Chevron and the media

always remember to stay skeptical when it comes to media consumption. In this sense, I would like to thank Chevron for publicly sponsoring the Foreign Policy magazine.

ExxonMobil and Chevron are among the many oil and gas firms large and small drilling in Kurdistan under contracts that compensate the companies for their political risk-taking with unusually favorable terms. (Chevron said last week that it is pulling some expatriates out of Kurdistan; ExxonMobil declined to comment.) With those oil giants have come the usual contractors, the oilfield service companies, the accountants, the construction firms, the trucking firms, and, at the bottom of the economic chain, diverse entrepreneurs digging for a score.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comment/oil-erbil  

Libya and Operation Unified Protector 4 years on

More than four and a half years have passed since Security Council resolution 1973 and the subsequent NATO airstrikes (Operation Unified Protector) against Gaddafi’s regime. Back then, the operation was called a success for having had only a minimal impact on the civilian population, the great level of cooperation and the decisive role of other NATO member states than the US and contributing to the overthrow of Gaddafi. Euphoria was everywhere, the Responsibility to Protect was „Alive and Well“ (Thomas G Weiss) and an article in Foreign Affairs published in December 2012 described Libya as „one of the most successful countries to emerge from the uprisings that have rocked the Arab world over the past two years“ (Dirk Vandewalle, ‚After Qaddafi. The Surprising Success of the New Libya‘ 91 Foreign Affairs 8).
Obviously, academia and the international community have sobered up in recent years. Libya, one of the countries with the highest living standards (although far from being a paradise and controlled in a quasi-Stalinistic fashion by Gaddafi), is close to being a failed state (it is ranked #25 on the 2015 Fragile State Index), with two parallel governments competing for control, a crumbling health sector and a drastically deteriorating access to food. As Bernardino León, Special Representative of the Secretary-General
and Head of the United Nations Support Mission in Libya summarized the situation at a Security Council Meeting from late August 2015 (worthy to be quoted extensively):

Fifteen months since the start of military operations in Benghazi, in the east, it is clear that the confrontations between the parties have gradually transformed into a war of trenches, with no imminent end foreseen. In the interim, the status quo is exacting a heavy toll on the civilian population and on whatever remains of the city’s much-damaged infrastructure. More than 100,000 of Benghazi’s population remain internally displaced, and 70 per cent of the city’s health facilities are either inaccessible or not functioning.
The situation in the south is equally appalling. The absence of the State and of a proper functioning security apparatus has exacerbated local competition among tribal groups for power and resources — a conflict that has its roots in decades-long marginalization and neglect by central authorities. At the national level, the scale of human suffering is staggering for a country with large oil reserves and strong economic potential. According to different United Nations agencies, an estimated 1.9 million people require urgent humanitarian assistance to meet their basic health-care needs. Access to food is now a major problem for some 1.2 million people, mostly in Benghazi and the east. The number of internally displaced persons across Libya now stands at approximately 435,000. The health-care system is on the verge of collapse, with many hospitals across the country overcrowded and operating at severely reduced capacity, and many reporting acute shortages of medicines, vaccines and medical equipment. Power cuts are endemic in many areas of the country. Some neighbourhoods, such as in Benghazi, are enduring electricity cuts almost around the clock.
Close to 250,000 migrants are estimated to be in the country or transiting through it, many of them facing significant protection issues, including arbitrary arrest and detention in abusive conditions, sexual abuse, forced labour, exploitation and extortion. This year alone, more than 2,000 migrants have drowned in the Mediterranean Sea, the vast majority in a desperate bid to make the sea crossing from Libya to Europe’s southern shores.
At the same time, the country’s economy continues to contract rapidly, the result of a significant reduction in oil revenues due to falling oil prices and low oil production from Libya’s oilfields. Libya’s financial reserves are also being heavily depleted, in large part as the result of unsustainable expenditures on non-productive items. The political-institutional crisis in the country has also manifested itself in growing competition over key financial and other sovereign institutions.Against that grim backdrop of growing hardship and misery stemming from deteriorating security and general lawlessness, widespread violations and abuses of international human rights and humanitarian law continue with impunity across the country. Armed groups from all sides continue to abduct civilians on account of their political opinions or identity, often in the hope of exchanging them in return for a ransom or for the release of fighters or other civilians taken by rival groups. Not even humanitarian aid workers have been spared.

