Author

Nathan Akiyoshi

Image by Diego Delso via Creative Commons: https://clubmadrid.org/growing-concerns-over-human-rights-and-ethnic-cleansing-in-nagorno-karabakh/.

Featured Geopolitics Security Territorial disputes

An Endless Cycle of Vengeance: Armenia and Azerbaijan

written by Nathan Akiyoshi

Conflict between groups is an unfortunate reality of the international community. One of the oldest conflicts between two ethnic groups is between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Both nations are located in the Soviet Bloc, and during the Cold War, the Soviet Union was able to maintain peace between them. However, after the end of the Cold War, these regions came into conflict more often.

Armenia is one of the oldest Christian civilizations and is surrounded by Muslim states. The center of many conflicts between Armenia and Azerbaijan is the region of Nagorno-Karabakh, which holds great significance for both groups. During the fall of the Soviet Union, Armenia was more politically stable than Azerbaijan, allowing the Armenians to militarily occupy the region of Nagorno-Karabakh and keep the Azerbaijanis at bay in 1993. However, resentment seethed just beneath the surface.

Thanks to its rich oil and natural gas reserves, Azerbaijan was able to amass wealth and gain the support of many Western countries, including the United States. The wealth accumulated from its resources allowed Azerbaijan to build its military. Driven by the desire to retake Nagorno-Karabakh, Azeri President Ilham Aliyev rallied his citizens against Armenians. Interestingly, Aliyev was the son of President Heydar Aliyev, a former KGB agent in the Soviet Union.

The ethnic hatred of Armenians by Azeris manifested itself in a 2004 NATO exercise, during which an Azerbaijani officer was found guilty of murdering an Armenian military officer. Although the Azerbaijani officer was found guilty, he was extradited to Azerbaijan where he was hailed as a hero instead of facing a life in prison.

Since 1993, Azerbaijan slowly began to retake the territory it lost until Russia stepped in to enforce a ceasefire, leaving most of the region surrounding Nagorno-Karabakh in Azerbaijani control. The city of Nagorno-Karabakh, however, was to be held by Armenia. Russia, though, was only able to maintain the ceasefire until its invasion of Ukraine in 2022. As a test against Russia’s military capacity, Azerbaijan’s military cut off the only road to Nagorno-Karabkh, enforcing a city-wide siege. Russia is unable to fight a war in Ukraine while enforcing a ceasefire between Azerbaijan and Armenia. The lack of Russian intervention led to the Armenians in the region being forced to vacate their home in what is being called an ethnic cleansing.

The renewed conflict between Armenia and Azerbaijan has resulted in a high cost of human life. After the 1993 war in Nagorno-Karabakh, Armenia saw a massive influx of Azerbaijani refugees — more than 70,000 people. In addition to the housing crisis created, many Azerbaijani refugees did not speak Armenian, establishing a language barrier. The poverty rate in Armenia climbed from 20% in 1988 to 55% in 1996. Inflation in 1994 was at 5000%.

After the second Nagorno-Karabakh War in 2020, Armenian officials claimed that 90,000 people had been displaced along with 40 civilian and 4000 military casualties. The Azerbaijani population was not better off, suffering 90 civilian and 3000 military casualties from the conflict. In addition to the human cost, Azerbaijan now faces the challenge of having to reallocate large amounts of resources to rebuild the newly-captured territory. During the conflict, 5000 Armenian civilians took asylum in the Russian headquarters, and it is estimated that 60,000 Armenian civilians were in danger of Azerbaijan’s shelling of the Nagorno-Karabakh region. The conflict has caused many psychological issues among civilians, especially among the elderly. Older generations find it the most difficult to evacuate the Nagorno-Karabakh region. Limited by physical disabilities, health problems, and personal attachments to their homes, many of them are hesitant to leave their homes. More than half the Armenian civilian deaths were among older people and, according to Amnesty International, some civilian causes of death were murder by the Azerbaijani military.

It has been hypothesized that Azerbaijan’s invasion of the Nagorno-Karabakh region was a test of Russian military strength and its ability to continue its invasion of Ukraine and defend Armenia. The Russian military’s efforts in Ukraine, often stymied, has revealed that it may not be strong enough to stop the Azerbaijani army. And, Russia’s war with Ukraine has alienated most of Europe, including Armenia and Azerbaijan. Historically, Russia has traditionally overseen treaties between the two countries, but both are hesitant to continue to allow Russia to broker these agreements after its invasion of Ukraine.

Although statements have been issued by the United States and the European Union condemning the conflict, little has been done to actually end the conflict or aid those in need. The lack of action by the rest of the world has allowed Azerbaijan to continue to evict the Armenians from their homes. The precedent that is being set is a dangerous one, allowing Azerbaijan to blatantly ignore a ceasefire and force Armenians out of their homes. The fear is that the conflict will perpetuate a cycle of violence between Armenia and Azerbaijan. Although the conflict appears to be “over” because Azerbaijan has forced most of the Armenian population out of Nagorno-Karabakh, there is likely to be retaliation in the future, costing more human lives.

