The struggle for power has already started in the Islamic Republic in the midst of US sanctions and ahead a new electoral cycle

▲ Ayatollah Ali Khamenei speaking to Iranian Air Force personnel, in 2016 [Wikipedia]

ANALYSIS / Rossina Funes and Maeve Gladin

The failing health of Supreme Leader Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, 89, brings into question the political aftermath of his approaching death or possible step-down. Khamenei’s health has been a point of query since 2007, when he temporarily disappeared from the public eye. News later came out that he had a routine procedure which had no need to cause any suspicions in regards to his health. However, the question remains as to whether his well-being is a fantasy or a reality. Regardless of the truth of his health, many suspect that he has been suffering prostate cancer all this time. Khamenei is 89 years old –he turns 80 in July– and the odds of him continuing as active Supreme Leader are slim to none. His death or resignation will not only reshape but could also greatly polarize the successive politics at play and create more instability for Iran.

The next possible successor must meet certain requirements in order to be within the bounds of possible appointees. This political figure must comply and follow Khamenei’s revolutionary ideology by being anti-Western, mainly anti-American. The prospective leader would also need to meet religious statues and adherence to clerical rule. Regardless of who that cleric may be, Iran is likely to be ruled by another religious figure who is far less powerful than Khamenei and more beholden to the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). Additionally, Khamenei’s successor should be young enough to undermine the current opposition to clerical rule prevalent among many of Iran’s youth, which accounts for the majority of Iran’s population.

In analyzing who will head Iranian politics, two streams have been identified. These are constrained by whether the current Supreme Leader Khamenei appoints his successor or not, and within that there are best and worst case scenarios.

Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi

Mahmoud Hashemi Shahroudi had been mentioned as the foremost contender to stand in lieu of Iranian Supreme Leader Khamenei. Shahroudi was a Khamenei loyalist who rose to the highest ranks of the Islamic Republic’s political clerical elite under the supreme leader’s patronage and was considered his most likely successor. A former judiciary chief, Shahroudi was, like his patron, a staunch defender of the Islamic Revolution and its founding principle, velayat-e-faqih (rule of the jurisprudence). Iran’s domestic unrest and regime longevity, progressively aroused by impromptu protests around the country over the past year, is contingent on the political class collectively agreeing on a supreme leader competent of building consensus and balancing competing interests. Shahroudi’s exceptional faculty to bridge the separated Iranian political and clerical establishment was the reason his name was frequently highlighted as Khamenei’s eventual successor. Also, he was both theologically and managerially qualified and among the few relatively nonelderly clerics viewed as politically trustworthy by Iran’s ruling establishment. However, he passed away in late December 2018, opening once again the question of who was most likely to take Khamenei’s place as Supreme Leader of Iran.

However, even with Shahroudi’s early death, there are still a few possibilities. One is Sadeq Larijani, the head of the judiciary, who, like Shahroudi, is Iraqi born. Another prospect is Ebrahim Raisi, a former 2017 presidential candidate and the custodian of the holiest shrine in Iran, Imam Reza. Raisi is a student and loyalist of Khamenei, whereas Larijani, also a hard-liner, is more independent.

1. MOST LIKELY SCENARIO,  REGARDLESS OF APPOINTMENT

1.1 Ebrahim Raisi

In a more likely scenario, Ebrahim Raisi would rise as Iran’s next Supreme Leader. He meets the requirements aforementioned with regards to the religious status and the revolutionary ideology. Fifty-eight-years-old, Raisi is a student and loyal follower of the current Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Like his teacher, he is from Mashhad and belongs to its famous seminary. He is married to the daughter of Ayatollah Alamolhoda, a hardline cleric who serves as Khamenei's representative of in the eastern Razavi Khorasan province, home of the Imam Reza shrine.

Together with his various senior judicial positions, in 2016 Raisi was appointed the chairman of Astan Quds Razavi, the wealthy and influential charitable foundation which manages the Imam Reza shrine. Through this appointment, Raisi developed a very close relationship with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC), which is a known ideological and economic partner of the foundation. In 2017, he moved into the political sphere by running for president, stating it was his "religious and revolutionary responsibility". He managed to secure a respectable 38 percent of the vote; however, his contender, Rouhani, won with 57 percent of the vote. At first, this outcome was perceived as an indicator of Raisi’s relative unpopularity, but he has proven his detractors wrong. After his electoral defeat, he remained in the public eye and became an even more prominent political figure by criticizing Rouhani's policies and pushing for hard-line policies in both domestic and foreign affairs. Also, given to Astan Quds Foundation’s extensive budget, Raisi has been able to secure alliances with other clerics and build a broad network that has the ability to mobilize advocates countrywide.

Once he takes on the role of Supreme Leader, he will continue his domestic and regional policies. On the domestic front, he will further Iran's Islamisation and regionally he will push to strengthen the "axis of resistance", which is the anti-Western and anti-Israeli alliance between Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, Shia Iraq and Hamas. Nevertheless, if this happens, Iran would live on under the leadership of yet another hardliner and the political scene would not change much. Regardless of who succeeds Khamenei, a political crisis is assured during this transition, triggered by a cycle of arbitrary rule, chaos, violence and social unrest in Iran. It will be a period of uncertainty given that a great share of the population seems unsatisfied with the clerical establishment, which was also enhanced by the current economic crisis ensued by the American sanctions.

1.2 Sadeq Larijani

Sadeq Larijani, who is fifty-eight years old, is known for his conservative politics and his closeness to the supreme guide of the Iranian regime Ali Khamenei and one of his potential successors. He is Shahroudi’s successor as head of the judiciary and currently chairs the Expediency Council. Additionally, the Larijani family occupies a number of important positions in government and shares strong ties with the Supreme Leader by being among the most powerful families in Iran since Khamenei became Supreme Leader thirty years ago. Sadeq Larijani is also a member of the Guardian Council, which vetos laws and candidates for elected office for conformance to Iran’s Islamic system.

Formally, the Expediency Council is an advisory body for the Supreme Leader and is intended to resolve disputes between parliament and a scrutineer body, therefore Larijani is well informed on the way Khamenei deals with governmental affairs and the domestic politics of Iran. Therefore, he meets the requirement of being aligned with Khamenei’s revolutionary and anti- Western ideology, and he is also a conservative cleric, thus he complies with the religious figure requirement. Nonetheless, he is less likely to be appointed as Iran’s next Supreme Leader given his poor reputation outside Iran. The U.S. sanctioned Larijani on the grounds of human rights violations, in addition to “arbitrary arrests of political prisoners, human rights defenders and minorities” which “increased markedly” since he took office, according to the EU who also sanctioned Larijani in 2012. His appointment would not be a strategic decision amidst the newly U.S. imposed sanctions and the trouble it has brought upon Iran. Nowadays, the last thing Iran wants is that the EU also turn their back to them, which would happen if Larijani rises to power. However it is still highly plausible that Larijani would be the second one on the list of prospective leaders, only preceded by Raisi.

2. LEAST LIKELY SCENARIO: SUCCESSOR NOT APPOINTED

2.1 Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps

The IRGC’s purpose is to preserve the Islamic system from foreign interference and protect from coups. As their priority is the protection of national security, the IRGC necessarily will take action once Khamenei passes away and the political sphere becomes chaotic. In carrying out their role of protecting national security, the IRGC will act as a support for the new Supreme Leader. Moreover, the IRGC will work to stabilize the unrest which will inevitably occur, regardless of who comes to power. It is our estimate that the new Supreme Leader will have been appointed by Khamenei before death, and thus the IRGC will do all in their power to protect him. In the unlikely case that Khamenei does not appoint a successor, we believe that there are two unlikely options of ruling that could arise.

The first, and least likely, being that the IRGC takes rule. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the IRGC takes power. This would violate the Iranian constitution and is not in the interest to rule the state. What they are interested in is having a puppet figure who will satisfy their interests. As the IRGC's main role is national security, in the event that Khamenei does not appoint a successor and the country goes into political and social turmoil, the IRGC will without a doubt step in. This military intervention will be one of transitory nature, as the IRGC does not pretend to want direct political power. Once the Supreme Leader is secured, the IRGC will go back to a relatively low profile.

In the very unlikely event that a Supreme Leader is not predetermined, the IRGC may take over the political regime of Iran, creating a military dictatorship. If this were to happen, there would certainly be protests, riots and coups. It would be very difficult for an opposition group to challenge and defeat the IRGC, but there would be attempts to overcome it. This would be a regime of temporary nature, however, the new Supreme Leader would arise from the scene that the IRGC had been protecting.

2.2 Mohsen Kadivar

In addition, political dissident and moderate cleric Mohsen Kadivar is a plausible candidate for the next Supreme Leader. Kadivar’s rise to political power in Iran would be a black swan,  as it is extremely unlikely, however, the possibility should not be dismissed. His election would be highly unlikely due to the fact that he is a vocal critic of clerical rule and has been a public opposer of the Iranian government. He has served time in prison for speaking out in favor of democracy and liberal reform as well as publicly criticizing the Islamic political system. Moreover, he has been a university professor of Islamic religious and legal studies throughout the United States. As Kadivar goes against all requirements to become successor, he is highly unlikely to become Supreme Leader. It is also important to keep in mind that Khamenei will most likely appoint a successor, and in that scenario, he will appoint someone who meets the requirements and of course is in line with what he believes. In the rare case that Khamenei does not appoint a successor or dies before he gets the chance to, a political uprising is inevitable. The question will be whether the country uprises to the point of voting a popular leader or settling with someone who will maintain the status quo.

In the situation that Mohsen Kadivar is voted into power, the Iranian political system would change drastically. For starters, he would not call himself Supreme Leader, and would instill a democratic and liberal political system. Kadivar and other scholars which condemn supreme clerical rule are anti-despotism and advocate for its abolishment. He would most likely establish a western-style democracy and work towards stabilizing the political situation of Iran. This would take more years than he will allow himself to remain in power, however, he will probably stay active in the political sphere both domestically as well as internationally. He may be secretary of state after stepping down, and work as both a close friend and advisor of the next leader of Iran as well as work for cultivating ties with other democratic countries.

2.3 Sayyid Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei

Khamenei's son, Sayyid Mojtaba Hosseini Khamenei is also rumored to be a possible designated successor. His religious and military experience and dedication, along with being the son of Khamenei gives strong reason to believe that he may be appointed Supreme Leader by his father. However, Mojtaba is lacking the required religious status. The requirements of commitment to the IRGC as well as anti-American ideology are not questioned, as Mojtaba has a well-known strong relationship with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Mojtaba studied theology and is currently a professor at Qom Seminary in Iran. Nonetheless, it is unclear as to whether Mojtaba’s religious and political status is enough to have him considered to be the next Supreme Leader. In the improbable case that Khamenei names his son to be his successor, it would be possible for his son to further commit to the religious and political facets of his life and align them with the requirements of being Supreme Leader.