Preventing and/or ending gross human rights abuses were the primary motives behind the intervention in Libya. It was feared that Gaddafi’s forces would continue to use excessive force not only against his military adversaries but also against the civilian population, in particular in Benghazi, which was explicitly mentioned in resolution 1973. Nevertheless, when deciding whether to intervene and how, long-term prospects also need to be taken into account. While it is absolutely unclear what Libya would look like absent a military intervention or if NATO had refrained from taking sides but rather eg established safe havens for civilians or to establish a ceasefire with a possible divide of the country until a political solution is found, one may doubt whether that happened. Rather, the motives behind intervening in Libya seem to be a mixture of having grasped the opportunity to get rid of a dictator who had been in charge for too long, committed too many grave mistakes (remember Lockerbie or the1986 Berlin discotheque bombing) and controlled one of the oil-richest countries in the world, addressing demands to „do something“ in Libya, and perhaps build up a new allied state in the region.
In sum, the current situation clearly shows the extent of miscalculation or ignorance when it came to the political dynamics in tribal Libya. One may thus doubt whether Operation Unified Protector is still seen as a ‚model intervention‘ and if the interveners would act differently today. Removing a dictator is comparatively easy, but the West’s (and in particular the US‘) bad track record in establishing or at least contributing to a functioning, stable, and even democratic state has certainly not improved with the outcome of the intervention Libya.

Turkey’s legal justification for its recent attacks against the Kurds and ISIS/ISIL

The official notification by Turkey concerning its attacks against ISIS/ISIL in Syria can be found here: http://www.securitycouncilreport.org/atf/cf/%7B65BFCF9B-6D27-4E9C-8CD3-CF6E4FF96FF9%7D/s_2015_563.pdf

Similar to the US and its allies, Turkey relies on the right to self-defence and, more specifically, the„unwilling or unable“-doctrine, as the legal basis for striking against ISIS/ISIL inside Syria. Most interestingly, however, the letter to the Security Council does not refer to the threat emanating from Kurdish fighters but only ISIS/ISIL (Daesh):

The terrorist attack that took the lives of 32 Turkish citizens in Suruç on 20 July 2015 reaffirms that Turkey is under a clear and imminent threat of continuing attack from Daesh. Most recently, on 23 July 2015, Daesh attacked the border military post in Elbeyli and killed a Turkish soldier.
It is apparent that the regime in Syria is neither capable of nor willing to prevent these threats emanating from its territory, which clearly imperil the security of Turkey and the safety of its nationals.
Individual and collective self-defence is our inherent right under international law, as reflected in Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations.
On this basis, Turkey has initiated necessary and proportionate military actions against Daesh in Syria, including in coordination with individual members of the Global Coalition, in order to counter the terrorist threat and to safeguard its territory and citizens.

The legal basis for its military strikes against Iraq, then, is the consent given by the Iraqi government:
http://www.mfa.gov.tr/no_-220_-31-july-2015_-press-release-regarding-the-statement-of-the-iraqi-government-about-turkey_s-operations-towards-the-pkk-targets.en.mfa:

His Excellency called on the Turkish government to coordinate with the Iraqi government about any military operation in those areas, stressing Iraq’s keenness on Turkey’s internal security and its people’s safety, praising the Turkish decision which allowed the use of its airbases by the international coalition to attack the terrorist Daesh organization.

Regarding the attacks against Kurdish fighters located in Iraq, however, the Iraqi government has voiced harsh criticism which comes close to a (partial) withdrawal of its consent, or at least a threat of doing so, denouncing these as „a dangerous escalation and an assault on Iraqi sovereignty“ and calling on Turkey to avoid further escalation and seek a resolution to the crisis.