Image source: Diego Delso

January 22, 2024 0 comment

Image from Wikimedia Commons. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Arab_Spring_%286198933447%29.jpg

Democracy Featured Freedom of Speech Human Rights Middle East Youth

Another Page in the History Book: Arab Spring Revisited

written by Nathan Akiyoshi

In early 2010, protests erupted in Tunisia in response to the rising government corruption and the resulting economic stagnation. These protests that had begun in Tunisia spread to five other countries in the Middle East: Libya, Egypt, Yemen, Syria, and Bahrain.

The protests in Tunisia spread rapidly because of the rise of social media, which widely publicized the efforts in Tunisia to hold their government accountable for generations of abuse. These uprisings caused President Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali to flee to Saudi Arabia after holding power for 23 years. The publicizing of the turmoil in Tunisian is what inspired other countries such as neighboring Bahrain to call for the release of political prisoners and governmental reform. Effects reached as far as Egypt, where protests forced President Hosni Mubarak to step down after 30 years in office. In Kuwait, the protests forced the pro-government parliament to be dissolved due to public pressure. Muammar Gaddafi of Libya and Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen abdicated their positions of leadership as a result of the revolts spreading to their countries as well.

However, despite the initial success of the Arab Spring rebellions, 10 years later, little progress has been shown in the region. As stated in the play Hamilton, “Winning was easy young man, governing’s harder.”

Many of the protests yielded no results and despite some dictators fleeing their countries, the violence conceived under their rules continued. In Syria, matters were actually worsened: overthrowing the government led to the United States being drawn into a costly war in the Middle East.

Looking back at Arab Spring, it seems that the costs of the uprisings outweigh the benefits of establishing democratic governments. The director of the Brookings Doha Center, Tarik Yousef stated that returning home is to return to “fear and intimidation [with] the region experienc[ing] setbacks at every turn.” The aftermath of the Arab Spring shows that the corruption of the governments was so deeply entrenched in society that a few turnovers in administrations would not be enough to wash it out.

Of the countries that rose up in rebellion against their autocratic leaders, only Tunisia remains a democracy. Tunisia is the only country to institute a new constitution, which gave more rights to its citizens through the National Assembly. Comparatively, Egypt and Libya both briefly established democratic governments, but the success was short-lived with both countries returning to autocratic leadership within 2 years. Bahrain, Yemen, and Syria all remained autocratic and continue to be to this day.

The situation within the countries has not improved despite the protests. The job market in countries such as Egypt has continued to decline. According to Ragui Assaad, a research fellow at Cairo Economic Research Forum, the chances for a male Egyptian college graduate to find a job is less than 25% as of 2016. Even in Tunisia, despite reforms and improvements, there are still extremely high unemployment rates, having risen to 37% in 2021.

Part of the problem is the lack of foreign and domestic investment in these countries. There is a vicious cycle in these countries because of a lack of private investors. Investors fear investing their money in the country due to the instability but the lack of investments continues to cause these countries to become increasingly more unstable.

The lack of investment in the countries has sent them into a downward spiral into poverty. Egypt’s economy, despite being the same size as South Korea in 1960 is now less than ¼ the size despite its population being nearly double that of South Korea. The IMF predicted a 4.1% decline in the Middle Eastern economies, part of which can also be attributed to the Covid-19 pandemic and falling oil prices. The stagnation of the economy and the rampant poverty caused another wave of protests that, unfortunately, have gone nowhere. In Iraq, protests were quelled by the use of deadly force where 500 protesters were killed and other activists have been assassinated. In addition, the Covid-19 pandemic allowed many states to implement restrictions on crowds preventing further protests.

An unintended consequence of the Arab Spring uprisings has caused the new authoritarian leaders to tighten their grip on their countries. Many doubt that there will be another uprising as “the first time was kind of [a] miracle. People were fearless and the regime was weak. But now everyone has lost hope. Everyone sees the revolution as a failure that caused more economic problems and more oppression.”

While at the time the Arab Spring uprisings seemed to herald a new era for countries that had languished under brutal authoritarian regimes for decades, the reality was unsuccessful revolutions that led to greater oppression and hopelessness. The Arab Spring has simply become a page in another history book instead of global change. If the Arab Spring had been successful in its goal of establishing democratic governments in countries that had been authoritarian for decades, it could have set a precedent for the spread of democracy around the world. However, the protests never bore the desired fruit, and instead, despite initial progress, internal and external factors have prevented real change from occurring in these countries.

June 29, 2023 0 comment

Image from DVIDS. https://www.dvidshub.net/image/6964646/resolute-dragon-21-opening-ceremony.