This scenario is highly unlikely, especially considering that in the 1979 Revolution, monarchical hereditary succession was abolished. Mojtaba has already shown loyalty to Iran when taking control of the Basij militia during the uproar of the 2009 elections to halt protests. While Mojtaba is currently not fit for the position, he is clearly capable of gaining the needed credentials to live up to the job. Despite his potential, all signs point to another candidate becoming the successor before Mojtaba.

3. PATH TO DEMOCRACY

Albeit the current regime is supposedly overturned by an uprising or new appointment by the current Supreme Leader Khamenei, it is expected that any transition to democracy or to Western-like regime will take a longer and more arduous process. If this was the case, it will be probably preceded by a turmoil analogous to the Arab Springs of 2011. However, even if there was a scream for democracy coming from the Iranian population, the probability that it ends up in success like it did in Tunisia is slim to none. Changing the president or the Supreme Leader does not mean that the regime will also change, but there are more intertwined factors that lead to a massive change in the political sphere, like it is the path to democracy in a Muslim state.

▲ Protest in London in October 2018 after the disappearance of Jamal Khashoggi [John Lubbock, Wikimedia Commons]

ANALYSIS / Naomi Moreno Cosgrove

October 2nd last year was the last time Jamal Khashoggi—a well-known journalist and critic of the Saudi government—was seen alive. The Saudi writer, United States resident and Washington Post columnist, had entered the Saudi consulate in the Turkish city of Istanbul with the aim of obtaining documentation that would certify he had divorced his previous wife, so he could remarry; but never left.

After weeks of divulging bits of information, the Turkish president, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, laid out his first detailed account of the killing of the dissident journalist inside the Saudi Consulate. Eighteen days after Khashoggi disappeared, the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) acknowledged that the 59-year-old writer had died after his disappearance, revealing in their investigation findings that Jamal Khashoggi died after an apparent “fist-fight” inside the Saudi consulate in Istanbul; but findings were not reliable. Resultantly, the acknowledgement by the KSA of the killing in its own consulate seemed to pose more questions than answers.

Eventually, after weeks of repeated denials that it had anything to do with his disappearance, the contradictory scenes, which were the latest twists in the “fast-moving saga”, forced the kingdom to eventually acknowledge that indeed it was Saudi officials who were behind the gruesome murder thus damaging the image of the kingdom and its 33-year-old crown prince Mohammed bin Salman (MBS). What had happened was that the culmination of these events, including more than a dozen Saudi officials who reportedly flew into Istanbul and entered the consulate just before Khashoggi was there, left many sceptics wondering how it was possible for MBS to not know. Hence, the world now casts doubt on the KSA’s explanation over Khashoggi’s death, especially when it comes to the shifting explanations and MBS’ role in the conspiracy.

As follows, the aim of this study is to examine the backlash Saudi Arabia’s alleged guilt has caused, in particular, regarding European state-of-affairs towards the Middle East country. To that end, I will analyse various actions taken by European countries which have engaged in the matter and the different modus operandi these have carried out in order to reject a bloodshed in which arms selling to the kingdom has become the key issue.

Since Khashoggi went missing and while Turkey promised it would expose the “naked truth” about what happened in the Saudi consulate, Western countries had been putting pressure on the KSA for it to provide facts about its ambiguous account on the journalist’s death. In a joint statement released on Sunday 21st October 2018, the United Kingdom, France and Germany said: “There remains an urgent need for clarification of exactly what happened on 2nd October – beyond the hypotheses that have been raised so far in the Saudi investigation, which need to be backed by facts to be considered credible.” What happened after the kingdom eventually revealed the truth behind the murder, was a rather different backlash. In fact, regarding post-truth reactions amongst European countries, rather divergent responses have occurred.

Terminating arms selling exports to the KSA had already been carried out by a number of countries since the kingdom launched airstrikes on Yemen in 2015; a conflict that has driven much of Yemen’s population to be victims of an atrocious famine. The truth is that arms acquisition is crucial for the KSA, one of the world’s biggest weapons importers which is heading a military coalition in order to fight a proxy war in which tens of thousands of people have died, causing a major humanitarian catastrophe. In this context, calls for more constraints have been growing particularly in Europe since the killing of the dissident journalist. These countries, which now demand transparent clarifications in contrast to the opacity in the kingdom’s already-given explanations, are threatening the KSA with suspending military supply to the kingdom.

COUNTRIES THAT HAVE CEASED ARMS SELLING

Germany

Probably one of the best examples with regards to the ceasing of arms selling—after not been pleased with Saudi state of affairs—is Germany. Following the acknowledgement of what happened to Khashoggi, German Chancellor Angela Merkel declared in a statement that she condemned his death with total sharpness, thus calling for transparency in the context of the situation, and stating that her government halted previously approved arms exports thus leaving open what would happen with those already authorised contracts, and that it wouldn’t approve any new weapons exports to the KSA: “I agree with all those who say that the, albeit already limited, arms export can’t take place in the current circumstances,” she said at a news conference.

So far this year, the KSA was the second largest customer in the German defence industry just after Algeria, as until September last year, the German federal government allocated export licenses of arms exports to the kingdom worth 416.4 million euros. Respectively, according to German Foreign Affair Minister, Heiko Maas, Germany was the fourth largest exporter of weapons to the KSA.

This is not the first time the German government has made such a vow. A clause exists in the coalition agreement signed by Germany’s governing parties earlier in 2018 which stated that no weapons exports may be approved to any country “directly” involved in the Yemeni conflict in response to the kingdom’s countless airstrikes carried out against Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in the area for several years. Yet, what is clear is that after Khashoggi’s murder, the coalition’s agreement has been exacerbated. Adding to this military sanction Germany went even further and proposed explicit sanctions to the Saudi authorities who were directly linked to the killing. As follows, by stating that “there are more questions unanswered than answered,” Maas declared that Germany has issued the ban for entering Europe’s border-free Schengen zone—in close coordination with France and Britain—against the 18 Saudi nationals who are “allegedly connected to this crime.”

Following the decision, Germany has thus become the first major US ally to challenge future arms sales in the light of Khashoggi’s case and there is thus a high likelihood that this deal suspension puts pressure on other exporters to carry out the same approach in the light of Germany’s Economy Minister, Peter Altmaier’s, call on other European Union members to take similar action, arguing that “Germany acting alone would limit the message to Riyadh.”

Norway

Following the line of the latter claim, on November 9th last year, Norway became the first country to back Germany’s decision when it announced it would freeze new licenses for arms exports to the KSA. Resultantly, in her statement, Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Ine Eriksen Søreide, declared that the government had decided that in the present situation they will not give new licenses for the export of defence material or multipurpose good for military use to Saudi Arabia. According to the Søreide, this decision was taken after “a broad assessment of recent developments in Saudi Arabia and the unclear situation in Yemen.” Although Norwegian ministry spokesman declined to say whether the decision was partly motivated by the murder of the Saudi journalist, not surprisingly, Norway’s announcement came a week after its foreign minister called the Saudi ambassador to Oslo with the aim of condemning Khashoggi’s assassination.  As a result, the latter seems to imply Norway’s motivations were a mix of both; the Yemeni conflict and Khashoggi’s death.

Denmark and Finland

By following a similar decision made by neighbouring Germany and Norway—despite the fact that US President Trump backed MBS, although the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had assessed that the crown prince was responsible for the order of the killing—Denmark and Finland both announced that they would also stop exporting arms to the KSA.

Emphasising on the fact that they were “now in a new situation”—after the continued deterioration of the already terrible situation in Yemen and the killing of the Saudi journalist—Danish Foreign Minister, Anders Samuelsen, stated that Denmark would proceed to cease military exports to the KSA remarking that Denmark already had very restrictive practices in this area and hoped that this decision would be able to create a “further momentum and get more European Union (EU) countries involved in the conquest to support tight implementation of the Union’s regulatory framework in this area.”

Although this ban is still less expansive compared to German measures—which include the cancelation of deals that had already been approved—Denmark’s cease of goods’ exports will likely crumble the kingdom’s strategy, especially when it comes to technology. Danish exports to the KSA, which were mainly used for both military and civilian purposes, are chiefly from BAE Systems Applied Intelligence, a subsidiary of the United Kingdom’s BAE Systems, which sold technology that allowed Intellectual Property surveillance and data analysis for use in national security and investigation of serious crimes. The suspension thus includes some dual-use technologies, a reference to materials that were purposely thought to have military applications in favour of the KSA.

On the same day Denmark carried out its decision, Finland announced they were also determined to halt arms export to Saudi Arabia. Yet, in contrast to Norway’s approach, Finnish Prime Minister, Juha Sipilä, held that, of course, the situation in Yemen lead to the decision, but that Khashoggi’s killing was “entirely behind the overall rationale”.

Finnish arms exports to the KSA accounted for 5.3 million euros in 2017. Nevertheless, by describing the situation in Yemen as “catastrophic”, Sipilä declared that any existing licenses (in the region) are old, and in these circumstances, Finland would refuse to be able to grant updated ones. Although, unlike Germany, Helsinki’s decision does not revoke existing arms licenses to the kingdom, the Nordic country has emphasized the fact that it aims to comply with the EU’s arms export criteria, which takes particular account of human rights and the protection of regional peace, security and stability, thus casting doubt on the other European neighbours which, through a sense of incoherence, have not attained to these values.

European Parliament

Speaking in supranational terms, the European Parliament agreed with the latter countries and summoned EU members to freeze arms sales to the kingdom in the conquest of putting pressure on member states to emulate the Germany’s decision.      

By claiming that arms exports to Saudi Arabia were breaching international humanitarian law in Yemen, the European Parliament called for sanctions on those countries that refuse to respect EU rules on weapons sales. In fact, the latest attempt in a string of actions compelling EU foreign policy chief Federica Mogherini to dictate an embargo against the KSA, including a letter signed by MEPs from several parties.

Rapporteur for a European Parliament report on EU arms exports, Bodil Valero said: "European weapons are contributing to human rights abuses and forced migration, which are completely at odds with the EU's common values." As a matter of fact, two successful European Parliament resolutions have hitherto been admitted, but its advocates predicted that some member states especially those who share close trading ties with the kingdom are deep-seated, may be less likely to cooperate. Fact that has eventually occurred.

COUNTRIES THAT HAVE NOT CEASED ARMS SELLING

France

In contrast to the previously mentioned countries, other European states such as France, UK and Spain, have approached the issue differently and have signalled that they will continue “business as usual”.

Both France and the KSA have been sharing close diplomatic and commercial relations ranging from finance to weapons. Up to now, France relished the KSA, which is a bastion against Iranian significance in the Middle East region. Nevertheless, regarding the recent circumstances, Paris now faces a daunting challenge.

Just like other countries, France Foreign Minister, Jean-Yves Le Drian, announced France condemned the killing “in the strongest terms” and demanded an exhaustive investigation. "The confirmation of Mr. Jamal Khashoggi's death is a first step toward the establishment of the truth. However, many questions remain unanswered," he added. Following this line, France backed Germany when sanctioning the 18 Saudi citizens thus mulling a joint ban from the wider visa-free Schengen zone. Nevertheless, while German minister Altmeier summoned other European countries to stop selling arms to Riyadh—until the Saudi authorities gave the true explanation on Khashoggi’s death—, France refused to report whether it would suspend arms exports to the KSA. “We want Saudi Arabia to reveal all the truth with full clarity and then we will see what we can do,” he told in a news conference.           

