The past year, 2014, will be remembered for many reasons - for the continued terrorist upsurge in the Middle East, the crisis arising out of Ukraine, the predicament faced by the Palestinians in the face of Israeli obdurate behaviour, efforts of the West to reach an understanding with Iran, disengagement of the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) and NATO from Afghanistan, effects of political change in India, the strategic drive by China to enhance its trade connectivity, the savage re-visit of the Ebola virus, the fresh direction in US-Cuba relations, strains created through cyber warfare with North Korea and also the endeavour to reach consensus on how to tackle climate change. It was an eventful year that raised silhouettes of understanding and also generated disappointment.
One would tend to agree in this context with the observation made by John Bassett (formerly associated with the British Intelligence Agency GCHQ and now associated with Oxford University) that "none of these problems have been resolved and the drivers of them are not going away". Certain causes have also been identified in this regard - a gradual shift of economic power from the West to the East, emergence and spread of new technologies through the on-going digital revolution, regional and sub-regional rivalries, greater awareness and expectations arising out of postulates associated with good governance, equal opportunities and human rights.
The continuing imbroglio in Syria and the Levant in general has assumed more complex dimensions with dire abuse of human rights. More than two million Syrians have spilled over as refugees into Jordan, Turkey, Iraq and Lebanon. Estimates differ, but at least 200,000 Syrians have died. Nearly four million Syrians and Iraqis are internally displaced. Violence continues and there has been little sign of peace gaining traction. Steps were undertaken in the first quarter of last year to reach a compromise that might stop the ongoing conflict. The 'Geneva 2 talks' in February, however, failed to create least common denominators. On December 27, just before the end of 2014, the Syrian government in Damascus indicated that it was willing to participate in 'preliminary consultations' in Moscow aimed at restarting talks with the opposition elements in 2015 aimed at ending the civil war. The armed opposition treated this offer with scepticism and pointed out that the Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov had not specified which opposition groups should take part. They have, in fact, suggested that this offer backed by President Assad is directed towards the participation of a small group of opposition figures who live in Damascus, and are less vocal against the President. It would also be pertinent to point out here that the emergence of ISIL (Islamic State of Iraq and Lebanon) and its violent path have also transformed the existing scenario. One will have to watch the unfolding dynamics with care in the coming months.
The knotty situation in Iraq continues to generate international concern and anxiety. We are watching fundamentalism, terrorism and abuse of human rights in their worst forms. Sectarianism and lack of accountability created the necessary matrix for these dire forms to surface. Pushing back the ISIL forces and countering its influence in Iraq and Syria have become a high priority for Western States, Gulf powers and Turkey. Russia and China have also shown some interest in containing this threat but have refrained from taking serious part in the on-going action against ISIL. Iran has taken pro-active steps in the undertaking of constructive changes in political governance in Iraq and this has not gone unnoticed by the West. The US government which had disassociated its armed presence in Iraq now realise that the stakes in that oil-rich country has assumed serious dimensions and need to be addressed with more seriousness. It is preparing to boost the number of private contractors in Iraq as part of President Obama's growing effort to beat back the ISIL militants. It is generally agreed that the presence of US Pentagon contractors will not reach the 2008 level of 163,000 (rivalling the number of US troops on the ground at that time). It is, however, anticipated that it will grow quite a bit more beyond the 1,800 now working there for the US State Department. The fact that the Obama Administration is winding down is expected to influence this process, particularly with regard to finding the necessary funds for this additional exercise.
