South Africa: A fading rainbow?

Democracy is not an easy thing to do. It is not something that can be implemented over night nor does the ability to vote mean that things will immediately turn out for the better. For democracy to work, institutions need to be in place and civil society must work together to grow something organically.

Notions of idealism have often ignored the fundamentals of rationalism and pragmatism. In effect, just because something may seem right, it doesn’t mean it is going to work. To a large extent, this forms the building blocks of modern Conservatism and many of the views of the 18^th century politician Edmund Burke. Societies don’t become something overnight, they evolve through history and culture. The lessons of revolution and visionary leaders have often led to mass murder and the brutality of totalitarian regimes.

The problem with democracy is that when it is in place, citizens expect results immediately. Yet, when things don’t, old habits often die hard. One only has to look at Russia. Western critics of the current Russian leadership may have some salient points regarding Vladimir Putin’s authoritarian style, yet let us remember that democracy as we know it has never existed there at all. Before Stalin and Lenin, Russia was ruled by hereditary Tsars. Authoritarianism and the security blanket of socialism are the systems that Russians know; it may be some time before the framework of democracy beds-in.

(NY Times)

The same can be said of South Africa. The pressure for the country to flourish remains intense, almost on the verge of burdensome. The peaceful legacy of Nelson Mandela’s leadership was a platform for countries overcoming long legacies of discrimination to aspire to, any step backward is deemed a desecration of Mandela’s legacy.

The current crisis involving the South Africa questions not only the stability of the economy, but the essence of its democracy. The shooting and subsequent killings of protesting miners at a platinum mine near Rustenburg asks not only questions of the police, but questions about politics and society.

Since 16 August, South Africa’s platinum mines have become inoperable. Mass demonstrations by several unions have prevented workers returning to the pits and have put future operations in doubt. The protests have continued to gain momentum and not just in Rustenburg, miners from across the country have joined in wild-cat strikes. The return of the banished former ANC Youth Leader Julius Malema has only stoked the fire further.

Malema is no stranger to controversy. A fierce critic of South Africa’s current leadership, Malema has openly stated his admiration and friendship of Zimbabwe’s ageing tyrant Robert Mugabe, discredited the Government of Botswana and called for the South African mining sector to be renationalised. The 31-year-old raised headlines initially for singing the infamous ‘Shoot the Boer’ at ANC rallies, Boer being the white farmers who settled in South Africa in the 17^th and 18^th century, now a looser term for white South Africans. In April 2012, Malema was finally banned for calling President Zuma a dictator. Yet, it does not appear to have curtailed his opinions. Malema this week was talking to the South African army, in what has been perceived as a threat to national security.

Malema's speeches draw in the masses (Guardian)

Whilst Malema’s rhetoric can be deemed as absurd and opportunistic, to what extent does it echo with many of the workers in South Africa’s mining community? Since the end of Apartheid, are they materially better off? Life expectancy has dropped to 52 years old, over a tenth of the population is living with HIV, on top of poor educational standards, crime remains an inherent problem with high murder and violent crime rates. Figures also put the unemployment rate at 25%, though many believe it to be around 40%. Has freedom from Apartheid brought opportunity? For the masses living in black townships, how many would argue that much has changed?

Whilst many poor black South Africans have suffered, the political elite have prospered. 100 years since the ANC was born, to what extent does it really represent its constituents? Why has it introduced a secrecy law that critics believe to be akin to Apartheid-era politics. Why were the miners in Rustenburg arrested under an obscure Apartheid law?

South Africa has struggled like any country whilst it attempted to re-emerge from its bleak past. South Africa is held up as a beacon because what was enshrined in its constitution made it the world’s most equal society. Yet the strikes and gaps in wealth tell another story. A new black elite has managed to develop from the seeds of freedom. From what should have been an opportunity for liberation and new beginnings has led to greed, corruption and a failure of the masses. Whilst the miners may return to work this week, what remains is a seriously inequal society and the fault lines that will only become wider.

How do you solve a problem like Syria?