In this context, Amnesty International France has become one of Paris’ biggest burdens. The organization has been putting pressure on the French government for it to freeze arms sales to the realm. Hence, by acknowledging France is one of the five biggest arms exporters to Riyadh—similar to the Unites States and Britain—Amnesty International France is becoming aware France’s withdrawal from the arms sales deals is crucial in order to look at the Yemeni conflict in the lens of human rights rather than from a non-humanitarian-geopolitical perspective. Meanwhile, France tries to justify its inaction. When ministry deputy spokesman Oliver Gauvin was asked whether Paris would mirror Berlin’s actions, he emphasized the fact that France’s arms sales control policy was meticulous and based on case-by-case analysis by an inter-ministerial committee. According to French Defence Minister Florence Parly, France exported 11 billion euros worth of arms to the kingdom from 2008 to 2017, fact that boosted French jobs. In 2017 alone, licenses conceivably worth 14.7 billion euros were authorized. Moreover, she went on stating that those arms exports take into consideration numerous criteria among which is the nature of exported materials, the respect of human rights, and the preservation of peace and regional security. "More and more, our industrial and defence sectors need these arms exports. And so, we cannot ignore the impact that all of this has on our defence industry and our jobs," she added. As a result, despite President Emmanuel Macron has publicly sought to devalue the significance relations with the KSA have, minister Parly, seemed to suggest the complete opposite.

Anonymously, a government minister held it was central that MBS retained his position. “The challenge is not to lose MBS, even if he is not a choir boy. A loss of influence in the region would cost us much more than the lack of arms sales”. Notwithstanding France’s ambiguity, Paris’ inconclusive attitude is indicating France’s clout in the region is facing a vulnerable phase. As president Macron told MBS at a side-line G20 summit conversation in December last year, he is worried. Although the context of this chat remains unclear, many believe Macron’s intentions were to persuade MBS to be more transparent as a means to not worsen the kingdom’s reputation and thus to, potentially, dismantle France´s bad image.

United Kingdom

As it was previously mentioned, the United Kingdom took part in the joint statement carried out also by France and Germany through its foreign ministers which claimed there was a need for further explanations regarding Khashoggi’s killing. Yet, although Britain’s Foreign Office said it was considering its “next steps” following the KSA’s admission over Khashoggi’s killing, UK seems to be taking a rather similar approach to France—but not Germany—regarding the situation.

In 2017, the UK was the sixth-biggest arms dealer in the world, and the second-largest exporter of arms to the KSA, behind the US. This is held to be a reflection of a large spear in sales last year. After the KSA intervened in the civil war in Yemen in early 2015, the UK approved more than 3.5billion euros in military sales to the kingdom between April 2015 and September 2016.

As a result, Theresa May has been under pressure for years to interrupt arms sales to the KSA specially after human rights advocates claimed the UK was contributing to alleged violations of international humanitarian law by the Saudi-led coalition in Yemen. Adding to this, in 2016, a leaked parliamentary committee report suggested that it was likely that British weapons had been used by the Saudi-led coalition to violate international law, and that manufactured aircraft by BAE Systems, have been used in combat missions in Yemen.

Lately, in the context of Khashoggi’s death things have aggravated and the UK is now facing a great amount of pressure, mainly embodied by UK’s main opposition Labour party which calls for a complete cease in its arms exports to the KSA.  In addition, in terms of a more international strain, the European Union has also got to have a say in the matter. Philippe Lamberts, the Belgian leader of the Green grouping of parties, said that Brexit should not be an excuse for the UK to abdicate on its moral responsibilities and that Theresa May had to prove that she was keen on standing up to the kind of atrocious behaviour shown by the killing of Khashoggi and hence freeze arms sales to Saudi Arabia immediately.

Nonetheless, in response and laying emphasis on the importance the upholding relation with UK’s key ally in the Middle East has, London has often been declining calls to end arms exports to the KSA. Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt defended there will be “consequences to the relationship with Saudi Arabia” after the killing of Khashoggi, but he has also pointed out that the UK has an important strategic relationship with Riyadh which needs to be preserved. As a matter of fact, according to some experts, UK’s impending exit from the EU has played a key role. The Campaign Against Arms Trade (CAAT) claims Theresa May’s pursuit for post-Brexit trade deals has seen an unwelcome focus on selling arms to some of the world's most repressive regimes. Nevertheless, by thus tackling the situation in a similar way to France, the UK justifies its actions by saying that it has one of the most meticulous permitting procedures in the world by remarking that its deals comprehend safeguards that counter improper uses.

Spain

After Saudi Arabia’s gave its version for Khashoggi’s killing, the Spanish government said it was “dismayed” and echoed Antonio Guterres’ call for a thorough and transparent investigation to bring justice to all of those responsible for the killing. Yet, despite the clamour that arose after the murder of the columnist, just like France and the UK, Spain’s Prime Minister, Pedro Sánchez, defended arms exporting to the KSA by claiming it was in Spain’s interest to keep selling military tools to Riyadh. Sanchez held he stood in favour of Spain’s interests, namely jobs in strategic sectors that have been badly affected by “the drama that is unemployment". Thusly, proclaiming Spain’s unwillingness to freeze arms exports to the kingdom. In addition, even before Khashoggi’s killing, Sanchez's government was subject to many critics after having decided to proceed with the exporting of 400 laser-guided bombs to Saudi Arabia, despite worries that they could harm civilians in Yemen. Notwithstanding this, Sánchez justified Spain’s decision in that good ties with the Gulf state, a key commercial partner for Spain, needed to be kept.

As a matter of fact, Spain’s state-owned shipbuilder Navantia, in which 5,500 employees work, signed a deal in July last year which accounted for 1.8 billion euros that supplied the Gulf country with five navy ships.  This shipbuilder is situated in the southern region of Andalusia, a socialist bulwark which accounts for Spain's highest unemployment estimates and which has recently held regional elections. Hence, it was of the socialist president’s interest to keep these constituencies pleased and the means to this was, of course, not interrupting arms deals with the KSA.

As a consequence, Spain has recently been ignoring the pressures that have arose from MEP’s and from Sanchez’s minorities in government—Catalan separatist parties and far-left party Podemos— which demand a cease in arms exporting. For the time being, Spain will continue business with the KSA as usual.

CONCLUSION

All things considered, while Saudi Arabia insists that MBS was not aware of the gruesome murder and is distracting the international attention towards more positive headlines—such as the appointment of the first female ambassador to the US—in order to clear the KSA’s image in the context of Khashoggi’s murder, several European countries have taken actions against the kingdom’s interests. Yet, the way each country has approached the matter has led to the rise of two separate blocks which are at discordance within Europe itself. Whereas some European leaders have shown a united front in casting blame on the Saudi government, others seem to express geopolitical interests are more important.

During the time Germany, Norway, Denmark and Finland are being celebrated by human rights advocates for following through on their threat to halt sales to the kingdom, bigger arms exporters—like those that have been analysed—have pointed out that the latter nations have far less to lose than they do. Nonetheless, inevitably, the ceasing carried out by the northern European countries which are rather small arms exporters in comparison to bigger players such as the UK and France, is likely to have exacerbated concerns within the European arms industry of a growing anti-Saudi consensus in the European Union or even beyond.

What is clear is that due to the impact Saudi Arabia’s state of affairs have caused, governments and even companies worldwide are coming under pressure to abandon their ties to the oil-rich, but at the same time, human-rights-violating Saudi Arabian leadership. Resultantly, in Europe, countries are taking part in two divergent blocks that are namely led by two of the EU’s most compelling members: France and Germany. These two sides are of rather distant opinions regarding the matter, fact that does not seem to be contributing in terms of the so-much-needed European Union integration.

ANÁLISIS / Nerea Álvarez

Las relaciones entre Japón y Corea no son fáciles. La anexión japonesa de la península en 1910 sigue muy presente en la memoria coreana. Por su parte, Japón posee un sentido de la historia distorsionado, fruto de haber asumido su culpabilidad en la guerra de modo obligado, forzado por el castigo sufrido en la Segunda Guerra Mundial y la ocupación estadounidense, y no como consecuencia de un proceso propio de asunción voluntaria de responsabilidades. Todo ello ha llevado a que Japón se resista a revisar su historia, sobretodo la de su época imperialista.

Uno elemento clave que dificulta una reconciliación sincera entre Japón y los países vecinos que se vieron invadidos por los nipones en la primera mitad del siglo XX son las mujeres de consuelo o “mujeres confort”. Este grupo de mujeres, procedentes de China, Filipinas, Myanmar, Taiwán, Indonesia, Tailandia, Malasia, Vietnam y Corea del Sur (alrededor del 80% provenían de este último país), son una consecuencia de la expansión de Japón comenzada en 1910. Durante este periodo, los soldados japoneses se llevaron aproximadamente entre 70.000 y 200.000 mujeres a estaciones de confort donde estos abusaban sexualmente de ellas. Estas estaciones siguieron en marcha en Japón hasta finales de los años 40. Según los testimonios de las mujeres supervivientes, los soldados japoneses se las llevaban de diversas formas: secuestro, engaño y extorsión son solo algunos ejemplos.

Según el testimonio de Kim Bok-Dong, una de las mujeres supervivientes, los soldados nipones adujeron que debían llevársela para trabajar en una fábrica de uniformes porque no tenían suficiente personal. En aquel entonces ella tenía 14 años. Los soldados prometieron a su madre devolvérsela una vez fuese mayor para casarse, y amenazaron con el exilio a toda la familia si no los padres no permitían la marcha de la joven. Fue transportada en ferri desde Busan hasta Shimonoseki (prefectura de Yamaguchi, en Japón), junto con otras treinta mujeres. Después tomaron otro barco que las transportó a Taiwán y luego a la provincia de Guangdong. Allí fueron recibidas por oficiales, que las acompañaron hasta el interior de un edificio donde les esperaban médicos. Examinaron sus cuerpos y las acompañaron a sus habitaciones. Las mujeres fueron agredidas y violadas repetidamente. Tras varias semanas, muchas pensaban en el suicidio: “Estábamos mucho mejor muertas” (Kim Bok-Dong, 2018). Muchas murieron debido a las condiciones a las que se les sometía, a causa de enfermedades, asesinadas por los soldados japoneses en los últimos años de la guerra o, si tenían oportunidad, suicidándose. Se estima que sobrevivieron alrededor de un cuarto o un tercio de las mujeres.

