However, this much derided project, which sought to remake the capital in the light of Greek antiquity, has left some to brand Skopje as the world’s “capital of Kitsch”. Adding insult to injury, the flood of neoclassical statues perched in lofty heights around the capital blew the project’s budget wide open in a country that continuously ranks as one of the poorest in the region.

Ironically, it was only by abandoning this bizarre showcasing of cultural appropriation and political escalation that a mutually beneficial breakthrough was achieved in 2018. Indeed, by re-establishing meaningful diplomatic ties, a formal agreement was reached, which consequently recognized North Macedonia as a nation distinct from the northern Greek province of Macedonia. In this instance, choosing the path of deescalation through dialogue truly paved the way for a better future for both parties. Bearing this in mind, can Skopje 2014 then be seen solely through the lens of the financial debacle that it undoubtedly was? Moreover, should the Macedonian government be considered the Atlas-esque bearer of all the brunt and backlash for its failure?

The M is for misunderstanding

One of the main reasons cited by Greek politicians for the controversy sparked by Skopje’s 2014 great leap backwards, was that the FYROM would potentially not only lay claim to what is seen as essentially Greek identity, but more importantly, that territorial aspirations on Greek soil would arise in tandem. This line of argumentation is reminiscent of the common trope of self-determination, which sees cultural imposition go hand-in-hand with territorial convergence.

However, what this line of argumentation fails to understand — and what I would suggest that the policy-makers behind the botched Skopje 2014 project failed to understand as well — is that the term Macedonia itself had semantically shifted away from the brittle aesthetics of antiquity to an entirely unique Slavic interpretation of the term long before the dissolution of Socialist Yugoslavia. After all, Slavic populations had been lively in Northern Macedonia for well over a century while carrying the denomination of Macedonia. Therefore, if culture is what one makes of living practices understood in the more mundane configuration of everyday life and experience, how is it to be presumed that Macedonian identity as a concept was frozen in time and space before, during and immediately after the unravelling of Socialist Yugoslavia?

Get off your high horse, Alexander!

Therefore, I am putting the following proposition on the table; I believe that one can fairly assume that, had the Greek claims on Macedonia not arisen in the way they did — territorial integrity of the state at risk! — with the particular meaning they carried — cultural appropriation of classical antiquity as a threat!, then perhaps Skopje 2014 could have been entirely avoidable altogether.

This goes without saying that I am not tip-toeing towards a justification for its bamboozling execution. Rather, what I am suggesting is that by accentuating territory linked to antique culture from a uniquely Greek perspective, the breeding ground for the self-confounded chimera of embittered Greek and Macedonian relations was set to roost birds of exotic feather such as the Skopje 2014 project or the Greek “cultural” riots over ‘identity capitulation’. In this light, Skopje 2014 can almost be seen as the logical consequence of two nations engaging in foreign policy on equally egregious terms.

Instead of negotiating a compromise with consideration to the needs and wishes of everyday citizens on both sides of the divide, the Macedonian and Greek governments failed to live up to their responsibility to foster the well-being of their citizens. What’s more, they made things worse by clashing over dead concepts of identity that have little bearing on the everyday workings, experiences, and problems of the common (wo)man. To conclude, when Guy Delauney inadvertently states that Macedonia “might as well be hanged for a sheep as a lamb” with its fumbling extravagance, one may indeed ask how else to get Alexander off his high horse?

by Louis Louw

Photo Credits

Alexander the Great, Mite Kuzevski, CC BY-NY 2.0:

DSC_0069.jpg, mrhong42, CC BY-NC-ND 2.0:

Image, Rosino, CC BY-NC-SA 2.0:

The post FYI, the name’s Macedonia appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.

The Nile: River Wars

Nikhil Gupta — Fri, 12 Apr 2019 13:28:21 +0000

It’s weird to imagine human beings as walking, talking sacs of water. After all, 70% of our body consists of it. Water is just as important to the individual as it is to the whole- it facilitates life on this planet. In 2010, the UN recognized water as a basic human right and called for countries and International Organizations to provide financial resources, help with capacity building and share technologies in order to grow together.

That’s fantastic right? Well, one thing studying political science teaches you is that it’s always complicated. Let’s try to break down the logistics of the idealistic goal of providing safe drinking water for the entire planet.

Water the tensions?

Fires require friction. And in this story, the friction is fundamental. Everyone needs water. However, clean water is scarce. How does one hydrate an exponentially growing population with the added complication of an imminent, irreversible, change of climate? Langford highlights that there are two dominant approaches to answer this question. The economic approach sees water as a commodity. This means that the delivery of water depends on market mechanisms and is regulated by price. Conversely, the social approach advocates for a top-priority universal access to water.