Intervention remains a word that causes many diplomats to gasp. To what extent does intervention become an occupation and is there a point where intervention goes beyond a point of feasibility? Politicians have learnt to live with the consequences amidst the tides of history of whether to intervene within a country’s affairs. The demise of the Somali state was exacerbated by the White House’s decision to remove US troops after the failed ‘Black Hawk Down’ mission. The UN’s inertia in 1994 only led to greater intensity of killings in Rwanda. Yet, politicians know all too well of the risks that military action can ensue. The toxic-effect of the US-led invasion in Iraq in 2003 and the on-going stalemate in Afghanistan continue to poison the well of intention.

For over 18 months, the battle between the Assad regime and anti-government rebels has turned Syria into a warzone. Only recently Syria could be described as one of the most stable nations in the region, yet today it has the capacity to create an all out war in the Middle East. The reports of mass artillery bombardments in the cities of Homs and Aleppo, plus the massacres of women and children is creating a humanitarian disaster. With estimates of over 25,000 deaths, possibly more, is a foreign-led intervention an ideal proposition for the situation or is it bound to make the situation worse?

Fight to the end?

So far, the diplomatic efforts have produced little. Syria’s historically strongest ally, Russia, has continuously refused to back sanctions at the UN. A Libyan-style intervention or arming of opposition forces is deemed impossible. Yet what other solutions remain? The West’s idea that Russia could offer Assad and his inner circle political immunity in Moscow was voted down too. To what extent are we prepared to turn a blind eye to justice in the interest of peace and the deaths of fewer? Do we reach a threshold where justice becomes immaterial?

Syria has not signed the International Criminal Court’s treaty and therefore as things stand, Assad can face no international court. However; it is true of anti-government troops as well. They may say they are killing in the name of freedom, but no one can deny the massacres that have taken place on either side. The original protests that led to children having their fingernails removed have led to torture and summary executions. What they may perceive as ‘natural justice’ on the battlefield cannot be translated as humanly dignified. The country is systematically combusting, as are the rules that most humans would see as sacred.

From a diplomatic perspective, is it simple to purely blame Russia for blocking resolutions? Whilst no one can ignore the atrocities, who’s not to say that on previous occasions other countries, particularly in the West, have protected their own interests. There is a degree of old-school Cold War politics. One could argue why Sri Lanka or Israel haven’t had any of their politicians in the dock, these instances on paper show clear breaches of human rights or crimes against humanity, yet impunity remains the watch word. There are crimes and no one likes to see criminals to evade justice, but Syria and Assad wouldn’t be the first to escape the net.

This war, as things stand, has more to come, and who knows how long for. The fact Kofi Annan left his job as peace envoy shows how difficult it is to overcome. If Assad already knows what could wait, then who is not to say he will go out in glory as Gadaffi tried. Who’s not to say that a quarter of a million more people may die through chemical weapons? Then again, if he is brought to justice then how does one prove the atrocities? There are very few journalists and do they have any proof? Not all news coming out of the country can be verified.

Be sure, Assad is resolute but is weak. The question is what do you do about it?

Why 'Londongrad' Has Become So Attractive

London will be expecting throngs of visitors this summer. Not only did it mark Queen Elizabeth's diamond jubilee, but it is also preparing itself for the biggest event on the sporting calendar, the Olympic Games.

Preparation has taken almost seven years, and almost £10 billion ($4.5 billion) has been spent, not only to build new stadiums but also to improve infrastructure and regenerate previously neglected parts of the city. With only nine days to go until the games officially begin, the finishing touches are being added as London awaits the arrival of hundreds of thousands of tourists and, of course, the world's elite.

Yet over recent months, Britain has been getting more than it expected. As the European financial markets have teetered on the brink of collapse over the past 18 months, London has become a financial safe haven for many Europeans. Britain's decision not to join the euro has made the British pound one of the world's most stable currencies.

As European politicians and financiers have struggled to find a long-term solution to the crisis, businesses and depositors have slowly been moving their investments to London. For instance, in 2011 Italian investors spent £408 million ($185 million) in London real estate alone, an increase of more than 120 percent from the previous year.

London is becoming a safe haven not only for financial markets but for a generation of young Europeans looking for work. In April, Spain, the latest country to become embroiled in the financial crisis, announced figures that youth employment exceeded 50 percent Even wealthy French may be tempted to cross the Channel if Socialist President Francois Hollande raises taxes.

