EU's newest recruit... Bosnia?

Bosnia has gained welcome from the United States and a majority of the EU to begin working towards membership in the European Union. The people of Bosnia, a spawn country of Soviet Russia, received a letter from the foreign ministers of Britain and Germany, two of the more powerful states in the European Union, which discussed the region’s future and a possible application to the desired European Union. The plan for Bosnia, headed by Britain and Germany for the most part, is to begin working with Bosnian politicians to ensure a commitment to unifying their currently divided country in order to make it more functional. Should Bosnian politicians cooperate and succeed, and after an undisclosed amount of progress that the EU describes as “some initial progress”, Bosnia would receive an invitation to apply to the EU. With so many other world conflicts and situations, economically and socially, why on Earth is the European Union devoting attention to recruiting such a country as Bosnia?

In a letter asking the United States to consider engagement in Bosnia, Zivko Budimir, the President of the Federation of Bosnia and Herzegovina (one of Bosnia’s entity/states) describes the region’s natural resources as areas of attractive potential investment. However, most of the letter, along with many of the current economic and social situations that have to be overcome and are pointed out by Britain and Germany, make Bosnia seem like a nation nowhere near fit to receive an application to the EU. Two current facts of Bosnia noted by Budimir that, right off the bat, are very unattractive on the nations résumé include 1.) A 40% unemployment rate and 2.) The majority of foreign investment in Bosnia comes from the Middle East and the East and is rising. The rest of the letter indicates no plans to fix these what-would-be unique traits to Bosnia if they were in the EU, but instead addresses the fact that Bosnia’s civil society is a complex, tense, and weak one. The nation, since it’s founding in 1992, has been made up of three different and distinct ethnicities in a society that has exemplified failed human rights for years. Since the end of the Bosnian Civil War in 1995, minorities of the region have suffered lack of basic societal rights similar to those that existed in the US until the 1960’s. These minorities still are literally not allowed to hold upper positions in the clearly unstable, three-president led government. Among the three majority ethnicities, the Serbs continue to halt and unified strength to Bosnia by demanding more power to their mini-state within the nation. To wrap up this brief list of the main problems with Bosnia, in 2009, Jakob Finci who is Jewish and Dervo Sejdic, a Roma, (both are minorities), successfully challenged the section of the Bosnian government that forbade minorities from holding select upper government positions. To this day, no progress toward fixing this inequality of the Bosnian government has been achieved. These human rights violations and Bosnia's current government structure are very unique in comparison to current members of the EU. The pattern of little change in the nation since the end of their civil wars suggest that perhaps these policies and structures are not very efficient developing into an attractive, successful state.

With the current fight in the Middle East, uncertainty as to Russia’s next move, and a sinking European economy, you’d think the EU would have a lot on its plate at this time. However in the past month, a considerable amount of time and attention has been given to Bosnia. It’s quite clear that Bosnia needs social reform in their bizarre tri-presidential led government soon, and will likely need the help of the EU and the US (which they would love) if they want it to be effective. In assisting them, however, it seems as though the EU (Britain and Germany) think they might as well just bring Bosnia on into the club. This would call for financial investment, possible disagreement or conflict within Bosnia’s extremely mixed culture/society, and if the application was extended and fulfilled, a new member to the EU that is relatively weak compared to all the others. And for what? Natural Resources in Bosnia that no one really, really needs right now?  It seems at this time, the EU has more important things to worry about than gaining this country and maybe come back to them once they accomplish something themselves.

Sources:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/easternapproaches/2014/11/bosnia#comments

http://infographics.economist.com/20141108_Letter/Letter.pdf

http://www.foxnews.com/world/2014/11/06/eu-and-us-welcome-new-plan-for-bosnia-path-toward-eu-membership/

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2014/10/11/bosnia-herzegovina-president-time-is-now-for-us-to-engage-with-my-country/

Venezuela and the UN Security Council

Angola, Spain, New Zealand, Malaysia, and Venezuela has recently gained temporary seats on the United Nations Security Council. Replacing Argentina, Venezuela faced no contest for the designated Latin American seat. In any case, Venezuela, a state infamous for human rights violations that fall far short of United Nations’ standards, should not have been granted this powerful position.

