A Brief Look at the World in 2007

In a few hours, 2007 will reach its end. This year, as for most of the previous years, we have seen many important events, as well as some less important ones, take place in the world and in the international political scene. In this report, we will take a look at events that will play a big role in the world’s future.

 In a few hours, 2007 will reach its end. This year, as for the most of the previous years, we have seen many important events, as well as some less important ones, take place in the world and in the international political scene. We would not be able to fit the analysis of all of these issues in one article, as this is a task that has been done and will be done in other IR Diplomacy articles.

Therefore, here we will simply deal with the most important issues, noting that based on our simple definition, “important” and “most important” relate to events that have had a great impact or will have a great impact on world affairs in the future.

Also, in this article, to keep it brief and concise, we will intentionally put aside some very important issues, such as Iran’s nuclear program, the energy problem in the world and in the Persian Gulf region, political and military problems in Pakistan, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Burma as well as Iraq, Afghanistan and Turkey and the extensive issue of terrorism, and we will leave the analysis of these issues to other IR Diplomacy articles.

So we will limit ourselves to issues that, in spite of their potentially important impact in the future, are in the shadow of more exciting news for the time being.

Transatlantic relations

This year saw a change in government in Europe’s two main countries. In Britain, finally after ten years, Mr. Brown took the place of his long-time friend and rival and party-mate Tony Blair as Prime Minister, and in France, Nicolas Sarkozy took Jacques Chirac’s place as President.

This change in heads of state did not lead to a change in governing parties and the Labor Party in Britain and the Gaullist Party in France are still in power.

In Britain, it is doubtful that the change in Prime Minister will lead to important changes in policies. Aside from a few personal preferences, Mr. Brown will probably continue the same foreign policy previously set by Mr. Blair.

But the same cannot be said for France and, in the opinion of most observers, big changes have been made and will be made in the future. One of the most important changes is the change in relations between Paris and Washington. It is said that continuing a rather weak or even artificial type of Gaullist foreign policy would not be compatible with the current situation in the world, especially in the Western world.

In fact, after the invasion of Iraq, one of the biggest losers was France, which suffered big losses as far as international politics and commercial and monetary exchanges were concerned, whereas England was able to add to its influence by continuing Mrs. Thatcher’s foreign policy and by expanding social programs inside the country.

In reality, the French people and the country’s production and commercial circles realized that a continuation in Gaullist policies was not in their favor. And a change in these policies was not something that the likes of Chirac, knowing their previous history, would be able to achieve.

Therefore, there was a need for a “realistic” person like Sarkozy at the head of the government. This was achieved with the help of industrial and banking circles and through the vote of the French people. This change will probably have a great and long-standing impact on the structure of relations and on the West’s and East’s foreign policies. The results of these policies have been seen and will be seen in other parts of the world, such as the Middle East, and in the future, it will probably lead to more extensive changes.

Three “Dead-Ends”

This year, we observed dead-ends in three countries, Lebanon, Belgium and the issue of Kosovo in Serbia, neither of which has reached a solution.

In Lebanon, differences still exist in the viewpoints of different parties concerning the election of a new president and now it has almost been two months that the country is without a president.

This dilemma has its roots in the country’s population changes and political partisanship. Until the mid-50s, Lebanon had a rather rich, stable and calm state.

After years of being under French rule (starting from 1923) and following strong revolts, Lebanon’s first constitution was ratified in 1944 during the time of Bishara al-Khuri, the country’s first president. This constitution created a sort of equilibrium between the country’s religious groups (Maronites, Sunnis, Shiites and smaller groups such as the Druze community, Armenians, Protestants, …), stating that the country’s president would be chosen from the Maronite Christian community, the prime minister from the Sunni Muslim community, and the Speaker of the Parliament from the Shiite Muslim community.  

After the Arab-Israeli War in Palestine in 1948, which led to the displacement of hundreds of thousands of Palestinians (mostly in Lebanon and Hashemite Jordan),the pre-conditions for the rupture of the previously mentioned pact were met and this finally led to a sort of civil war and the intrusion of the American military in the 1950’s.