Yet only a few years ago, the city was associated with the wealth of Russian political dissidents. Russian billionaires bought up mansions and real estate in some of the city's most sought-after districts. Twenty years after the end of the Cold War, estimates count almost 400,000 Russian expats calling London home. So many, in fact, that the city was jokingly christened Moscow-on-Thames. British newspapers readily run stories regarding the size of Russian billionaires and their yachts.

Famous British institutions have been bought up by wealthy Russians. The Independent and London Evening Standard newspapers were bought by financier Alexander Lebedev, and Chelsea football club was bought in 2003 by Roman Abramovich. Late last year, Abramovich was taken to court in London by another Russian billionaire businessman, Boris Berezovsky, over allegations of breach of trust. And last week, Michael Cherney brought a lawsuit against rival oligarch Oleg Deripaska. The city could easily be the set of a Russian soap opera.

So is this a downward trend and an expectation of things to come? Should Londoners expect fewer influential Russians around Mayfair and Knightsbridge and more Greeks and Italians?

The answer is probably no. Despite this new influx, economists believe the movement of cash from southern Europe is most likely to be a short-term trend. Investment from Moscow and beyond is here for the distance, and it is moving beyond the auction and art houses.

The news that President Vladimir Putin is sending Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev to the opening of the Olympics perhaps is an indicator of things to come. Relations between the Kremlin and Downing Street have been frosty since the 2006 killing of Alexander Litvinenko, which many believe was committed by Federal Security Service agents on British soil. British Prime Minister David Cameron talked about rebuilding the relationship during his visit to Russia last year, but the re-election of Putin is unlikely to see relations thaw any time soon.

U.S. economists Nouriel Roubini and Ian Bremmer's damning analysis of the Russian economy can only suggest that London may be seeing more Russian emigration and capital flows. Endemic corruption and poor social care make the possibilities of a future in Russia unlikely for many. According to a June VTsIOM survey, 20 percent of Russians are considering emigrating, their likely destinations being the United States, Canada and the European Union.

Yet it is not only a brain drain. Figures from Russia's Central Bank show that capital flight is expected to exceed $80 billion in 2012. These figures apparently accelerated on the news of Putin's re-election.

So why do so many Russians choose London? Despite the fact that Britain's economy is also suffering from the global slowdown, London has managed to retain its AAA rating from international credit agencies. In addition, economic and tax factors are favorable, and immigration laws are slightly looser than they are in other Western financial centers.

What's more, high-net-worth Russians are increasingly branching out beyond London's city limits. The leafy and affluent areas of Surrey and Berkshire, with their mansions, huge gardens and private schools, are now seen as just as attractive as Belgravia and Sloane Square. "Londongrad" is quickly expanding, and Britain will happily take its tax revenue.

During the upcoming Olympic Games, when Yelena Isinbayeva competes for gold in the pole vault, she may be in a foreign city, but she may well have the home-crowd advantage.

This article first appeared in the Moscow Times.

South Ossetia: An election for?

One would not think that a country with a population of around 70,000 people would cause much of an international fuss. Yet, South Ossetia, a Russian-occupied Georgian enclave held its third Presidential election within five months yesterday, with ex-KGB chief Leonid Tibilov declared as the winner after taking 54 per cent of the poll in a run-off.

Situated in the historically troubled Northern Caucasus, South Ossetia has long declared a battle of independence to unify itself with its northern neighbour, North Ossetia. Yet the events of history have seen the Ossetian people stranded in one of the regions ‘frozen conflicts’.

It is worth knowing that Ossetians speak their own language and were one of the many different ethnic groups that made up the former Soviet Union. Despite the great cultural and political links between Georgia and South Ossetia, the calls for reunification have always been strong. The South Ossetian Popular Front declared independence in 1990 resulting in a minor conflict lasting until 1992. More recently, the 2008 conflict between Russia and Georgia, which overshadowed the Beijing Olympics, saw the futures of Abkhazia and South Ossetia again come into question.

The political deadlock since 2008 has caused difficulties both regionally and globally. Georgia, an ally of the West and a ‘promised’ future member of NATO believes that the elections will lead to puppet regimes of Russia, as well as denying suffrage to Georgians expelled from the region. Whereas Russia, particularly President-elect Vladimir Putin, believes it is in his country’s interest to look after its so-called ‘near abroad’.