As a reaction, Turkey has stated that Iraq was not fulfilling its duty to prevent any attacks/not to harbor such „terrorists“. All in all, it seems as if Turkey is stretching the Iraqi acceptance to conduct attacks against ISIS/ISIL and the Kurds on its territory quite far; however, as long as Iraq does not expliticitly withdraw its consent, there is a legal basis for the Turkish attack:

[…] the negative attitude adopted by the Iraqi Government regarding the steps taken by Turkey within the framework of international of law towards the terrorist attacks faced by our country and the operations conducted by Turkey, in this context, against the PKK terrorist organization located within the borders of Iraq has caused disappointment.

Although the Iraqi Government emphasizes its commitment for not allowing any attack towards Turkey from the Iraqi territories, it is clear that this commitment has not been fulfilled and numerous armed PKK militants have continued to harbor in the Iraqi territory for years. Therefore it is not possible to comprehend or accept that those, who cannot fulfill their commitments, do not have the possibility to keep their borders under control, and one-third of whose territories are under the control of the terrorist organization, have taken a stance against Turkey in its fight against the PKK terrorist organization perpetrating armed attacks towards its citizens and security forces.

That being said, although there is indeed a (somewhat shaky) legal justification – in line with those which have been invoked by other states in attacking ISIS/ISIL in the past, the problem is that Turkey does not restrict its attacks against this group. It is obvious that the balance between striking against ISIS/ISIL and, simultaneously, against the Kurds, the most reliable allies of the West and the US in particular, will cause political and, relatedly, perhaps also legal problems in the near future. Until now, however, Iraq would only withdraw or explicitly restrict its consent for military strikes by Turkey if the US allows it to do so (which seems highly unlikely for the time being).

Lastly, here are some good articles on the Syria/Iraq/ISIS/ISIL/Kurds-quagmire:

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-33747980 (scroll down for some helpful infographics)
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/31/turkey-goes-to-war-syria-rebels/
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/turkey-conflict-with-kurds-was-approving-air-strikes-against-the-pkk-americas-worst-error-in-the-middle-east-since-the-iraq-war-10417381.html
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/29/whats-behind-turkeys-u-turn-on-the-islamic-state-kurds-syria/
http://foreignpolicy.com/2015/07/28/has-the-u-s-just-sold-out-the-kurds/
http://diepresse.com/home/politik/aussenpolitik/4785757/Analyse_Warum-Erdogan-die-PKK-angreift?_vl_backlink=%2Fhome%2Findex.do (in German)
http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/31/us-mideast-crisis-iraq-kurds-idUSKCN0Q52OH20150731

Russian soldiers in Ukraine?

Ever since the end of the Second World War, most armed conflicts have been non-international in character, with major powers often being involved indirectly by providing funds, weapons, training, and similar assistance to local forces. We have seen this pattern in Syria and, so it seemed, in Eastern Ukraine. To frame it in legal terms: States use indirect force (which is of course also covered by the prohibition of the use of force, cf the good old Nicaragua judgment), but refrain from direct force, i.e. sending their own troops. However, concerning Ukraine, the New York Times reported on the direct involvement Russian special forces in Eastern Ukraine as early as April 2014:
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04/21/world/europe/photos-link-masked-men-in-east-ukraine-to-russia.html?_r=0

Prompted by these reports, VICE News tried to find the soldier shown on the picture and proving that the allegations were not correct, at least not in the sense as described by the New York Times:

On the diplomatic plane, allegations indicating direct involvement in the sense of Russian soldiers themselves being present were voiced by France during Security Council Meeting 7165 from 29 April 2014:

We are witnessing a a subversive operation that has been planned, barely disguised and orchestrated by Russia. Russian special forces do not even hide anymore. Some time ago, our Russian colleague denied their involvement in Crimea, while his President recognized it a few days later. No doubt, he will do the same with respect to current events in Ukraine. France strongly and unequivocally condemns those unacceptable attempts by Russia to destabilize Ukraine.