During this time, Nasserism was in full swing in Egypt and Gamal Abdel Nasser’s followers were revolting and creating havoc in almost every Arab country.

After a while, the situation became relatively calm, however, Lebanon never regained the stability and calm it previously had. This was due to many reasons, such as the presence of Palestinians, a growth in the Shiite population who no longer agreed with previous customs, disagreements in the ruling Christian party, Israeli military interventions which were done under the pretense of fighting back against Palestinians living in Lebanon which finally led to an Israeli invasion in the early 1970s and the occupation of parts of Lebanon, the settling down of Yasser Arafat and the Palestinian Liberation Movement (PLO) in south Lebanon, which still partly stayed in Lebanon even after it moved to Tunisia following Israeli occupation, and many other events, especially after the creation of strong Shiite groups who were against the Oslo Accord in the 1990’s.

The occupation of the country by Syrian forces, and Syrian backing of the afore-mentioned groups, added to the mayhem in Lebanon, which led to the existing situation inside the country.

From what we can gather from observers’ reports, we can conclude that two groups or alliances currently exist in the country, the first of which is known as the 14^th of March (anti-Syria) and the other known as the 8^th of March (group of Shiites and some Christians, Druzes, …).

Approximately two years ago, after the assassination of Rafiq Hariri, a wealthy prime minister who attempted to stabilize the country using commercial and banking circles and with the help of western governments, anti-Syrian sentiments arose in the country due to suspicions of Syrian involvement in the assassination. This led to Syrian forces leaving Lebanon and the formation of an anti-Syrian government in this country (the American role in these events was completely visible).

Currently, Sa’ad Hariri, the son of Rafiq Hariri, is the leader of the anti-Syrian movement, and the 8^th of March alliance (in which the Lebanese Hezbollah, that is to say the strongest Shiite group, plays an important role) is heading the anti-government movement. Hezbollah, who has gained a lot of credibility in different circles especially after its lively defense of the country against a new set of Israeli attacks in the past year, doesn’t seem to want to accept previous conditions and has its mind set on creating a greater role for Shiites and anti-Israelis in Lebanon’s governmental structure.

These occurrences, which we have talked about very briefly, have led to the current “dead-end” in Lebanon, and as some observers are suggesting, if the mediation of some Arab countries such as Saudi Arabia and Egypt and the efforts of the likes of France and Russia and the United States bear no fruit, it is very probable that Lebanon will be divided into two entities.

Now let’s get to the other two other “dead-ends” we mentioned. Belgium, who was once one of the West’s greatest colonizers, is generally divided into two regions: the Dutch-speaking Flemish in the north and the French-speaking Wallons in the south.

An imaginary line, which runs through the country’s capital, Brussels, along the northwest, separates these two populations from each other.

The extent of the current tension in Belgium has far surpassed early predictions and this probably is a sign of how language and “national” dependencies still play a role in the country, a role that was thought to have grown weaker especially in rich and developed countries.

The important thing to point out is that after the defeat of Nazi Germany, who occupied Belgium during World War II (1940-1945) and therefore caused a lot of damage in the country (this period was known as the “Period of Fear and Panic”), Belgium went into a period of fast growth and development.

The country formed the Benelux Customs Union with the Netherlands and Luxembourg in 1947, it joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) in 1949, the European Coal and Steel Community in 1952, the Western European Union in 1955, the European Economic Community (Common Market) and the European Energy Community in 1957, and it was transformed into a calm and rich region in Europe after the founding of the European Union, an organization which chose Brussels as its administrative and political capital.

The standard of living is rather high in this society, the per capita income ranks among the world’s highest, even though the country is far from being rich when it comes to mineral resources and even industrial products, and its political and commercial situation and its banking connections have allowed it to give its people one of the world’s highest living standards. The country’s democratic system has given its people many different possibilities, including the right to vote, freedom of expression, freedom to assemble, travel and transportation possibilities, and commercial activities.