The first poll in November was annulled after Russia’s preferred candidate lost unexpectedly to an anti-corruption campaigner. Since 2008, Russia has kept troops in the region, whilst pumping in hundreds of millions of dollars in aid. It is one of only five nations to have recognised South Ossetia as independent along with: Nicaragua, Venezuela, Nauru and Tuvalu.

The election does raise many questions; most profoundly about how do countries get independence and the goals of Russian foreign policy. These countries were all formerly members of the USSR and since the break up, many have become independent and more worryingly to Moscow, have looked to the EU and NATO for support. Chechnya and Dagestan have both fought bitter insurgencies against Russian troops since the early 1990s; it is only through the Kremlin’s recognition of strongmen in charge, normally in return for aid and weapons, plus a blind eye to the abuse of democracy that it has been able to retain its sphere of influence. Belarus’s Alexander Lukashenko, Ukraine’s Viktor Yanukovych and Chechnya’s Ramzan Kadyrov all curry favour and influence with Putin and Medvedev. It is a question of whether Russia acts as neutral peacemakers or conniving troublemakers in the region.

For South Ossetians, how much will their lives change? As liberating as it was for the likes of Poland or Lithuania? Or marginalised like Kosovo or Moldova? Independence is not only a struggle for democracy, but also recognition. South Ossetia may become independent and then unified or possibly rejoin Russia, but what then does that mean for its people?   

The EU: Ode to joy or not?

The internal strife emanating throughout Europe is transforming the union into a concord of disharmony. In streets and city squares, hoards of protesters commune to aim their vitriol at lacklustre governments and impugned banks. The years of cheap credit and profligacy have returned to haunt many nations as their debt-ridden treasuries have been forced to implement austerity measures in return for financial bailouts. In Madrid, protesters known as los indignados (meaning ‘the outraged’) have occupied the Puerta del Sol, rejecting the punishing measures accepted by its government. Meanwhile in Athens, Syntagma Square has seen months of violent clashes between riot police and demonstrators, as the Greek government implemented tough austerity measures in return for EU loans. Dublin, Lisbon, London and Rome have also seen a surge in protests and occupy movements, all in reaction to the prospect of cuts to welfare and an unreformed financial sector. What is most noticeable about the swelling in anger is the increasing distrust and hostility between nations. Germany, the central political and economic power is increasingly being slurred with Nazi characterisations, as it forces the ‘feckless’ Greeks to accept the tranches of bailout money. The open antagonism between the prudent Northern Europeans and their reckless Southern cousins is opening tensions to the sustainability of the whole fiscal and political union.

Yet as the continuous infighting continues, many of Europe’s other countries are beginning to lose sight of the European dream. Welcomed in from beyond the frosty realms of the Iron Curtain, Eastern Europe is discovering that the party they thought that was inviting is not as welcoming as they previously thought.

Many policy chiefs in the corridors of power of Brussels believed that a larger political union would create a stronger economic union. To an extent they were correct; here was the world’s largest and most successful internal market. All countries from the Eastern bloc yearned to join; even some North African countries sought membership. The European Union had the benefits of close political and defensive ties with America, multilateralism and a form of welfare capitalism. How the tides of fortune have ebbed away.

Countries that EU technocrats may have one day expected to join are weighing up their options. Georgia, Ukraine and Kazakhstan resent Europe’s hesitancy and hypocrisy. In fact, the West’s biggest proponent in the former Soviet bloc, President Saakashvili of Georgia, could flout the constitutional rules and run again for Presidency in 2013. Why should any of these countries listen to hedonistic messages of prudence when the European Central Bank is printing money to buy debt from its own shambolic economies? Even Hungary, an EU member, is flouting union rules over budget-deficit targets and media freedom. Turkey appeared to go cold over Europe many years ago. Russia is happy to see former satellite states return to the fold.

What about that great American hope? The US was once the Baltic States biggest and most loyal admirer. Countries like Poland were steadfast in their support of NATO and happy to commit men on the ground in war zones. Not to mention America’s new missile defence shield, to the chagrin of Russia. Yet, American foreign policy is heading west once again. The geopolitical and economic shift to Asia is seeing American strategy head towards the Pacific and the emerging markets. No longer is Europe the primary frontier. Obama’s decision to abandon the shield and along with the EU’s inexistent foreign policy is turning the once idealistic Poles and Czechs into hardnosed endorsers of Realpolitik.