             

 Police brutality, censorship, abuse of government power, and sexual violence have plagued the state of Venezuela throughout the rule of deceased ruler Hugo Chavez and current President Nicolas Madura. Meanwhile, the United Nations actively seeks to uphold its impressive Universal Declaration of Human Rights which specifically states that “All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights” (Article 1). The inclusive contents of this declaration are only relevant and meaningful if they are upheld by those member nations who pledged to do so. The other states of Latin America should have stepped up to challenge their Venezuelan neighbor for this position, specifically, those who do uphold the United Nations’ Declaration of Human Rights. Counties like Costa Rica, Panama, and many others who maintain considerably more humane states in relation to Venezuela would be much more suitable for this powerful role. Additionally, the other member states of the United Nations should have encouraged another Latin American country to oppose Venezuela, they should have blocked Venezuela from gaining this power as it is in their own best interest not to led and influenced by an inhumane state that does not uphold their pledges. The United States as both a regional hegemon and permanent member of the United Nations Security Council should have used its considerable weight to prevent this from happening. It is alarming for a country so well known for such atrocious human rights violations to be given a leadership opportunity that could seriously alter the progress and efforts of the United Nations as a whole.

             

The permanent members of this council include The Unites States of America, the Russian Federation, China, France, and the United Kingdom. If Venezuela attempts to capitalize on its newfound position of power then it just may find support from permanent members Russia and China both of whom also have been known to struggle with human rights violations. Venezuela has shown support for Russia in its invasion of the sovereign state of Ukraine, as well as for Iran and Syria. These displays are not only contrary to American stances but further reveal a level of disregard for human rights and United Nations principles. Venezuela’s involvement with high level issues of this council could easily threaten the council’s ability to protect human rights internationally and further their own destructive agenda beyond their own borders.

Venezuela is not an appropriate fit for this position. The state is responsible for atrocities against its own citizens and has proven to be a dishonest member of the respectable organization that is the United Nations. The United States, among others, should have avoided this situation earlier but will now be bound to suppress any destructive or threatening influence Venezuela may have while serving.

Sources:

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/16/venezuela-united-nations-security-council

http://www.hrw.org/world-report/2014/country-chapters/venezuela

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/10/17/world/americas/venezuela-gets-security-council-seat-turkey-fails.html?_r=0

Holding the World Bank Accountable

            The World Bank was created in July of 1944 under the United Nations as a financial institution that would provide loans to developing countries to encourage the growth of the country’s infrastructure. The goal of the bank is "to end extreme poverty and promote shared prosperity", by offering low interest rate loans to help encourage economic growth in third world countries. These loans go to the funding of much needed infrastructure projects with the expectation that they will fuel future economic growth. Unfortunately over its 70 year history, the World Bank’s work as a humanitarian aid program has not always been what it is made up to be. Many times the intentions of the World Bank are not in the right place. The World Bank gives out loans to countries for unnecessary projects, which end up being “prize boondoggles”. The banks efforts are not concentrated in a way that regulate the use of these loans for programs that will succeed and pay themselves forward for decades to come. The bank has also been caught up amongst human rights violations, where they have basically financed human rights abuses.

            The World Bank’s slogan “our dream is a world free of poverty” seems misguided at times. I don’t mean to bash the World Bank because a lot of the work that they do is great. But there have been instances where it seems that the goals of the organization are not to reduce poverty in third world countries but rather to give out as many loans as possible. The organization has been caught trying to get countries to take more money then they need, driving these countries into massive debt leading to default. The World Bank measures success not in the amount of humanitarian work that they do but rather the amount of money that they give out. They have been compared to a Soviet factory, “concerned only with meeting its quantitative production goals”.  Money does not equal improvement, concentrated efforts to use that money to reduce poverty equals improvement.

            The World Bank’s lack of regulation of the money they give out has led to not only massive debt in some countries, but also human rights abuses. The bank loans money to countries without providing adequate checks on the uses of the money. Because of this the bank has unknowingly financed numerous programs, which have jeopardized the human rights of the citizens in those third world nations. The group, Human Rights Watch has documented three cases where the World Bank, "neither acknowledged the human rights risks of the programs it financed nor took steps to mitigate the problems". The World Bank is only making situations worse when it funds international development efforts that lead to human rights abuses.   
          The World Bank needs to be held accountable for the money, which it is loaning out to third world countries. There needs to be policy change on the part of the World Bank to ensure that they are funding programs, which are helping the people of these developing nations. If regulations can be put into place to hold the World Bank accountable then the possibilities are endless for this organization. They can once again work to achieve their dream of a world free of poverty. 

