Litvinenko - local hero

Orginally broken by the Sunday Times 2 weeks ago, initially thought to be poisoned by toxic chemical thallium, then not, tabloid photos follow (with crass headlines), radiation poisoning due to unknown capsules develops, then his sad death on Thursday evening, with stinging accusations and state sponsored assassination seen as a highly probable cause of Alexander Litvinenko. All along there have been denials from the Kremlin, titbits of information from acquaintances of the Russian dissident, and British government trying to keep as much distance as possible. Truth is stranger and sharper than fiction, for all involved.

So who did it? No other question seems to matter at the moment. The main culprits proposed so far have been Putin, Chechens, former FSB colleagues, fellow dissidents and suicide. Given his obvious contacts with various underworld and intelligence figures, I believe that it could be none of these and is in fact an unknown individual that he had dealings with, under very covert circumstances.

If this had been a conventional murder, it would be mid level news, but murder by radiation is totally unprecendented ... anywhere. Polonium-210 as a radioactive substance is not easily obtainable. On the wider international relations question, where is Russia heading: assassinations of critics, ongoing wars, sales of missiles to Iran and shifts towards being a fascist state. http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,6-2470215,00.html http://www.allheadlinenews.com/articles/7005629014
Are we seeing a new threat emerging here? Russia has yet to be fully incorporated in the post Soviet world, and it probably won't. 15 years ago, Russia was still considered a serious threat to international security. Will all the talk of the Middle East as primary zone of conflict, everyone has forgotten that inter-state conflict is still always possible.

Closer to home Litvinenko actually lived in Muswell Hill, where this blog is from.

The Grand Bargain?

Call me a naive idealistic political fantasist, but put Ehud Olmert, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, Bashar al-Assad and George W Bush together in a room, let each one make a significant compromise (return to pre 1967 borders, renouncing nuclear ambitions, end terrorist funding and threats of punitive sanctions, etc), sign on the dotted line (in blood if need be) and voila we have an enduring Middle East peace. Tony Blair and Hassan Nasrallah by the way, would be waiting outside desperate to get in on the deal, but Mahmoud Abbas and Nouri Maliki would be anxiously holding their breath for the right result.

Now this would be grandest of Grand Bargains, fairly inconceivable given how deep mistrust is and how fragile any sort of agreement is in the region. But the tectonic plates under the Middle East might just be heading in this direction. Not in one stride, but resembling a pyramid structure of lesser bargains upon which grander and grander bargains build up.

Despite the early jostling for position, the momentum seems to be heading for rapprochement with Syria and Iran, most likely after the publication of the Iraq Survey Group's findings. Attempts to split Syria and Iran will probably work, resulting in a lesser “Bargain” with al-Assad. The trade off being limited culpability for the Hariri assassination and cessation of Hamas support; for military co-operation in western Iraq and removal from the state sponsors of terrorism list. Iran will be harder, given the levels of animosity built up since 1979, and the regular rhetoric spurted out by Ahmadinejad, Bush and Olmert/Netanhayu. But with Syria in from the cold, a deal could provide momentum.

Tony Blair, in his speech to the Lord Mayor's banquet, disagreed that this was the starting point: "On the contrary, we should start with Israel/Palestine. That is the core." True it is the core, and has been so for nearly 60 years, but Israel whether under Olmert, Netanhayu or anyone else would not be prepared to make the necessary concessions without the removal of serious regional threats like Iran. That is why the Iran-US Grand bargain is the key.

Sadly the Iraq conflict and Iran's nuclear ambitions has pushed the Palestine question down the priority list, Israel an insecure paranoid state at best of times has no reason to compromise, with Hizbullah, Iran, etc, firing out the threats.

As for Iraq itself, I am not entirely convinced that Iran and Syria can make a significant difference. Neither can control Al-Qaeda (despite recent reports) and Shia militias are rife with rivalry rather than being one contiguous movement. Even if the Grand Bargain is achieved it might not guarantee results on Iran's side at least. And is it actually with the right countries, Saudi Arabia has an immense border with Iraq and is the source of the majority of Islamic radicals.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,7374-2453802,00.html
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/93F34036-5AB5-46BD-8D8F-1A6F0EF17628.htm

The other election...

A few thousand miles away from the political earthquake in Washington last week, another election took place in the Americas. Just as the Republican era seemed to be ending, a former adversary Daniel Ortega was completing his presidential victory in Nicaragua. There is an irony here (I am sure of it), Tuesday's congressional election will surely lead to the final clear out of Reaganites who Bush brought in at the start of his administration; whilst their nemesis during the 1980s is resurrecting his political career.

As a leading member of the FSLN (Frente Sandinista de Liberación Nacional), Ortega assumed de facto control in 1981 of Nicaragua, bringing the central American state into a Marxist alliance with Cuba, in stark opposition to its right wing past under Somoza's Sandinistas. The ensuing guerrilla war against US backed "contras", led to thousands of deaths, but also came to represent probably the low point of the Reagan doctrine: preventing the spread of communism in the Americas by any means and using any proxy available.