Largo proceso

Tras la guerra y pese a conocerse los hechos, ese dramático pasado fue quedando relegado en la historia, sin que se le prestara la atención necesaria. Corea del Sur no estaba preparada para ayudar a estas mujeres (y Corea del Norte había entrado en un absoluto aislamiento). Durante los años 60, las relaciones entre la República de Corea y Japón empeoraron debido a las políticas antijaponesas de los líderes políticos surcoreanos. En 1965, Tokio y Seúl firmaron el Tratado de Normalización, pero quedó demostrado que los asuntos económicos eran lo prioritario. Se tendieron puentes de cooperación entre ambos países, pero el conflicto emocional impedía y sigue impidiendo mayor relación en campos alejados del económico. Japón sigue alegando que en el Tratado de Normalización se encuentran los argumentos para descartar que estas mujeres posean el derecho de legitimación ante tribunales internacionales, aunque en el texto no se las mencione.

Las cosas comenzaron a cambiar en los años 70, cuando se formó en Japón la Asociación de las Mujeres Asiáticas, la cual empezó a arrojar luz sobre este aspecto de la historia reciente. Al principio, incluso el Gobierno coreano ignoró el problema. La razón principal fue la falta de pruebas de que los hechos hubieran ocurrido, ya que el Gobierno de Japón había mandado destruir los documentos comprometedores en 1945. Además, Japón impidió que el Gobierno surcoreano reclamara reparaciones adicionales por daños incurridos durante el período colonial basándose en el tratado de 1965.

La cultura del sudeste asiático jugó un papel importante en la ocultación de los hechos acontecidos. El valor de mantener las apariencias en la cultura oriental primaba sobre la denuncia de situaciones como las vividas por estas mujeres, que debieron callar durante décadas para no ser repudiadas por su familia.

Cuando la República de Corea se democratizó en 1987, el Gobierno surcoreano comenzó a darle importancia a esta cuestión. En 1990, el presidente Roh Tae Woo, pidió al Gobierno de Japón una lista con los nombres de las mujeres, pero la respuesta desde Tokio fue que esa información no existía porque los documentos se habían destruido. El dirigente socialista Motooka Shoji, miembro de la Cámara Alta de la Dieta japonesa, reclamó que se investigara lo ocurrido, pero el Parlamento alegó que el problema ya se habría resuelto con el Tratado de Normalización de 1965. En 1991, Kim Hak-Sun, una de las mujeres que sobrevivieron a la explotación sexual, presentó la primera demanda judicial, siendo la primera víctima en hablar de su experiencia. Esto supuso el arranque de la lucha de un grupo de más de cincuenta mujeres coreanas que pedían el  reconocimiento de los hechos y una disculpa oficial del Gobierno japonés. A partir del 8 de enero de 1992, “todos los miércoles a las 12 del mediodía, las víctimas junto a miembros del Consejo Coreano y otros grupos sociales marchan frente a la Embajada de Japón en Seúl. La marcha consiste en levantar carteles exigiendo justicia y perdón y expresar en público sus reclamos”.

El Gobierno de Tokio negó toda implicación en el establecimiento, reclutamiento y  estructuración del sistema de las mujeres de confort desde el principio. No obstante, desde la Secretaría del Gabinete tuvo que emitirse en 1992 una disculpa, aunque fue vaga y demasiado genérica, dirigida a todas las mujeres por los actos cometidos durante la guerra. No fue hasta ese año que el Gobierno japonés reconoció su implicación en la administración y supervisión de estas estaciones. La UNHRC determinó entonces que las acciones del Gobierno nipón representaban un crimen contra la humanidad que violó los derechos humanos de las mujeres asiáticas.

En 1993, Japón admitió haber reclutado bajo coerción a las mujeres coreanas. La coerción era la palabra clave para desmentir las declaraciones previas, que indicaban que estas mujeres se dedicaban a la prostitución voluntariamente. El secretario del Gabinete, Yohei Kono, declaró que “el ejército japonés estuvo, directa o indirectamente, involucrado en el establecimiento y la gestión de las estaciones de confort, y en el traslado de mujeres de confort... que, en muchos casos, fueron reclutados en contra de su propia voluntad”. El Gobierno de Japón ofreció sus disculpas, arrepintiéndose de lo sucedido, pero no hubo compensación a las víctimas. En 1994, la Comisión Internacional de Juristas recomendó a Japón pagar la cantidad de $40.000 a cada superviviente. El Gobierno quiso estructurar un plan para pagar a las mujeres con fondos no gubernamentales, pero el Consejo Coreano para las mujeres raptadas por Japón como exclavas sexuales, fundado en 1990 e integrado por 37 instituciones no se lo permitió.

En 1995, el primer ministro Murayama Tomiichi sentó las bases del Asian Women’s Fund, que serviría para proteger los derechos de las mujeres en Japón y en el mundo.  A ojos internacionales, esta organización se vio como una excusa para escapar de las responsabilidades legales requeridas, ya que se recaudaba dinero público, lo que hacía que la participación del Gobierno fuese casi imperceptible. Además, comenzó a hacerse oír una creciente opinión minoritaria de ciudadanos afines a la derecha japonesa que calificaban a las mujeres confort de ‘prostitutas’, a las que no era necesario compensar de ningún modo.

No obstante, la compensación monetaria es una de las cuestiones que menos ha importado a este grupo de mujeres. Su prioridad ante todo es restaurar su dignidad. Que el Gobierno japonés no se haya implicado directamente y no acalle opiniones como las de la minoría derechista, es probablemente lo que más les afecte. Ante todo, estas mujeres luchan por que Tokio reconozca los hechos públicamente y ofrezca una disculpa oficial por lo ocurrido.

La ONU ha seguido tomando el papel de mediador a lo largo de los años. Encontramos en varios documentos pertenecientes a la UNHRC declaraciones que instan a Japón a resolver el problema. En un documento que revisa la primera demanda de la organización (2 de febrero de 1996) en el Consejo de los Derechos Humanos, figura la respuesta del primer ministro Ryutaro Hashimoto: “la cuestión acerca de las reparaciones se resolvió mediante tratados de paz y el Gobierno nunca pagará una indemnización a las víctimas”.

En el documento en cuestión, se clasifica de esclavitud militar a las estaciones de confort. Japón respondió negando cualquier tipo de responsabilidad legal, dada la incapacidad de aplicarse retroactivamente la ley internacional del momento, la imprecisión de la definición de estaciones de confort, la no vigencia de leyes contra la esclavitud durante la Segunda Guerra Mundial y la no prohibición en las leyes internacionales de cometer violaciones en situaciones de conflicto internacional. Además, adujo que las leyes existentes durante la guerra solo se podían aplicar a la conducta cometida por los militares japoneses contra ciudadanos de un Estado beligerante, pero no contra los ciudadanos de Corea, ya que esta fue anexionada y formaba parte del territorio japonés.

En 1998, la abogada estadounidense Gay J. McDougall presentó ante la UNHRC un documento que concluía que las acciones tomadas por las Fuerzas Armadas de Japón eran crímenes contra la humanidad. Más tarde, ese mismo año, la ONU adoptó el texto y cambió la definición previa a estaciones de violación.

Entendimiento que no llega

A lo largo de los años, el problema no ha hecho más que crecer y la política japonesa ha ido alejándose de un posible camino de mejora de las relaciones diplomáticas con sus vecinos. Este problema de revisión de la historia es la base de los movimientos políticos que observamos en Japón desde 1945. Las reformas impuestas por la ocupación estadounidense y los tribunales de Tokio jugaron un papel de gran importancia, así como el Tratado de San Francisco, firmado en 1948. Todo ello ha establecido en la población japonesa una aceptación pasiva de la historia pasada y de sus responsabilidades.

Al haber sido juzgados en los tribunales de 1948, la responsabilidad y culpabilidad que cargaban los nipones se creyó absuelta. Por otro lado, la ocupación de EEUU sobre el archipiélago, tomando el control militar, afectó al orgullo de los ciudadanos. La transformación de la economía, la política, la defensa y, sobretodo, la educación también tuvo sus repercusiones. Desde los comienzos democráticos de Japón, la política se ha centrado en una defensa pasiva, una educación antinacionalista y unas relaciones exteriores alineadas con los intereses de la potencia norteamericana.

Sin embargo, tras las elección como primer ministro en 2012 de Shinzo Abe, líder del Partido Liberal Democrático (LDP), se han introducido numerosos cambios en la política exterior e interior del país, con reformas en campos que van desde la economía hasta la educación y la defensa. Respecto a esta última, Abe se ha enfocado mayormente en reintroducir la fuerza militar en Japón a partir de una enmienda en el artículo 9 de la Constitución de 1945. Este giro se debe a la ideología propia del partido, que quiere dar a Japón un mayor peso en la política internacional. Uno de los puntos clave en su Gobierno es precisamente la postura frente al polémico tema de las mujeres confort.

En 2015, Shinzo Abe y la presidenta de la República de Corea, Park Geun-hye, firmaron un tratado en el que se establecían tres objetivos a cumplir: las disculpas oficiales de Japón, la donación de mil millones de yenes a una fundación surcoreana para el beneficio de estas mujeres y la retirada de la estatua en recuerdo de las mujeres confort levantada frente a la embajada de Japón en Seúl. Este tratado fue el mayor logro en el largo proceso del conflicto, y fue recibido como la solución a tantos años de disputa. Los dos primeros objetivos se cumplieron, pero la controvertida estatua no fue apartada de su emplazamiento. La llegada del presidente Moon Jae-in en 2017 complicó la completa implementación del acuerdo. Ese año, Moon criticó abiertamente el tratado, por considerar que deja de lado a las víctimas y al pueblo coreano en general. Su presidencia ha variado ciertos enfoques estratégicos de Corea del Sur y se desconoce exactamente qué quiere conseguir con Japón.

Acuerdo pendiente

Lo que sí puede concluirse es que retrasar la solución no es beneficioso para ninguna de las partes. Dejar el problema abierto está frustrando a todos los países involucrados, sobre todo a Japón. Un ejemplo de ello es la reciente ruptura de la hermandad entre las ciudades de San Francisco y Osaka en 2018 debido a una estatua en la población estadounidense que representa a las víctimas de este conflicto. En ella se encuentran tres niñas, una niña china, una coreana y una filipina, cogiéndose de las manos. El alcalde de Osaka, Hirofumi Yoshimura, y su predecesor, Toru Hashimoto, habían escrito cartas a su ciudad hermanada desde que se redactó la resolución para construir el memorial. Asimismo, dentro del propio LDP, Yoshitaka Sakurada, calificó de ‘prostitutas’ a este grupo de mujeres en 2016; poco después de haber establecido el tratado de 2015 sobre este tema. Eso ha provocado una respuesta negativa al tratado, ya que se cree que en realidad Japón no busca la reconciliación, sino olvidar el tema sin aceptar la responsabilidad que conlleva. 

El problema radica en cómo afrontan la controversia estos países. La República de Corea, con el presidente Moon, busca cerrar las heridas pasadas con nuevos acuerdos, pero Japón solo aspira a cerrar el asunto lo antes posible. La renegociación de un tratado no es la mejor opción para Japón: incluso buscando la mejor solución para ambas partes, saldría perdiendo. En caso de que el presidente Moon logre llegar a un nuevo acuerdo con el primer ministro Abe para solventar los problemas del anterior tratado, se demostraría que las negociaciones anteriores y las medidas adoptadas por Japón en 2015 han fracasado.