This is maybe the reason for our astonishment. As we Iranians say, the equivalent of which many foreign commentators also use, it seems that the Belgians “have had too much fun”. Even though on the surface it seems that the majority of Belgians are against the division of the country, as we were able to see with widespread demonstrations that took place last month whose main slogan was “Protecting a United Belgium”, the current situation is such that it will probably lead to some kind of separation. In those demonstrations, it seems that people’s “minds” were protesting, but through time, it seems that the mind has been defeated by sentiments.

The reason why the division of Belgium is important is that many European countries such as Spain, France, and Switzerland have different “nationalities” and languages. For the time being, we will not talk about Cyprus, which has practically been divided for many years, as well as the situation in Scotland and Ireland, and probably Wales in the future, inside the Great Britain.

In any case, for many months Belgium has not had a prime minister, and it seems that the Flemish, who have Dutch origins and who are tired of French Wallon rule, have found a good opportunity to protest and they do not seem to want to give in. We’ll have to wait and see where this will lead and what effects it will have on other European countries and their governments and power structure.

Amidst all this, the situation in the small state of Kosovo in Serbia (former Yugoslavia) has also caught the attention of different political and social circles.

Kosovo has been under Serbian occupation since the 12^th century, and even though, along with Serbia, it was under the occupation of the Ottoman Empire for many years (1389-1913), it’s destiny had practically been tied to that of Serbia, until the formation of Yugoslavia (1918), when it became part of this country. It was after World War II and the victory of General Tito and his partisans that Kosovo was transformed into an autonomous region in Yugoslavia.

But, since that time, Albanian Kosovars have become the majority of the population and their number has grown greater than that of the Serbs. The current crisis also has its root in this fact.

The Albanians want independence, while the Serbs regard Kosovo as an inseparable part of Serbia’s culture and its history, both in historical terms and in “sentimental” and “national” terms.

After NATO’s attack on Yugoslavia in the last decade and the overthrow of the government of Slobodan Milosevic, who was an extreme nationalist and who practically expelled all political, administrative and police and military officials belonging to the other “republics” of Yugoslavia and was responsible for many civil wars which finally led to the independence of all the republics that once formed Yugoslavia (Croatia, Macedonia, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Slovenia, Montenegro), Kosovo came under the supervision and governing of the United Nations.

This same organization held elections there a while ago and the party seeking independence was the victor, the prime minister of which has said that if an agreement is not reached (an agreement which does not seem likely when we take into account the fact that last month’s negotiations did not reach any conclusion), he will unilaterally claim independence.

Meanwhile, the independence of this small state with its small population does not seem that significant in comparison to the fact that Kosovo has become a battleground for Russia and the United States to compete in.

The United States announced a few months ago (maybe a bit too hasty on its part) that it would back Kosovo’s independence. At the same time, Russia, which is Serbia’s long-time “strategic” ally, has announced that it is against independence.

Now, we can look at this issue from Russia’s viewpoint. Russia, which has regained stability in the last few years and is again starting to play a role like that of the Soviet Union in world affairs (this is mostly due to the large increase in oil prices and the iron-fist policies of the government of Vladimir Putin, which relies on the KGB and other intelligence agencies), will probably find it difficult to sacrifice its “credibility” in Kosovo, unless the United States grants it some concessions (for example if the US gives up plans of creating missile bases in Poland and Bulgaria), something that seems very improbable while Bush and the “neo-cons” are in power.

Throughout history, most rivalries between powerful nations, often ending badly, have started from such seemingly small issues and have grown bigger and bigger. Now we must wait and see what will happen in Kosovo.

Palestine, North Korea, Two Major Changes

In the last year, two major changes have taken place in two small countries, changes that will probably have significant impacts in the future.

We will not talk about Palestine and the problems it has faced because our readers have enough knowledge about this issue.

But the major change that took place concerning Palestine and its long-standing dispute with Israel was the theoretical recognition of two states, something that Israel had refused to recognize up till now.