However, Russia has consistently denied at least direct involvement in the sense of sending its own troops to Ukraine at the same Security Meeting for instance (and throwing a verbal punch at the US and its large number of military bases abroad):

With regard to armed forces, our armed forces are on Russian territory. American forces are hardly at home. They are in Australia, Lithuania, Poland and on the Black Sea, where an American vessel has remained longer than it was invited to do. Yes, our troops do conduct training exercises. But they do so in a transparent manner and while upholding all existing international agreements. We do not have any aggressive intentions towards Ukraine. They Kyiv Government should keep a cool head and not engage in reckless activities with respect to the people in the south-east of the country, where there are many Russian citizens as well.

While Russia hasn’t changed its official position until fairly recently at least (see http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/putin-denies-russian-troops-are-in-ukraine-decrees-certain-deaths-secret/2015/05/28/9bb15092-0543-11e5-93f4-f24d4af7f97d_story.html), it seems to become harder to maintain every day. As a recent video by VICE News shows, everyone with a computer can determine that it seems very likely that Russian soldiers are present on Ukrainian territory. After all, they themselves, while not wearing official insignia, seem to have posted revealing pictures on Russian social network sites. Web 2.0 indeed does have some strange side effects.

Kant, Grexit und Staatsschulden

Die Griechenland-Krise erhitzt nach wie vor die Gemüter; sogar die FDP beziehungsweise ihr Chef Christian Lindner hat, nach ihrem Abschied aus dem Bundestag wohl auf der Suche nach markanten Positionen, sich mittlerweile für ein Ausscheiden Griechenlands aus der Eurozone ausgesprochen. Umgekehrt hat auch der Ton aus Athen eine neue Schärfe angenommen, inklusive der im Raum stehenden Möglichkeit, sich bei der Suche nach Geldquellen ausgerechnet Russland zuzuwenden.
Obendrein werden immer wieder die horrenden Kosten des griechischen Militärs angeführt, von denen nicht zuletzt die deutsche Rüstungsindustrie profitiert. Gerade hier muss man unweigerlich an Kants berühmte Schrift „Zum Ewigen Frieden“ denken, die als Grundlage für die „democratic peace theory“ und – wohlweislich entgegen Kants eigentlicher Intention (siehe den 5. Präliminarartikel in besagter Schrift) – die Demokratisierung mit Waffengewalt (Regime Change) diente; denn hier findet sich auch ein gemeinhin vergessener Artikel (der 4. Präliminarartikel) zu den Auswirkungen von Staatsverschuldung:

4. »Es sollen keine Staatsschulden in Beziehung auf äußere Staatshändel gemacht werden.«

Zum Behuf der Landesökonomie (der Wegebesserung, neuer Ansiedelungen, Anschaffung der Magazine für besorgliche Mißwachsjahre u.s.w.) außerhalb oder innerhalb dem Staate Hülfe zu suchen, ist diese Hülfsquelle unverdächtig. Aber, als entgegenwirkende Maschine der Mächte gegen einander, ist ein Kreditsystem ins Unabsehliche anwachsender und doch immer für die gegenwärtige Forderung (weil sie doch nicht von allen Gläubigern auf einmal geschehen wird) gesicherter Schulden – die sinnreiche Erfindung eines handeltreibenden Volks in diesem Jahrhundert – eine gefährliche Geldmacht, nämlich ein Schatz zum Kriegführen, der die Schätze aller andern Staaten zusammengenommen übertrifft, und nur durch den einmal bevorstehenden Ausfall der Taxen (der doch auch durch die Belebung des Verkehrs, vermittelst der Rückwirkung auf Industrie und Erwerb, noch lange hingehalten wird) erschöpft werden kann. Diese Leichtigkeit Krieg zu führen, mit der Neigung der Machthabenden dazu, welche der menschlichen Natur eingeartet zu sein scheint, verbunden, ist also ein großes Hindernis des ewigen Friedens, welches zu verbieten um desto mehr ein Präliminarartikel desselben sein müßte, weil der endlich doch unvermeidliche Staatsbankerott manche andere Staaten unverschuldet in den Schaden mit verwickeln muß, welches eine öffentliche Läsion der letzteren sein würde. Mithin sind wenigstens andere Staaten berechtigt, sich gegen einen solchen und dessen Anmaßungen zu verbünden.