East Asia Featured History Japan Military National Security Security

An Army All But in Name: The Recent Push for Japanese Military Independence

written by Nathan Akiyoshi

The Japanese Army, characterized in World War II as one of the fiercest forces in the world, was unwilling to surrender and battled to the last man to protect the Land of the Rising Sun. The imperialistic nature of the Japanese army, along with their brutality during World War II, was cited as one of the key justifications for Allied occupation and U.S. written constitutional reform of the Japanese Constitution in the years that followed.

General Douglass MacArthur incorporated the consequential Article 9, which stated that Japan could not settle international disputes through violent means such as war and ensured that any domestic force would be strictly under civilian control. These restrictions mean that Japan officially does not have an army, but a “Self-Defense Force,” (SDF) which could be considered an army in all but name. The primary purpose of the SDF is stated within its name: to allow Japan to defend itself. As such, it lacks many aspects that a standard military would have and is largely focused on humanitarian response such as assisting in the cleanup of the Fukushima Nuclear disaster in 2011. The SDF’s humanitarian efforts in Japan have gained the support of the public, which was initially hostile.

Public opinion of the SDF has changed over time and still varies today. However, modern Japan is not the same Japan that went to war 80 years ago. Many citizens believe it is time for the Japanese government to amend its constitution and take another step toward military independence in some capacity. Constitutional reform would benefit both Japan and the United States, allowing the East Asian country to defend its interests in the region while also reducing expensive American commitments.

Although the Japanese public initially feared that the creation of a stronger military force would remind the world of the lasting effects of World War II, it is clear that the territorial disputes between China and South Korea have caused public support for the SDF to increase. With conflict much closer to their shores, the Japanese people’s concern rose and is likely to rise further with the conflict between Russia and Ukraine.

Support for expanding the SDF comes from conservative Japanese citizens who are angry at having a constitution written by a foreign government. In light of the heated debates about the Japanese constitution, former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe made it clear that he wanted to amend Article 9 to cement the SDF in the constitution. Although cementing the SDF in the Japanese constitution is not the same as expanding the Japanese army, it would set the precedent to allow potential military expansion in the future. A change to the constitution would allow a potentially greater military force, especially in light of the growing economy of neighboring China and the Russia-Ukraine Conflict. Abe argued that the “SDF is already so active that a constitutional amendment wouldn’t really change anything.” While an amendment would not bring about an immediate transformation, it would set a precedent allowing Japan to take steps toward military independence.

Currently, the Japanese would still be heavily reliant on their allies to defend them, should another country set its sights on Japan. If Japan is attacked by another nation, the United States would be responsible for defending them militarily. If the United States does not defend Japan they are essentially giving up peace and stability in the East Asian region, especially with unstable relations with China and North Korea. In addition, Japan does not have nuclear capabilities and is thus dependent on U.S. nuclear deterrence. The current structure of the SDF relies heavily on stronger neighbors such as the United States to protect them from international threats.

United States aid to Japan is also called into question. According to statements made by former President Trump, “if someone attacks Japan, we go after them and we are in a battle, full force, in effect.” He also points out the one-sidedness of this arrangement, adding, “If somebody should attack the United States, they don’t have to do that. That’s unfair.” Should the United States choose to withdraw its military support before Japan has amended its constitution and is prepared to more adequately defend itself, they leave the country vulnerable to international threats. United States is spread thin throughout the world and if the Japanese were to become self-sufficient, it would be a key ally in the East without the United States having to sacrifice military forces elsewhere in the world.

A militarily independent Japan would be beneficial to the United States. This way, the United States would not have to spread its forces even thinner than what they already are. Thanks to U.S. involvement in the political unrest in the Middle East, their navy is split between East Asia, the Indian Ocean, and the Persian Gulf. The formation of a more powerful SDF would allow them to take over many of the tasks that the U.S. military regularly performs. The Japanese should be relied upon to defend themselves and by defending their interests, they will also defend the United States’ interests in East Asia. Although Japanese and United States military interests are not identical, their close alignment with the United States and NATO indicates similar goals. Despite the Japanese moving for increased military independence, it is still in Japan’s best interests to cooperate with the United States. The Japanese and the United States are both concerned over military power, especially with China, Russia, and the United States locked in an arms race to produce hypersonic missiles, which will be extremely difficult to block with conventional interceptor missiles. The Japanese technology would aid the United States in the defense of both countries.

Eighty years ago, the threat of a Japanese army would have been a threat to the United States, but, now the Japanese are an essential part of global defense and collective security. Japan is a key ally of the United States and if they were to withdraw military support, it would show trust between the two nations has developed after the fallout of the Second World War.

The Japanese Security Defense Force is an army in all but name. If the Japanese government were to amend its constitution, it would not only become more independent of the United States, but a more important ally as its military resources would bolster the United States instead of drain them from where they are needed.

April 12, 2023 0 comment