In a conference that recently took place in Annapolis, Maryland in the US, a conference that was finally arranged for November after months of activity and much lobbying on Washington’s part, this “solution” was accepted by all sides of the dispute, and if the border crisis and the issue of displaced Palestinians and the issue of Jerusalem becoming the capital are also agreed upon by both sides, the plan that the Bush government is trying to push through in its last year in office will certainly be the source of many changes in the Middle East.

The problem that stands in the way of this plan, apart from the standpoints of countries such as Iran and Syria, is the reaction of the Hamas movement in the Gaza Strip. Hamas is the group separated from the Palestinian “government”, a group which was victorious in public elections two years ago and which is supported by a great number of Palestinians.

Hamas did not attend the Annapolis conference and disagrees with the standpoints of the autonomous Palestinian government led by Abu Mazen. Let’s just wait and see.

The other important change that took place was that the US and Japan finally came to an agreement with North Korea concerning its nuclear weapons program.

Korea’s modern history began in the 12^th century when China established a colony there.

Even though throughout history, the Chinese and the Japanese have always had influence on Korea, and sometimes have even governed it, the Korean people are originally Tunguz and are in fact a distinct racial and cultural population.

In the meantime, Korea has almost always been in conflict with China and Japan throughout its rather long history, but we will not go into much detail concerning this.

In World War II, the Axis Forces promised Koreans independence and at the end of the war, Korea was divided into two occupied regions, north and south of the 38˚ latitude line. The Russians occupied the northern part and the Americans the southern part.

In 1948, this division was officially recognized and the countries of North Korea (communist) and South Korea (capitalist) were formed.

On the 25^th of June 1950, the People’s Democratic Republic of Korea attacked the Korean Republic and the Korean War began, a war that continued till the 27^th of July 1953 and ended in a ceasefire.

Meanwhile, tensions between the two Koreas continued (however, it has now been agreed that this situation will officially be ended, following talks between the two countries in the last few months).

The government in Pyongyang, North Korea’s capital, which had always been afraid of South Korea because of the presence of American troops and “Americanized” governments in the capital Seoul, was always looking to better equip its military and defense mechanisms, until finally it was able to finalize its nuclear program.

A nuclear North Korea is a threat not only to the US but especially to Japan and South Korea and even to China and Russia to some extent.

South Korea’s economy blossomed thanks to the help of the US and Japan and also with a certain reliance on its people, so much so that it is now among the world’s top ten economies and its products compete with Japanese and Western products in all countries.

But North Korea’s economy, which is mostly focused on the equipment of its military forces and on its nuclear program, has been at a standstill.

North Korea is basically the agricultural region of the Korean peninsula and after a series of droughts in the region in the last few years, the risk of hunger and famine grew stronger.

To sum things up, we can say that it was for all these reasons that both sides decided to pursue negotiations and to reach an agreement. After the US agreed not to attack the country, North Korea finally agreed to halt its nuclear program, and Japan and South Korea and the US agreed to fulfill the country’s energy and alimentary and financial needs (to some extent), in return for the end of the country’s nuclear program.

Therefore, it seems that peace and calm in the peninsula are on their way, but, from another perspective, maybe the importance of this issue is hidden in the fact that one of the last communist strongholds has given in to peace with the West, and the US hopes that the other communist stronghold, Cuba, follows North Korea’s example. In addition, it also hopes that, after Libya, North Korea’s example will be a lesson for anti-American and anti-capitalist countries. The events that could follow for North Korea after this agreement, which might mean an end to the conflict between capitalist and communist ideas, will also be of some significance.

Even though recently, the Cuban model has again become rather attractive for some Latin American countries, such as Venezuela and Bolivia, the truth of the matter is that, in the opinion of the world’s capitalist circles, if, following China, the rest of the world’s small number of communist societies also join the “right side”, it will be an assertive victory for the capitalist camp and the “problems” in Venezuela and Bolivia will resolve themselves through time.

In this short article, we neither had the time nor the space to go into more detail. I think even what we have now is a bit too long. It was just meant to be a look at some events that will probably have effects that surpass their own geographic and political boundaries, and events that will cause major changes in some, and probably all, parts of the world and which will eventually change the attitudes and politics of many different countries around the world.