Por muchas disculpas que el Gobierno de Japón haya emitido a lo largo de los años, nunca se ha aceptado la responsabilidad legal sobre las acciones en relación a las mujeres confort. Mientras que esto no suceda, no se pueden proyectar futuros escenarios donde la discusión se solucione. El presidente Moon renegociará el tratado con Japón, pero las probabilidades de que resulte son escasas. Todo indica que Japón no tiene ninguna intención de renegociar el tratado ni de hacerse cargo legalmente. Si no alcanzan una solución, las relaciones entre los dos países se pueden llegar a deteriorar debido a la carga emocional que presenta el problema.

La raíz de las tensiones se sitúa en el pasado histórico y su aceptación. Tanto Moon Jae-in como Shinzo Abe deben reevaluar la situación con ojos críticos en relación a sus propios países. Japón debe comenzar a comprometerse con las acciones pasadas y la República de Corea debe mantenerse una posición constante y decidir cuáles son sus prioridades respecto a las mujeres confort. Solo ello puede permitirles avanzar en la búsqueda del mejor tratado para ambos.

▲Área del Indo-Pacífico y territorios adyacentes [Wikimedia-Commons]

ANÁLISIS / Emili J. Blasco

Estamos asistiendo al nacimiento efectivo de Eurasia. Si esa palabra surgió como artificio, para reunir dos geografías adyacentes, sin relación, hoy Eurasia está emergiendo como realidad, en una única geografía. El catalizador ha sido sobre todo la apertura hacia Poniente de China: en la medida en que China ha comenzado a ocuparse de su parte trasera –Asia Central–, y ha dibujado nuevas rutas terrestres hacia Europa, las distancias entre los márgenes de Eurasia también se han ido reduciendo. Los mapas de la Iniciativa Cinturón y Ruta de la Seda tienen como efecto primero presentar un único continente, de Shanghái a París o Madrid. La guerra comercial entre Pekín y Washington y el desamparo europeo del otrora paraguas estadounidense contribuyen a que China y Europa se busquen mutuamente.

Una consecuencia de la mirada cruzada desde los dos extremos del supercontinente, cuyo encuentro construye ese nuevo mapa mental de territorio continuo, es que el eje mundial se traslada al Índico. Ya no está en el Atlántico, como cuando Estados Unidos retomó de Europa el estandarte de Occidente, ni tampoco en el Pacífico, adonde se había movido con el fenómeno emergente del Este asiático. Lo que parecía ser la localización del futuro, el Asia-Pacífico, está cediendo el paso al Indo-Pacífico, donde ciertamente China no pierde protagonismo, pero queda más sujeta al equilibrio de poder euroasiático. La ironía para China es que queriendo recuperar su pretérita posición de Reino del Medio, sus planes expansivos acaben dando centralidad a India, su velada némesis.

Eurasia se encoge

La idea de un encogimiento de Eurasia, que reduce su vasta geografía al tamaño de nuestro campo visual, ganando en entidad propia, fue expresada hace dos años por Robert Kaplan en un ensayo que luego ha recogido en su libro The Return of Marco Polo's World (2018)[1]. Justamente el renacimiento de la Ruta de la Seda, con sus reminiscencias históricas, es lo que ha acabado por poner en un mismo plano en nuestra mente Europa y Oriente, como en unos siglos en los que, desconocida América, no existía nada allende los océanos circundantes. “A medida que Europa desaparece”, dice Kaplan en referencia a las crecientemente vaporosas fronteras europeas, “Eurasia se cohesiona”. “El supercontinente se está convirtiendo en una unidad fluida y global de comercio y conflicto”, afirma.

Para Bruno Maçães, autor de The Down of Eurasia (2018)[2], hemos entrado en una era euroasiática. A pesar de lo que cabría haber predicho hace tan solo un par de décadas, “este siglo no será asiático”, asegura Maçães. Tampoco será europeo o americano, sino que estamos como en aquel momento, al término de la Primera Guerra Mundial, cuando se pasó de hablar de Europa a hacerlo de Occidente. Ahora Europa, desprendida de Estados Unidos, según argumenta este autor portugués, también pasa a integrarse en algo mayor: Eurasia.

Teniendo en cuenta ese movimiento, tanto Kaplan como Maçães vaticinan una disolución de Occidente. El americano pone el acento en las deficiencias de Europa: “Europa, al menos como la hemos conocido, ha comenzado a desaparecer. Y con ella Occidente mismo”; mientras que el europeo señala más bien el desinterés de Estados Unidos: “Uno tiene la sensación de que la vocación universalista estadounidense no es garantizar la preeminencia global de la civilización occidental, sino seguir como la única superpotencia global”.

Cambia el eje del mundo

A raíz del descubrimiento español de América, en el siglo XVI se veía coronar una traslación gradual hacia Occidente de la hegemonía y de la civilización en el mundo. “Los imperios de los persas y de los caldeos habían sido reemplazados por los de Egipto, Grecia, Italia y Francia, y ahora por el de España. Aquí permanecería el centro del mundo”, escribe John Elliott citando un escrito de la época, del humanista Pérez de Oliva[3]. La idea de estación final también se tuvo cuando el peso específico del mundo se situó en el Atlántico, y luego en el Pacífico. Hoy proseguimos de nuevo ese viraje hacia Poniente, hasta el Índico, sin ya quizá mucho ánimo de darlo por definitivo, aunque se complete la vuelta sobre cuyos inicios teorizaron los renacentistas.

Al fin y al cabo, también ha habido traslaciones del centro de gravedad en sentido contrario, si atendemos a otros parámetros. En las décadas posteriores a 1945 la localización media de la actividad económica entre diferentes geografías estuvo situada en el centro del Atlántico. Con el cambio de siglo, sin embargo, el centro de gravedad de las transacciones económicas ha estado emplazado al Este de las fronteras de la Unión Europea, según apunta Maçães, quien pronostica que en diez años el punto medio estará en la frontera entre Europa y Asia, y a mitad del siglo XXI entre India y China, países que están “abocados a desarrollar la mayor relación comercial del mundo”. Con ello, India “puede convertirse en el nudo central entre los extremos del nuevo supercontinente”. Moviéndonos hacia un lado del planeta hemos llegado al mismo punto –el Índico­– que en el viaje en sentido contrario.

El mundo isla

A diferencia del Atlántico y del Pacífico, océanos que en el globo se extienden verticalmente, de polo a polo, el Índico se despliega horizontalmente y en lugar de encontrar dos riberas, tiene tres. Eso hace que África, al menos su zona oriental, forme parte también de esta nueva centralidad: si la rapidez de navegación propiciada por los monzones ya facilitó históricamente un estrecho contacto del subcontinente indio con la costa este africana, hoy las nuevas rutas de la seda marítimas pueden acrecentar aún más los intercambios. Eso y la creciente llegada de migrantes subsaharianos a Europa refleja un fenómeno centrípeto que incluso da pie a hablar de Afro-Eurasia. Así que, como apunta Kaplan, referirse al mundo isla como en su día hizo Halford Mackinder “ya no es algo prematuro”. Maçães recuerda que Mackinder veía como una dificultad para percibir la realidad de ese mundo isla el hecho de que no fuera posible circunnavegarlo por completo. Hoy esa percepción debiera ser más fácil, cuando se está abriendo la ruta del Ártico.

En el marco de las teorías complementarias –verso y reverso– de Halford Mackinder y de Nicholas Spykman sobre el Heartland y el Rimland, respectivamente, cualquier centralidad de India tiene que traslucirse en poder marítimo. Cerrado su acceso al interior de Asia por el Himalaya y por un antagónico Pakistán (le queda el único y complejo paso de Cachemira), es en el mar donde India puede proyectar su influencia. Como India, también China y Europa están en el Rimland euroasiático, desde donde todas esas potencias disputarán el equilibrio de poder entre ellas y también con el Heartland, que básicamente ocupa Rusia, auque no en exclusiva: en el Heartland también se encuentran las repúblicas centroasiáticas, que cobran un especial valor en la competencia por el espacio y los recursos de un encogido supercontinente.

Pivot a Eurasia

En esta región del Indo-Pacífico, o del Gran Índico, que va del Golfo Pérsico y las costas de África oriental hasta la segunda cadena de islas de Asia-Pacífico, a Estados Unidos le corresponde un papel exterior. En la medida en que el mundo isla se cohesiona, queda más remarcado el carácter satelital estadounidense. La gran estrategia de Estados Unidos deviene entonces en lo que ha sido el tradicional imperativo del Reino Unido con respecto a Europa: impedir que una potencia domine el continente, algo que más fácilmente se logra apoyando a una u otra potencia continental para debilitar a la que en cada momento sea más fuerte (Francia o Alemania, según la época histórica; hoy Rusia o China). Ya en la Guerra Fría, Estados Unidos se esforzó por impedir que la URSS se alzara en hegemón al controlar también Europa Occidental. Eurasia entra en un juego de equilibrio de poder presumiblemente intenso, como lo fue el escenario europeo entre el siglo XIX y el XX.

Por eso, Kaplan dice que Rusia puede ser contenida mucho más por China que por Estados Unidos, como también Washington debiera aprovechar a Rusia para limitar el poder de China, a sugerencia de Henry Kissinger. Para ello, el Pentágono debiera ampliar hacia el Oeste la presencia estratégica que tiene en el Pacífico Occidental: si como potencia exterior y marítima no puede acceder al centro continental de Eurasia, sí puede tomar posición en las entrañas mismas de esa gran región, que es el propio Índico.

“Si Obama hizo el pivot a Asia, entonces Trump ha pivotado a Eurasia. Quienes toman decisiones en Estados Unidos parecen crecientemente conscientes de que el nuevo centro de gravedad en la política mundial no es el Pacífico ni el Atlántico, sino el Viejo Mundo entre los dos”, ha escrito Maçães en un ensayo posterior a su libro[4].

Alianzas con India

El cambio de foco desde Asia-Pacífico al Indo-Pacífico por parte de Estados Unidos fue expresado formalmente en la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional publicada en diciembre de 2017, el primero de ese tipo de documentos elaborado por la Administración Trump. Consecuentemente, Estados Unidos ha rebautizado su Comando del Pacífico como Comando del Indo-Pacífico.

La estrategia de Washington, como la de otros destacados países occidentales de la región, sobre todo Japón y Australia, pasa por una coalición de algún tipo con India, por el carácter central de este país y como mejor manera de contener a China y Rusia.

La conveniencia de una mayor relación con Nueva Dehli ya fue esbozada por Trump durante la visita del primer ministro indio, Narendra Modi, a Washington en junio de 2017, y luego por el entonces secretario de Estado, Rex Tillerson, en octubre de 2017. El sucesor de este, Mike Pompeo, abordó un marco más definido en julio de 2018, cuando anunció ayudas de 113 millones de dólares para proyectos destinados a lograr una mayor conectividad de la región, desde tecnologías digitales a infraestructuras. El anuncio fue entendido como el deseo estadounidense de hacer frente a la Iniciativa Cinturón y Ruta de la Seda lanzada por China.