No prizes for guessing–the former is the dominant and widely practised approach.

In fact, several reports indicate that the implications of climate change would be droughts and mass water shortages. Researchers from the European Commission’s Joint Research Centre conducted a study wherein they identified areas in the world where the likelihood of a water war is more likely to occur. The most volatile of these areas are transboundary waters i.e water bodies that transcend political borders and are shared by neighbouring countries. The likelihood of water-related friction amongst these countries is expected to increase by 74.9 to 95 percent. The lead author of this study, Fabio Farinosi, said in a statement that the key factor that would equip countries to avoid conflict is cooperation.

And there’s the catch! Countries sharing rivers as part of their main fresh water supply find themselves in a zero sum game situation. Ideally, they need to balance domestic needs with the needs of every party involved. But the reality is far from this, as there exist a multitude of factors influencing a country’s stance on a foreign policy situation.

And the situation surrounding the world’s longest river is turning out to be quite the conundrum.

11 Recipes for War

The Nile river basin encompasses 11 countries, and over 300 million people depend on it. Its resources, however, are distributed unequally and some countries are more vulnerable than others. In order to devise a win-win scenario, one needs to choose between equality and equity. Domestic and international needs must be shared instead of seen as a trade off.

Easier said than done. In particular, the geopolitical situation between Egypt and Ethiopia is quite concerning. The problem stems from the flow of river and the relative geography of the countries. For centuries, Egypt has had the lion’s share of the river, mainly due to historical treaties. It is also the most dependent on it. In 1979, the Egyptian president Anwar Sadat made the bold claim that the only thing that could make Egypt go to war is water. This status quo has been put to the test when Ethiopia decided on the creation of the largest dam in Africa by the blue Nile river.

How exactly is this a problem? Well, dams are like taps–they control the flow of the water. Moreover, Egypt happens to be at the bottom of this pyramid i.e. there are 10 other nations that are further upstream and would receive water from the Nile before Egypt. This concern was noted by Mohamed Abdel Aty–Egypt’s minister of water resources and irrigation. He estimates that if the water that’s coming to Egypt is reduced by 2% , one million people will be without a job.

From an Ethiopian perspective, the project to build the dam was seen as an initiative to fight their own poverty, and transition into a middle income country. Egypt’s claim to Nile’s waters can be traced back to the Nile Waters Agreement that was signed between Egypt and Sudan during the British colonial rule. This agreement assigned no water to Ethiopia and the other 8 countries that are based around the river. Thus, although Egypt might need the water most, the upstream states would not recognize its legal and historical claim.

The Ethiopian government claims that the dam would do no harm to Egypt because it is solely meant for hydroelectric purposes. The country has no plans to divert water for irrigation. This may be true in theory, but if the reservoir behind the dam is being filled, it could hold back water supply to Egypt for an entire year. This is especially worrisome for them because water passing through each upstream country comes with a unique set of complications. For instance, water passing through Ethiopian highlands would provide a year-long flow for Sudanese farmers that would be very pleased with this development. Alex de Waal of the World Peace Foundation states that the Sudanese government is already handing out leases for farmlands that will be irrigated once the dam in Ethiopia is built. While this is a boon for Sudan, it could be disastrous for Egypt.

Zero Sum Game

In addition to all the technicalities, there’s an emotional connection between Egyptians and the Nile. They’ve had an entire ancient civilization built around it. It’s their history- written in books and songs. If some sort of agreement isn’t reached, the chances for armed conflict are less abstract. It seems as though there’s trade offs to be made everywhere. One country’s misfortunes are another’s chance to grow and develop.

In such a stalemate, I’m reminded of the movie Saw–the one where a group of strangers play a sick game against their will that involves cutting off their own legs and other gory things for seven movies. It is later revealed that in every game, the strangers had to make a choice–similar to a zero sum situation wherein they either choose to win everything, or cooperate with each other. The idea was that in every situation, it was possible for every participant to survive through communication and trust.

This is the real world though. And unlike the Saw, the countries involved can get help from outside. If anything, the potential volatility in this region must be acknowledged by the African Union and the United Nations. War can always be prevented.

by Nikhil Gupta

Photo Credits:

On_The_Nile, pixelsniper CC BY 2.0

City of Aswan and the Nile river, Christian Junker CC BY NC NC 2.0

Nile Sudan, Stefan Gara CC BY NC ND

Nile at night, Bora S. Kamel CC BY NC SA

The post The Nile: River Wars appeared first on Pike & Hurricane.