The EU’s decision to prevent the Euro from failing will see a new era of internal relations. Closer fiscal relationships will only mean tougher stances on imprudence. The collective voices of the right in Northern Europe will no longer tolerate the spending cultures of countries like Italy and Greece. EU expansion will certainly be welcoming to countries of the Balkans but it might not be as jovial as they thought.

Russian elections: Putin in power.

It was the British Foreign Secretary William Hague who said that the democratic uprisings of 2011 are the most defining international events of the twenty-first century. All across North Africa and the Middle East, citizens, who had been shackled for generations by authoritarian rulers, protested in the streets to win the right to be free participants in a democratic nation. Absolute rulers in Egypt and Tunisia have been overthrown peacefully, Libya’s Colonel Muammar Gaddafi’s rule ended ignominiously after 42 years, whilst in Syria, Bashir al-Assad has resorted to turning on his own people. The great emancipator, Abraham Lincoln, once said of Russia that its people were deserving of a despot because they did not love liberty. Yet after dubious election results and a forthcoming Presidential campaign in 2012, the Russian people are looking to join a new struggle to prevent the current Prime Minister, Vladimir Putin, taking Presidential power for a third time. Two decades after the breakup of the USSR and the difficult transition to democracy what lies ahead for the Great Bear?

The elections in the State Duma (the lower house) last week can only be declared as a farce. An institution re-established by Tsar Nicholas II as a way of appeasing revolutionaries back in 1906 saw Putin’s United Russia party re-elected with 49.5% of the vote, down from 64.3%. The Opposition say between 20-25% of the vote was faked and if counted accurately the United Russia party would have polled just under 30%, a claim denied vehemently by election officials. Reports claim wide instances of ballot rigging including officials filling out ballots and parents of schoolchildren forced to vote in fear of cuts to school funding. Former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev has called for the results to be annulled, whilst many angry voters have taken their displeasure to the streets. Last weekend saw anti-Putin demonstrations in over 80 cities across Russia; they believe if they cannot stop him now then he is sure to be elected for another two terms (12 years), a costly mistake for the country. There were pro-Putin rallies accompanying the counterparts; however reports suggest that many of the demonstrators had been bussed in from cities, unaware of what they had been sent to.

President Medvedev’s decision to stand down after one term did not surprise anyone but it did ask questions of where Russia wanted to go. Critics claim that Putin was the man making all the decisions, yet there seemed to be a greater avenue of reform, along with the usual skulduggery associated in Russian politics. Diplomatic relations with the US were famously reset when Secretary of State Hillary Clinton met Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, key reforms began in the military and new measures were put in place to attract international investors. On the contrary, we saw the 2008 conflict against Georgia, energy wars with Ukraine and diminishing press and social freedoms. The difficulty for Russia is that it has struggled to secure a place in the world after the Soviet Union broke up. Many former satellite states like Lithuania and Estonia have rushed to join the EU and others would prefer protection from NATO rather than the Kremlin. With a decreasing population and waning influence in the world, Putin’s perception is that Russia must be united under a strong leader. Officials and oligarchs are happy to accept this as long as they retain their share of the spoils. Even Nicholas II moved to restrict the powers of the Duma.

For ordinary Russians, none of these situations are conducive. Political stagnation, corruption and the high cost of living has seen a poll show that around 20% of Russians consider emigrating. Despite a growing economy, many of the most talented scientists and graduates are moving to the US, Canada and the EU, Russia is suffering a brain drain, the prospects of Putin only exacerbate this situation.

Putin claimed the US was behind the protests and spent hundreds of millions of dollars to organise the unrest. Yet, outside interference and suspicion does not work on a growing technological and mobilising middle class. They want reforms and they don’t want Vladimir Putin to take any part of it. The concerning aspect of it all as the former chess grandmaster and pro-democracy activist Garry Kasparov says, if the peaceful protests fail then it may lead to bloodshed.