En ocasiones, la Estrategia para el Indo-Pacífico de Estados Unidos se presenta asociada a la Estrategia para un Indo-Pacífico Libre y Abierto (FOIP), que es el nombre puesto por Japón para su propia iniciativa de cooperación para la región, ya expuesta hace diez años por el primer ministro japonés Shinzo Abe. Ambas son coincidentes en contar con India, Japón, Australia y Estados Unidos como los principales garantes de la seguridad regional, pero presentan dos principales divergencias. Una es que para Washington el Indo-Pacífico va desde el litoral oriental de India hasta la costa oeste estadounidense, mientras que en la iniciativa japonesa el mapa va del Golfo Pérsico y la costa africana a Filipinas y Nueva Zelanda. La otra tiene que ver con la manera de percibir a China: la propuesta japonesa busca la cooperación china, al menos en el nivel declarativo, mientras que el propósito estadounidense es hacer frente a los “riesgos de dominio chino”, como se consigna en la Estrategia de Seguridad Nacional.

India también ha elaborado una iniciativa propia, presentada en 2014 como Act East Policy (AEP), con el objeto de potenciar una mayor cooperación entre India y los países de Asia-Pacífico, especialmente de la ASEAN. Por su parte, Australia expuso su Policy Roadmap para la región en 2017, que descansa en la seguridad que ya viene prestando Estados Unidos y aboga por un continuado entendimiento con las “las democracias indo-pacíficas” (Japón, Corea del Sur, India e Indonesia).

Otras consecuencias

Algunas otras consecuencias del nacimiento de Eurasia, de diferente orden e importancia, son:

–La Unión Europea no solo está dejando de ser atrayente como proyecto político e incluso económico para sus vecinos, debido a sus problemas de convergencia interna, sino que la realidad de Eurasia la reduce a ser una península en los márgenes del supercontinente. Por ejemplo, pierde cualquier interés la vieja cuestión de si Turquía forma o no parte de Europa: Turquía va a tener una mejor posición en el tablero.

–Adquieren toda su importancia los corredores que China quiere tener abiertos hacia el Índico (Myanmar y, sobre todo, Pakistán). Sin poder recobrar el estatus milenario de Reino del Medio, China valorará aún más disponer de la provincia de Xinjiang como modo de estar menos escorada en un lado del supercontinente y como plataforma para una mayor proyección hacia el interior del mismo.

–El pivot a Eurasia por parte de Estados Unidos obligará a Washington a distribuir sus fuerzas en una mayor extensión de mar y sus riberas, con el riesgo de perder poder disuasorio o de intervención en determinados lugares. Cuidar el Índico puede llevarle, sin pretenderlo, a descuidar el Mar de China Meridional. Un modo de ganar influencia en el Índico sin gran esfuerzo podría ser trasladar la sede de la Quinta Flota de Bahréin a Omán, igualmente a un paso del estrecho de Ormuz, pero fuera del Golfo Pérsico.

–Rusia se ha visto tradicionalmente como un puente entre Europa y Asia, y ha contado con alguna corriente defensora de un euroasianismo que presentaba Eurasia como un tercer continente (Rusia), con Europa y Asia a cada lado, y que reservaba el nombre de Gran Eurasia al supercontinente. En la medida en que este se encoja, Rusia se beneficiará de la mayor conectividad entre un extremo y otro y estará más encima de sus antiguas repúblicas centroasiáticas, aunque estas tendrán contacto con un mayor número de vecinos.

(1) Kaplan, R. (2018) The Return fo Marco Polo's World. War, Strategy, and American Interests in the Twenty-First Century. Nueva York: Random House

(2) Maçães, B. (2018) The Dawn of Eurasia. On the Trail of the New World Order. Milton Keynes: Allen Lane

(3) Elliott, J. (2015) El Viejo Mundo y el Nuevo (1492-165). Madrid: Alianza Editorial

(4) Maçães, B. (2018). Trump's Pivot to Eurasia. The American Interest. 21 de agosto de 2018

▲Kim Jung-un and Moon Jae-in met for the first time in April, 2018 [South Korea Gov.]

ANALYSIS / Kanghun Ji

North Korea has always utilized its nuclear power as a leverage for negotiation in world politics. Nuclear weapons, asymmetric power, are the last measure for North Korea which lacks absolute military and economic power. Although North Korea lags behind the United States and South Korea in military/economic power, its possession of nuclear weapons renders it a significant threat to other countries. Recently, however, they have continued to develop their nuclear power in disregard of international regulations. In other words, they have not used nuclear issue as a leverage for negotiation to induce economic support. They have rather concentrated on completing nuclear development, not considering persuasion from peripheral countries. This attitude can be attributed to the fact that the development of their nuclear power is almost complete. Many experts say that North Korea judges the recognition of their nation with nuclear power to be a more powerful negotiation tool (Korea times, 2016).

In this situation, South Korea has been trying many different kinds of strategies to resolve the nuclear crisis because security is their main goal: United States-South Korea joint military exercises and United Nations sanctions against North Korea are some of those strategies. Despite these oppressive methods using hard power, North Korea has refused to participate in negotiations.

Most recently, however, North Korea has discarded its previous stance for a more peaceful and amicable position following the PyeongChang Olympics. Discussions about nuclear power are proceeding and the nation has even declared that they will stop developing nuclear power.

Diverse causes such as international relations or economic needs influence their transition. This essay would argue that the soft power strategies of South Korea are substantially influencing North Korea. Therefore, an analysis of South Korea’s soft power strategies is necessary in order to figure out the successful way to resolve the nuclear crisis.

Importance of soft-power strategies in policies against North Korea

North Korea has justified its dictatorship through the development of its ‘Juche’ ideology which is very unique. This ideology is established on the theory of ‘rule by class’ which stems from Marxism-Leninism. In addition, the regime has combined it with Confucianism that portrays a dictator as a father of family (Jung Seong Jang, 1999). Through this justification, a dictator is located at the top of class, which would complete the communist ideal. People are taught this ideology thoroughly and anyone who violates the ideology is punished. To open up this society which has formerly been ideologically closed, their ideology should be undermined by other attractive ideology, culture, and symbol.

However, North Korea has effectively blocked it. For example, recently, many people in North Korea have covertly shared TV shows and music from South Korea. People who are caught enjoying this culture are severely punished by the government. In these types of societies, oppression through hard power strategies doesn’t affect making any kind of change in internal society. It rather could be used to enhance internal solidarity because the potential offenders such as United States or South Korea are postulated as certain enemies to North Korea, which requires internal solidarity to people. North Korea has actually depicted capitalism, United States and South Korea as the main enemies in media. It intends to induce loyalty from people.

As a result, the regime have developed nuclear weapons successfully under strong censorship. Nuclear power is the main key to maintain the dictatorship. The declaration of ‘Nuclear-Economy parallel development’ from the start of Kim Jung-Eun’s government implies that the regime would ensure nuclear weapon as a measure to maintain its system. In this situation, sending the message that its system can coordinately survive alongside South Korea in world politics is important. Not only oppressive strategies but also appropriate strategies which attract North Korea to negotiate are needed.

Analysis of South Korea Soft Power Strategies

In this analysis, I will employ a different concept of soft power compared from the one given by Joseph Nye. Nye’s original concept of soft power focuses on types of behavior. In terms of his concept, co-optive power such as attraction and persuasion also constitutes soft power regardless of the type of resource (Joseph Nye, 2013). However, the concept of soft power I will use focuses on what types of resources users use regardless of the type of behaviors. Therefore, any kinds of power exerted by only soft resources such as images, diplomacy, agenda-setting and so on could be soft power. It is a resource-based concept compared to Nye’s concept which is behavior based (Geun Lee, 2011).

I use this concept because using hard resources such as military power and economic regulation to resolve the nuclear problem in North Korea has been ineffective so far. Therefore, using the concept of soft power which is based on soft resources makes it possible to analyze different kinds of soft power and find ways to improve it.

According to the thesis by Geun Lee (2011: p.9) who used the concept I mentioned above, there are 4 categories of Soft Power. I will use these categories to analyze the soft power strategies of South Korea.

1. Oppression through diplomacy: Two-track diplomacy

South Korea takes advantage of soft power strategies that request a global mutual-assistance system in order to oppress North Korea. Based on diplomatic capabilities, South Korea has tried to make it clear that all countries in world politics are demanding a solution to the North Korean nuclear crisis. Through these strategies, it wants to provoke fear in North Korea that it would be impossible to restore its relationship with the world. These strategies have been influential because they are harmonized with United Nations’ Security Council resolutions. Especially, the two-track diplomacy conducted by the president Moon-jae-in in the United Nations general assembly in 2017 is evaluated to be successful. He gave North Korea two options in order to attract them to negotiate (The fact, 2017). The president Moon-jae-in stressed the importance of cooperation about nuclear crisis among countries in his address to the general assembly. Moreover, he discussed the issue with the presidents of United States and Japan and pushed for a firm stance against the North Korea nuclear problem. However, at the same time, he declared that South Korea is ready for peaceful negotiation and discussion if North Korea wish to negotiate and stop developing its nuclear power. By offering two options, South Korea not only aimed to incite fear in North Korea but also left room for North Korea to appear at the negotiation tables.

Strategies using diplomatic capabilities are valuable because they can induce coercive power through soft resources. However, it would be difficult to judge the effectiveness if North Korea didn’t show any reaction to these strategies. Moreover, the cooperation with Russia and China is very important to persuade North Korea because they are maintaining amicable relationships with North Korea against United States and Japan. In the situation that North Korea has aimed to complete development of nuclear weapons for negotiation, diplomatic oppression is not effective itself for making change.

2. Sports and culture: Peaceful gesture

The attempt to converse through sports and culture is one of the soft power strategies used by South Korea in order to solve the nuclear crisis. This strategy intends to obtain North Korea’s cooperation in non-political areas which could then spread to political negotiations. As a result of this strategy, South Korea and North Korea formed a unified team during the last Olympics and Asian games (Yonhapnews, 2018). However, for it to be a success, their cooperation should not be limited to the non-political area, but instead should lead to a constructive conversation in politics. In these terms, South Korea’s peaceful gesture in the Pyeong-Chang winter Olympic is seen to have brought about positive change. Before the Olympics, many politicians and experts were skeptical to the gesture because North Korea conducted the 6th nuclear test in 2017, ignoring South Korea’s message (Korea times, 2018). In extension of the two-track diplomacy strategy, nevertheless, the South Korea government has continually shown a desire to cooperate with North Korea. These strategies focus on cooperation only in soft power domains such as sports, culture, and music rather than domains that expose serious political intension.

In the United Nations general assembly which adopted a truce for the Pyeong-Chang Olympics, gold medalist Kim-yun-a required North Korea to participate in Olympics on her address (Chungang, 2017). Moreover, in the event for praying successful Olympics, the president Moon-jae-in sent another peaceful gesture mentioning that South Korea would wait for the participation of North Korea until the beginning of Olympics (Voakorea, 2017). This strategy ended up having successfully attracted North Korea. As a result, they composed a unified ice hockey team and diplomats were dispatched from North Korea during the Olympics to watch the game with South Korean government officials. And then, they exchanged cultural performances in Pyeong-Chang and Pyeong-yang. Finally, the efforts led to the summit meeting between South-North Korea, and North Korea even declared that it would stop developing nuclear power and establish cooperation with South Korea.