NATO and ISAF formally ended their war in Afghanistan on December 28 after 13 years of conflict engagement. US General John Campbell, at the ceremony organised in Kabul on this occasion claimed that the ISAF presence had 'lifted the Afghan people out of the darkness of despair and given them hope for the future'. The reality appears to be slightly different. That country continues to be in the grip of worsening insurgent violence. ISAF sources have indicated that since 2001 ISAF forces suffered 3,485 military deaths. It may be recalled that ISAF troops from 50 nations peaked in 2011 with the presence of 1, 30,000 troops. In 2015, there will still remain 12,500 troops in Afghanistan but they will not be involved in direct fighting. It would be pertinent to note that despite the expenditure of hundreds of billions of US Dollars over the last decade and the efforts of NATO and ISAF, 2014, according to the United Nations, saw civilian casualties hit a record high of 3,188 by the end of November. The Afghan police and army also suffered a grim death toll with fatalities soaring to more than 4,600 in the first ten months of 2014 - far higher according to AFP, than all ISAF deaths since 2001. There is now a "unity government" in Afghanistan but it is still struggling to appoint the expected Cabinet Ministers. It is generally understood that the US will continue to provide some air support for the Afghan military, and may extend operations, if required, to prevent Taliban advances. In 2015, the Afghan situation will in all probability continue to be fluid. Recent Taliban attacks in Kabul on targets like foreign guesthouses, diplomatic convoys and Afghan army bases point to that direction.
The Gaza massacre in July and August, 2014 brought the Palestinian issue once again to the forefront of international concern but Israel, supported by the United States, has continued to challenge international law and opinion by refusing to abide by UN Resolutions and withdraw from the occupied territories including Jerusalem. Instead of heeding international views, Netanyahu, the Israeli Prime Minister, heading a government of about 21 months old, has decided to seek a fresh mandate through another election. This would make his present government the shortest since Israel was created in 1948. This measure has been resorted to by him to show his defiance to the many developments that have been taking place both in Europe and UN bodies.
It may be mentioned here that international criticism of Israel in the recent past has seen the Conference of the Fourth Geneva Convention responsible for the observance of the rules of war asking Israel to abide and obey the principles of international humanitarian law and stop violations that it is perpetrating as an occupying power; the European Union Court in Luxembourg ordering that the name of the Palestinian group Hamas be removed from the EU terrorist list; Sweden recognising Israel as an independent State; and the Parliaments of UK, Spain, France and Ireland passing non-binding votes urging their governments to recognise Palestine. Jordan, on the request of Palestine, started efforts to place a Resolution in the UN Security Council demanding the end of Israel's occupation. Initially, the target was fixed at end-2016 but new mediation efforts by certain European countries led to this being delayed to end-2017.
Israel nevertheless flatly refused to take cognisance of this move and the United States, with an election year on the horizon, was very careful about any international move and its possible impact on the Israel lobby within the United States. Consequently, this latest effort in the United Nations Security Council was eventually defeated on December 31, 2014 because the Resolution failed to secure the necessary votes with the USA (can be construed as a veto) and Australia voting against it and a few others, including the UK, abstaining.
Netanyahu is obviously going to use the coming election in Israel to underline his commitment regarding ultra-orthodox principles and his rejection of international law. This will most likely enable him to stay on at the helm. The continuing instability amongst its neighbours will, in all probability, strengthen Israel's resolve and intransigence.
China's decision to build its military might and its presence both in the South China Sea and the East China Sea has sometimes overshadowed its positive efforts towards creating positive connectivity through the proposed silk route and the BICM-EC (Bangladesh-India,China-Myanmar Economic Corridor). Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines, Vietnam, Taiwan and Japan have all staked separate claims in these two areas and that has resulted in bones of contention among the parties. To this has been added the strategic triangle of the Bay of Bengal and the geo-strategic needs of India and the strategic dimension as understood by the USA. The coming months in 2015 should see a cautious inter-action among the concerned parties. This will for obvious reasons be watched carefully by Bangladesh, seeking to encourage China, Japan, India and the United States to participate positively in the exploitation of the untapped resources in the Bay of Bengal.
The West's stand-off with Russia over Ukraine, the fight against Ebola, the de-nuclearisation of Iran and reaching a consensus on how to tackle climate change will also dominate the international scene. One can only hope that the enigma of 2015 will reveal itself on a positive note.
The writer, a former Ambassador, is an analyst specialised in foreign affairs, right to information and good governance.
mzamir@dhaka.net