A Greek tragedy via Moscow - Operation Barbarossa

As politicians from around Europe try to work out how to sort out the Greek financial crisis and the potential domino-effect across Southern European nations, the prospects for a generation of young Europeans does not look prosperous in terms of employment or financial stability. One of the main issues that economists and political commentators have pointed out was the fact that the creation of the Euro was built on a premise of political union and advancement, without the framework of a single European economic policy. However, politicians and people from across mainland Europe, despite the uncertainty, have been pursuing such a goal for the past 60 years. The rebuilding of Europe after World War 2 was both cosmetic and political. It provided a framework to pursue peace and a bulwark against Soviet Russia in the East. Even after the Berlin Wall came down twenty years ago, politicians including British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher and the French President Francois Mitterrand believed a reunited Germany could spell danger for the future of Europe. The whole purpose of European unity was to keep Germany down and central to its future, something it was battling against seventy years ago to this day.

If one battle is to define World War Two then it must be Operation Barbarossa. Launched with five of Hitler’s armies across the Eastern European frontier it set out to destroy Bolshevik Russia and to expand Germany into the distant East. Eventually five million German soldiers would die to fighting, the cruel Russian winter or disappear in to the work camps in the Arctic North. Russia’s gamble saw it lose over 27 million of its population, two thirds of them being civilians. Yet, despite the tremendous human loss, it is defined by historians as a battle won and lost through the eyes of Hitler and Stalin. These men were caustic and murderously driven to victory, yet they saw the battle as a chance to amend the wrongs of history and to place themselves within the annals of military legend.

Hitler’s hate and scorn for communists and the Slavic race is well documented yet during the infamous pact signed by von Ribbentrop and Molotov that sliced up the Poland and Lithuania between Russia and Germany, Stalin believed Hitler would keep his word and refrain from invasion. Yet Operation Barbarossa, named after King Frederick I of the Holy Roman Empire who set out to conquer the Holy Land in the twelfth century was deemed by Hitler to be a befitting name. On 22 June 1941 when Hitler’s tanks and troops crossed the Russian border, Stalin could not believe it. Despite intelligence from Soviet spies within Germany and on the border he chose to ignore it. Stalin was more sceptical of the British, who were relaying the same information, than his German counterparts (Britain had been Russia’s long term rival in the nineteenth century and had intervened against the Bolsheviks during the Russian Civil War). In the first day two thirds of the Russian air force was destroyed.

Hitler’s Blitzkrieg, the lightning war that walked over Western Europe, captured Minsk, Kiev, encircled Leningrad and came within 18 miles of Moscow was flawed from the start and any essence of military history could have told Hitler this. Napoleon’s epic battles against the Russia in 1812 are best captured in Tolstoy’s ‘War and Peace’ where the French are eventually pushed out by a disorganised Russian force. Hitler was obsessed with postcard captures rather than strategic victories. He was blinded by the fog of war and the abstractions of history that had eluded German and Prussians in the past. Like Napoleon, Hitler’s lines were stretched to the limit across a continental front. He ignored the cries from his Generals and believed he knew best. Blitzkrieg had worked but the front line still needed to be supplied.

Stalin too was also blinded by foolishness. His ignorance over intelligence and disastrous attempts to advance was an opportunity to replicate the successes of the 1812 General Kutuzov. At one stage, Stalin believed that his costly decisions would see him ousted, yet the reality as Professor Robert Service points out; he had imprisoned and killed all potential rivals – he was the only one left. He was asked to take the battle to the Nazis

While Hitler continuously gambled, Stalin used history to prevail. Like 1812, he saw this as the ‘Great Patriotic War’. He stayed in Moscow, unlike in 1812 and coordinated the battle from the Politburo in the Kremlin. He allowed generals to make decisions and employed effective propaganda to cede attempts to capture Stalingrad. Leningrad survived the Nazi siege for over 900 days. Armed by the allies, Russia was able to push back the Nazis, war weary and frozen (like Napoleon’s men) to his new prize, Berlin. After years of struggle, this was an opportunity to recapture and to take revenge, through any circumstance necessary.

During those three and half years, Eastern Europe became the blood lands of a violent and ideological war. It was rape, genocide and conflagration on an enormous scale, destroying and poisoning Europe for the following fifty years. Over 2.5 million people died in Stalingrad alone. It is easy to say that times are tough, but Europe has seen much worse.