It is too early to judge whether North Korea will stop developing their nuclear influence. However, it is a success in the sense that South Korea has attracted North Korea into conversations. Especially, South Korea has effectively taken advantage of the situation that all countries in international relations pay attention to the nuclear crisis of North Korea. They continuously pull North Korea into the center of world politics and leave North Korea without alternative option. Continuous agenda-setting and issue making has finally attracted North Korea.

3. Agenda-setting and framing

It is important to continuously set agendas about issues which are related to North Korea’s violations concerning the nuclear crisis and human rights. Although North Korea is isolated from world politics, it can’t operate its system if it refuses to cooperate or trade with other countries. As a result, it do not want to be in constant conflict with world politics. Therefore, the focal point of agenda-setting South Korea should impress is the negative effects of nuclear policies and dictatorship of North Korea. Moreover, South Korea should recognize that the goal of developing nuclear influence of North Korea is not to declare war but to ensure protection for their political system. South Korea needs to continuously stress that political system of North Korea would be insured after nuclear dismantlement. These strategies change thoughts of North Korea and induce it to participate in negotiations.

However, South Korea has not been effectively employing this strategy. Agenda-setting which might arouse direct conflict with North Korea could aggravate their relationship. This explains its unwillingness to resort to this strategy. On the other hand, the United States show effective agenda-setting which relates to the nuclear crisis mentioning Iran as a positive example of a successful negotiation.

South Korea needs to set and frame the agenda about similar issues closely related to North Korea. For example, the rebellion against the dictatorship in Syria and the resulting death of the dictator in Yemen which stem from tyrannical politics could be a negative precedent. Also, the agreement with Iran that acquired economic support by abandoning nuclear development could be a positive precedent. Through this agenda setting, South Korea should change the thought of North Korea about their nuclear policies. If this strategy succeeds, North Korea will obtain a new interpretative framework, which could lead them to negotiate.

4. Competition of system: North Korea defector and Korean wave

The last type of soft power strategy is a fundamental solution to provoke change. While the strategies I mentioned above directly targets the North Korea government, this strategy mainly targets the people and the society of North Korea. Promoting economic, cultural superiority could influence the North Korean people and then it could lead to movements which would require a transition from the current society. There are many different kinds of way to conduct this strategy and it is abstract in that we can’t measure how much it could influence society. However, it could also be a strategy which North Korea fears the most in the sense that it could provoke change from the bottom of the society. In addition to this, it could arouse fundamental doubt about the ‘Juche’ ideology or nuclear development which is maintained by an exploitative system.

One of these strategies is the policy concerning defectors. South Korea has been implementing policies which accept defectors and help them adjust to the South Korea society. These defectors get a chance to be independent through re-socialization. And then, some of them carry out activities which denounce the horrible reality of the internal society of North Korea. If their voice became influential in world politics, it could become a greater threat to the North Korea system. In 2012, some defectors testified against the internal violation of human rights in UNCHR to gain attention from the world (Newsis, 2016).

In addition, recently, Korean dramas and music are covertly shared within the North Korea society (Daily NK, 2018). It could also provoke a social movement to call for change. Because the contents reflect a much higher standard of living, it triggers curiosity and admiration from North Korean people. These strategies lead society of North Korea to socialize with the co-optive power in the recipients. Ultimately, long term soft power could threaten North Korea itself.

Limits and conclusion

This essay has analyzed the strategies South Korea has used in order to resolve the North Korean nuclear crisis. South Korea threatens North Korea utilizing consensus among countries. Strategies its government has shown such as the speech of the president Moon-jae-in in the United Nations general assembly, the winter Olympics which reflected a desire for peace and the two-track diplomacy are totally different from the consistently conservative policies that the previous governments showed during the last ten years. In addition, the declaration of the Trump’s administration that they would continuously pressure North Korea about nuclear issues offered the opportunity to react to North Korea’s nuclear policies. In this process, active joint response among South Korea, United States and Japan is also necessary.

However, it is true that there are some drawbacks. In order for North Korea to eventually accept nuclear disarmament, South Korea absolutely needs to cooperate with Russia and China which are not only in a good relationship with North Korea but also in a comparatively competitive relationship with the United States and Japan. If South Korea will succeed in gaining their support, the process of reaching an agreement concerning nuclear issues would be much easier.

Eventually, in contrast with the hard power strategies with hard resources, soft power strategies with soft resources can only be effective when South Korea offers the second attractive option. The options are diverse. The main point is that North Korea should recognize the positive effects of abandoning nuclear.

Also, South Korea should recognize that the effect of soft power strategies is maximized when it coexists with economic / military oppression through hard power. In other words, South Korea must take into account Joseph Nye’s smart power to solve the nuclear crisis.

In this process, the most important thing is to persuade North Korea by offering an attractive choice. The reason why North Korea desires to have a summit meeting with South Korea and the United States is because they judge that the choice would be more profitable. Therefore, the South Korean government needs to reflect upon what objectives North Korea has when they accept to negotiate. For example, China’s economic opening is an example of a good precedent that North Korea could follow. South Korea needs to give North Korea a blue print such as the example of China and lead the agreement about the nuclear problem.

Lastly, it is difficult to apprehend the effectiveness of soft power strategies with soft resources, mentioned by Geun Lee, in the sense that the data and the figures about this strategy are not easy to measure in contrast with hard power strategies. Also, many causes exist concerning change of North Korea. Therefore, further research needs to establish a system to get concrete and scientific data in order to apprehend the complex causes and effects of this strategy such as that stem from smart power strategies.

References

Geun Lee (2009) A theory of soft power and Korea's soft power strategy, Korean Journal of Defense Analysis, 21:2, 205-218, DOI: 10.1080/10163270902913962

Joseph S. Nye. JR. (2013) HARD, SOFT, AND SMART POWER. In: Andrew F. Cooper, Jorge Heine, and Ramesh Thakur(eds.) The Oxford Handbook of Modern Diplomacy, pp.559-574

Jung Seong Jang. (1999) Theoretical Structure and Characteristics of the Juche Ideology. 북한연구학회보, 3:2, 251-273

Chungang ilbo, (2017) 김연아, 평화올림픽 위해 UN에서 4분 영어연설 [Online] Available.

DAILY NK. (2018) 어쩔 수 없이 인도영화를 처벌강화에 南드라마 시청 주춤 [Online] Available.

Korea Times. (2018) 북한, 평창올림픽 참가 놓고 정치권 장외설전 가열 [Online] Available.

Korean Times. (2016) 왜 북한은 핵개발을 멈추지 않는가? [Online] Available.

Newsis. (2016) 탈북자들, 유엔 인권위에서 강제낙태와 고문 등 증언 [Online] Available.

The Fact. (2017) 文대통령’데뷔전’ UN본부 입성… ‘북핵 파문’ NYPD ’긴장’ [Online] Available.

Voakorea. (2017) 문재인 한국 대통령 “북한 평창올림픽 참가 끝까지 기다릴 것” [Online] Available.

Yonhapnews. (2018) 27년 만에 ‘남북 단일팀’ 출범 임박… 올림픽은 사상 최초 [Online] Available.

▲Satellite imagery of the Jordan River [NASA]

ANALYSIS / Marina Díaz Escudero

Water is an essential natural resource, not only for individual survival on Earth, but also for nation-states and their welfare; having an effect on socio-economic development, trade, health and population productivity.

As a natural determinant of power, its accessibility must be considered by states in their policies on national security; “hydropolitics” being the branch of study for this phenomenon. Although it has been, and continues to be, a major source of inter-state conflict, it is an arena in which cooperation and diplomacy between rival countries can set the ground for further political agreements, effectively leading to more stable and peaceful relations.

On the other hand, when water is used as a natural border or must be shared between various countries, concurrent cooperation between all of them is essential to find an effective and non-violent way to approach the resource. Otherwise, an overlapping of different, and potentially contradictory, bilateral agreements may lead to frictions. If one of the concerned countries is not present in negotiations, as some historical events suggest (e.g. 1992 multilateral negotiations in Moscow, where Lebanon and Syria where not present), this will always constitute an obstacle for regional stability.

Moreover, although 71% of the Earth’s surface is covered by water, factors such as economic interests, climate change, and explosive population growth are also challenging the sustainable distribution of water sources among countries. The future effects of this scarcity in the region will demand consistent political action in the long-term and current leaders should bear it in mind.

Water availability and conflict in the MENA region

The Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region is known as an arid and semi-arid region, with only 1% of the world’s renewable water resources. On average, water availability is only 1,200 cubic meters, around six times less than the worldwide average of 7,000 cubic meters.

As global temperatures rise, more frequent and severe droughts will take place in the region and this will make countries which already have socio-economic rivalries more prone to go to war with each other. According to the World Resources Institute, thirteen of the thirty three states that will suffer from worse water scarcity in the twenty-first century will be Middle Eastern countries.

To cite the findings of the National Intelligence Council (NIC) report, Global Trends: Paradox of Progress, more than thirty countries – nearly half of them in the Middle East – will experience extremely high water stress by 2035, increasing economic, social, and political tensions.

Although claims to the land were and are the main motives for much of the current conflict, water, as part of the contested territories, has always been considered as a primary asset to be won in conflict. In fact, recognition of the importance of water lent the term, the “War over Water”, to conflicts in the region, and control over the resource constitutes a significant advantage.

Despite there being several water bodies in the Middle East (Nile, Euphrates, Tigris…), the Jordan River basin is one of the most significant ones today in terms of its influence on current conflicts. The Jordan River Basin is a 223 km long river with an upper course from its sources up to the Galilee Sea, and a lower one, from the latter to the Dead Sea. Territories such as Lebanon, Israel and the West Bank are situated to its West, while Syria and Jordan border it to the East. Water scarcity in the Jordan watershed comes from many different factors, but the existence of cultural, religious and historical differences between the riparian countries (situated on the banks of the river) has led to a centuries-long mismanagement of the source.

Tensions between Zionism and the Arab world on regards to the Jordan River became noticeable in the 1950s, when most Arab countries rejected the Johnston Plan that aimed at dividing the water by constructing a number of dams and canals on the different tributaries of the river. The plan was based on an earlier one commissioned by the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNWRA) and was accepted by the water technical committees of the five riparian countries. Nevertheless, the Arab League didn’t give the go-ahead and even hardened its position after the Suez Crisis.

In spite of this, Jordan and Israel decided to abide by their allocations and developed two projects, the Israeli National Water Carrier (to transport water from the north to the center and south) and Jordan’s East Ghor Main Canal (King Abdullah Canal). In retaliation and with severe consequences, Arab states reunited in an Arab Summit (1964) and decided to divert Jordan’s headwaters to the Yarmouk river (for the Syrian Arab Republic and Jordan), depriving Israel of 35% of its Water Carrier capacity.