Sources:

http://www.hrw.org/news/2013/07/22/world-bank-ducking-human-rights-issues

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa092.html

http://www.globalexchange.org/resources/wbimf/reform

How Mali Became a Failed State: Atypical Path, Typical Results

In 2012, absolute chaos broke out in the Western African country of Mali. The events that led to Mali’s demise were downright bizarre, but unfortunately yielded all-too-common results; now, it is a failed state.

This development occurred just within the past couple years. Before 2012, Mali did have issues with poverty, inequality, and corruption, but in the grand scheme of things, few countries in the world do not. Compared to its neighbors and the continent as a whole, Mali was doing splendidly. It had a democratic regime with free and fair elections, and had successfully turned power over from one leader to another. In fact, Mali was seen as having a model government that countries throughout Africa could emulate. Though not without its problems, it was doing comparatively well.

That all changed in March 2012. The military, believing that President Amadou Toumani Touré had a weak stance on Tuareg rebels in the North (fighting for the independence of parts of Northern Mali), staged a coup d’état and overthrow the president. Surprisingly, President Touré had only a couple weeks left in his final term in office and was planning to turn power over as mandated by the constitution anyway. Also surprisingly, the military did not want to hold power. Usually, when the military (or really anyone) stages a coup d’état and seizes power, they want to keep it. The Malian military, however, truly did just want to put in place someone they believed would support them more in their fight against the rebels.

And after just a couple months, they did. In May 2012, the military returned control of the country to the government and new interim president Dioncounda Traoré. Just one problem: the Malian people didn’t like him, so much so that— and this is the strangest event yet— protesters stormed the presidential palace and assaulted the president, hospitalizing him with non-life threatening (but certainly painful) injuries. In the matter of a few months, in an entirely unpredictable and bizarre manner, Mali went from the stable beacon of democracy in the region to a failed state in crises.

The turmoil over the following months, however, was completely predictable. Mali’s fall into the status of failed state, combined with an influx of fighters and weapons from the end of the conflict in nearby Libya, fueled the uprising of terrorism in the country. Al-Qaeda came into the picture, first teaming with the Tuareg rebels the military was concerned about in the first place, then pushing them aside. The prime minister (Mali has both a president and prime minister) appointed by President Traoré was arrested by the military and forced to step down in December 2012. Right in the midst of combating Al-Qaeda, the government was dissolved and once again thrown into uncertainty. At the time, Al-Qaeda and Islamist rebels controlled much of Northern Mali and enacted Sharia law. As a result, thousands fled the area, and reports of limb amputations for petty crimes and kidnappings for ransom were widespread. Disorder and terror reigned supreme.

In 2013, French forces intervened at the plea of the Malian government and suppressed Al-Qaeda and Islamist rebel forces. Now, Mali has returned to at least a semblance of stability. Rebel groups are still a problem in the region, but France has shifted many of its troops to other countries. Though the fighting has quieted down and democracy is in place, Mali still has a long road ahead in reaching where it was pre-coup d’état. Things look cautiously promising, but it should still be considered a failed state until it proves otherwise.

Sources:

Coup d’état in Mali: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/23/world/africa/mali-coup-france-calls-for-elections.html?pagewanted=all

Mali’s new interim president beaten up: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/22/world/africa/mali-protesters-attack-interim-president-dioncounda-traore.html

Prime Minister steps down: http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/africa/malis-junta-forces-prime-minister-to-resign/2012/12/11/aa9593ca-439e-11e2-8c8f-fbebf7ccab4e_story.html

Kidnappings: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/13/world/africa/kidnappings-fuel-extremists-in-western-africa.html?pagewanted=all

Sharia law and limb amputations: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/12/28/world/africa/islamists-harsh-justice-on-rise-in-northern-mali.html?pagewanted=all

French help: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/12/world/africa/mali-islamist-rebels-france.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%2C%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D

More French help: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/25/world/africa/france-begins-new-anti-islamist-sweep-in-mali.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%2C%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D

France moves troops elsewhere: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/14/world/africa/france-to-shift-mali-troops-to-battle-regional-terrorism-north-africa.html?module=Search&mabReward=relbias%3Aw%2C%7B%222%22%3A%22RI%3A12%22%2C%221%22%3A%22RI%3A9%22%7D