So what future lies ahead for Nicaragua and Latin America for that matter in the post Bush world? Either he will follow the Chavez path of confrontation or he will, encouraged by consensus seeking Democrats, follow a more centrist path than 25 years before.

Kosovo - the next chapter

The tempestuous relationship between Serbia and Kosovo continued yesterday, as Serbia's parliament formally adopted a new constitution reasserting claims over the ethnic Albanian province. Possible independence was also ruled out, with preamble references to Kosovo as part of Serbia, despite its current status as a UN-protectorate and ongoing international negotiations over its future.

Kosovo's place in history was seared by the ethnic cleansing campaigns of 1998/99, and subsequent NATO bombing. Probably a pivotal moment for all three statesman/protagonists involved: Clinton, Milosevic and Blair. For Clinton, it was one final opportunity to define his "Doctrine", that of liberal interventionism and to make up for previous failings in Bosnia and Somalia. For Milosevic, it was the beginning of the end, indicted for war crimes soon after, he would be overthrown in September 2000. For Blair, the war marked his emergence as a leading global statesman, as well as further developing his belief in Clintonian liberal/humanitarian interventionism regardless of UN authority, a policy that peaked in the 2003 Iraq war.

Historic claims over Kosovo are central to Serb identity. The inception of Serb nationalism was in Kosovo; Serb religious and cultural tenets have emerged from the province. Kosovo had rested on the fringes of the Byzantine Empire, inhabited by Slavic and Illyrian peoples, until Serb Prince Stefan Nemanja seized parts of Kosovo in the 1180s. Serb Orthodox churches and monasteries developed in Kosovo throughout the next century, as Serbs became the majority over Albanians, in an economically important part of the Balkans. Ottoman pressure led to the Battle of Kosovo – a seminal moment for Serbia. The defeat of Prince Lazar in June 1389 by the Ottomans is often regarded as the birth date of Serb nationalism.

Fastforward exactly 600 years, and a Serbian nationalist politician Slobodan Milosevic makes a provocative and ultra-nationalistic speech, on his way to becoming Serbia's leader. Kosovo was not included in the 1995 Dayton Accords, and in the final chapter of 1990s Balkan wars, Serb security forces and the KLA (Kosovo Liberation Army) fought a guerrilla war resulting in 10,000 deaths and thousands displaced.

It's hard to say if this will be the final chapter, Kosovo's prime minister today announced that he might declare independence from Serbia unilaterally, if UN negotiations fail. Serbia will object, but they will ultimately have to accept, given the overbearing threat of NATO force. Serbia is a beautiful country with warm generous people and it would be tragic if another bloody chapter was to begin after these developments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/worldlatest/story/0,,-6202647,00.html
http://today.reuters.co.uk/news/articlenews.aspx?type=worldNews&storyID=2006-11-09T122728Z_01_BYT933611_RTRUKOC_0_UK-SERBIA-KOSOVO.xml&pageNumber=0&imageid=&cap=&sz=13&WTModLoc=NewsArt-C1-ArticlePage2

Judgement day(s)

Two days: 5th and 8th of November 2006 will be significant dates for future historians. Representing book ends in the histories of both the United States and Iraq; reflecting their painfully intertwined pasts. Sunday 5th November, Iraqi courts announced that Saddam Hussein will be executed for crimes against humanity, marking the end of his iconic presence in Iraq's history. Wednesday 8th November, defeat in midterm elections for Bush and the Republicans, leads to the resignation of Donald Rumsfeld Secretary of Defense. As a principal architect of the war, his departure could possibly mark the end of a sorry chapter in Iraqi and depending on your viewpoint, US history. The appointment of Robert Gates and Democrat control of Congress will without doubt create a change of course for both countries and their relationship.

Rumsfeld and Saddam infamously met in 1983, sent their armies to battle each other 20 years later, and now have been consigned to face ignominious places in history within the space of the last four days.

It's all about oil....

Yes sadly my dissertation is.....all about oil. Currently on the back burner, but still in my thoughts, and tying in nicely with the US fp course. The research focus is the Shah of Iran, the 1973 oil crisis and US foreign policy under Kissinger and Nixon at that time. In December 1973, the Shah decided to increase oil prices by 400%, following the oil embargo during the October war between the Arabs and Israel. The result was an economic downturn in Western Europe, parts of Asia and the United States. Given that the Shah was one of the US' staunch allies in the region, why did he instigate such an increase?

Here lies the debate. The Shah's one time prime minister, and court confidante Amir Asadollah Alam, attributes it to re-assertion of Persian prestige and regional influence; Secretary of State Henry Kissinger places the Shah's ego as a key motivation; then mixed into these positions is William Engdahl's view that price rises were secretly conspired by Western elites (including Kissinger) on a Swedish island in May 1973. The histiorography is equally contraversial and compelling.

On top these diverse views, I will be considering US foreign policy at the time. The importance of Iran as a client state: as a bulwark against the Soviet Union and regional policeman. The advent of the Nixon doctrine; pursuit of Detente; outbreak of the Yom Kippur war; British de-colonisation in the Gulf also shaped the historical context for this economic shockwave.

So to summarise: What context drove this decision? What motivation defined this decision? And what impact did this decision have on Iran-US relations?