This provocation led to a series of military clashes and prompted Israel’s attack on Arab construction projects; a move that would help precipitate the 1967 Six-Day War, according to some analysts. As a result of the war, Israel gained control of the waters of the West Bank (formely Jordan-annexed in the 1948 war and today still controlled by the Israeli Civil Administration) and the Sea of Galilee (today constituing about 60% of the country’s fresh water).

Later, in 1995, by the Article 40 of the Oslo II political agreement, […] Israel recognized Palestinian water rights in the West Bank and established the Joint Water Committee to manage and develop new supplies and to investigate illegal water withdrawals. Nevertheless, the loss of control over water in the West Bank has never been accepted by neighbouring Arab countries as, despite the agreement, much of the water coming from it is still directly given to Israeli consumers (and only a smaller fraction to Palestinians living under their control).

Role of water in Syrian-Israeli hostilities

Hostilities have been covering the agenda of Syrian-Israeli relationships ever since the Armistice Agreements signed by Israel with each of the four neighbouring Arab countries in 1949. This is compounded by the fact that there is seldom mutual agreement with resolutions proposed by the United Nations Security Council (UNSC).

The Golan Heights, a rocky plateau in south-western Syria, was taken away by Israel in the aftermath of the Six-Day War and is still considered an Israeli-occupied territory. In 1974 the Agreement on Disengagement was signed, ending the Yom Kippur War and resulting in the formation of the United Nations Disengagement Observer Force (UNDOF), a buffer zone separating the Israeli portion of the Golan Heights and the rest of Syria. Although Israel kept most of the Golan Heights territory, in 1981 it unilaterally passed the Golan Heights Law to impose its jurisdiction and administration on the occupied territory (refusing to call it “annexation”). These laws did not receive international recognition and were declared void by the UNSC.

The fact that Israel’s Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu stated in April 2016 in a weekly cabinet meeting that “the Golan Heights will remain forever in Israeli hands” has once again triggered the rejection of UNSC’s members, who have declared that the status of the Heights “remains unchanged.”

Rainwater catchment in the Golan Heights feeds into the Jordan River and nowadays provides a third of Israel's water supply. Although “Syria has built several dams in the Yarmouk river sub-basin, which is part of the Jordan River basin”, the Golan Heights are likely to remain an important thorn in future Israeli-Syrian relationships.

Water as a casus belli between Lebanon and Israel

In March 2002, Lebanon decided to divert part of the Hasbani (a major tributary of the Jordan upper course) to supply the lebanese Wazzani village. Ariel Sharon, the former Prime Minister of Israel, said that the issue could easily become a "casus belli". According to Israel, Lebanon should have made consultations before pumping any water from the Springs, but both the Lebanese government and Hezbollah (a shi’a militant group) condemned the idea.

The Wazzani project, according to Lebanon, only aimed to redevelop the south by extracting a limited amount of water from the Hasbani; 300 MCM per year (they drew 7 MCM by the time). The actual conflict with Israel began when Lebanon started constructing the pumping station very close to the Israeli border.

The United States (US) decided to establish a State Department water expert in order to assess the situation “and cool tempers” but in 2006, during the Lebanon war, the pumping station and other infrastructures, such as an underground water diversion pipe which run Letani river water to many villages, were destroyed.

Although Israeli-Lebanese tensions have continued due to other issues, such as spying, natural gas control and border incidents, water source domination has been a significant contributor to conflict between the two states.

Inter-Arab conflicts on water allocation

Some inter-Arab conflicts on regards to water distribution have also taken place, but they are small-scale and low level ones. In 1987, an agreement was signed between Jordan and Syria which allowed the latter to build twenty five dams with a limited capacity in the Yarmouk River. Later on it was proved that Syria had been violating the pact by constructing more dams than permitted: in 2014 it had already constructed forty two of them. New bilateral agreements were signed in 2001, 2003 and 2004, but repeated violations of these agreements by Syria in terms of water-allocation became unsustainable for Jordan. Most recently (2012), former Jordan's water minister Hazim El Naser stressed the necessity “to end violations of the water-sharing accords.”

Although these are low-level tensions, they could quickly escalate into a regional conflict between Jordan, Syria and Israel, as a decrease of water from the Yarmouk released by Syria to Jordan may prevent Jordan to comply with its commitments towards Israel.

Regional cooperation: from multilateralism to bilateralism

Since the beginning of the last century, attempts to achieve multilateral cooperation and a basin-wide agreement between the five co-riparian countries have been hindered by regional political conflict. Boundary definition, choices about decision-making arrangements, and issues of accountability, together with other political divisions, can help explain the creation of subwatershed communities of interest instead of a major watershed agreement between all neighbour countries.

The Israeli-Palestine peace process begun in 1991 with the Conference in Madrid, attended by all riparians: Israel, Jordan, Palestine, Lebanon and Syria. Co-sponsored by the US and the Soviet Union as representatives of the international community, it addressed several regional issues, such as environment, arms control, economic development and, of course, water distribution (in fact, water rights became one of the trickiest areas of discussion).

In 1992, multilateral negotiations about regional cooperation continued in Moscow but this time they were only attended by Israel, the Jordanian-Palestinian delegation and the international community; Syria and Lebanon were not present. “After the failed Johnston plan, external efforts to achieve a multilateral agreement through cooperation on water sources were attempted by the Centre for Environmental Studies and Resource Management (CESAR) […] As Syria and Lebanon did not want to participate in a process involving Israel, (it) ran parallel processes for Israel, the Palestinian Authority and Jordan on the one hand, and Syria and Lebanon on the other hand.”

As a matter of fact, bilateral instruments grew in importance and two treaties, between Israel and Jordan/Palestine respectively, were signed: The Treaty of Peace between The Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan and The State of Israel (1994) and The Israeli-Palestinian Interim Agreement on the West Bank and the Gaza Strip (Oslo II, 1995). Discussions about water use and joint water management played an important role and were included in the annexes.

In 1996, the Trilateral Declaration on Principles for Cooperation on Water-Related Matters and New and Additional Water Resources was signed by Israel, Jordan and the Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO) and in 2003 the first two initiated a plan called Roadmap for Peace which included the revival of cooperation on regional issues like water.

Although Israel and Syria started some negotiations to solve the Golan Heights’ problem in 2008, after the break out of the Syrian civil war distrust between both actors has increased, leaving the most important thorn in multilateral regional negotatiations still unsolved. Nevertheless, “a new government in Syria after the end of the war may provide new opportunities for improved bi- and ultimately multilateral cooperation,” says the FAO. The previous year (2007) Jordan and the Syrian Arab Republic also signed some agreements “in regard to shared water in the Yarmouk river basin.”

Role of Non-Governmental Organizations

Civil society has also been an important platform for resource-management discussions between riparian countries.

Middle Eastern rhetoric, according to the BBC, “often portrays the issue of water as an existential, zero-sum conflict - casting either Israel as a malevolent sponge sucking up Arab water resources, or the implacably hostile Arabs as threatening Israel's very existence by denying life-giving water.”

For this reason, in 2010, Friends of the Earth Middle East (FoEME, also called EcoPeace Middle East) stressed the importance of replacing this win-lose approach for a compromising perspective of mutual gains for all. In this way, their proposals don’t “include quantitative water allocations, but the implementation of a joint institutional structure that is continuously tasked with peaceful conflict resolution over water resources; […] defining water rights not as the access to a certain water quantity, but as a broader bundle of rights and duties to access and use the available water and to uphold quality and quantity standards.”

Through “The Good Water Neighbors” project (2001), the NGO tried to raise awareness about the negative consequences of leaving this issue unmanaged and reiterated its willingness to strenghten ”institutional capacities for collaboration in the region.” According to the staff, Israel, Jordan and Palestine could develop a certain interdependence, focused on water (Israel to Jordan/Palestine) and solar-generated electricity (Jordan to Palestine/Israel), in order to facilitate the powering of desalination plants and produce more cleanwater for sale.

The use of this type of political support for transboundary cooperation, based on water access but focused on solving less cultural and sensitive problems (like environmental sustainability), as a means to opening up avenues for dialogue on other political issues, could be the key for a lasting peace in the region.

According to Gidon Brombert, cofounder and Israeli director of FoEME, adopting “healthy interdependencies is a powerful way to promote regional water and energy stability as a foundation for long-lasting peace between our people.”

A testament to the success of these initiatives is the fact that Jordan and Israel scored 56.67 under the Water Cooperation Quotient (WCQ) 2017, which means that there is currently zero risk of a water-related war between both states (50 is the minimum score for this to apply).

Final key points and conclusions

There is no doubt that water issues have been a key discussion point between riparian countries in the Jordan River watershed since the late nineteenth century, and rightly so, as the only way to achieve a long-lasting peace in the region is to accept that water management is an integral part of political discourse and decisions. Not only because it is an essential factor in the conflicts that arise between states, but because agreements on other political matters could be furthered through the establishment of sound agreements in the hydropolitical arena.

In other words, a “baby-step” approach to politics should be applied: peaceful discussions on this and other matters leveraged to talk about other sources of conflict and utilized to improve political relations between two parties. The Korean conflict is a good example: although both Koreas are far from agreeing with regards to their political outlook, they have been able to cooperate in other fields, such as the Winter Olympic games. Communication during the games was used to subtly suggest avenues for a political reapproachment, which now seems to be progressing satisfactorily.

As for multilateral-bilateral conditions of negotiations, it is important to take into account the fact that the Jordan River basin, mainly due to its geological condition as a watershed, has to be shared by several different countries, five to be exact. This may seem obvious but clearly many actors don’t see its implications.

Understandably, it is very difficult for a state to manage various bilateral agreements concerning the same asset with countries that are mutually at odds with one another. Their contents can overlap, creating contradictions and making the achievement of a general arrangement not only disorganized, but also challenging. Notwithstanding, a multilaterally agreed distribution of the basin’s water – taking into account the necessities of all riparians simultaneously, could more easily pave the way for further cooperation on other, pressing, political issues.

Last but not least, it is important not to forget about policies related to other regional affairs, and their potential effect on water management. Climate change, for instance, will certainly affect water availability in the MENA region and the Jordan River basin, easily disrupting and modifying past and future agreements on the resource’s allocation and distribution. Attention should also be paid to interest groups and to the economic situation of the countries involved in the negotitations, as these will be determinant in states’ decisions about the implementation of certain future projects.

▲Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman and President Donald Trump during a meeting in Washington in 2017 [White House]

ANALYSIS / Naomi Moreno

Saudi Arabia used to be the only country in the world that banned women from driving. This ban was one of the things that the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) was best known for to outsiders not otherwise familiar with the country's domestic politics, and has thus been a casus belli for activists demanding reforms in the kingdom. Last month, Saudi Arabia started issuing the first driver's licenses to women, putting into effect some of the changes promised by the infamous Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman (MBS) in his bid to modernize Saudi Arabian politics. The end of the ban further signals the beginning of a move to expand the rights of women in KSA, and builds on piecemeal developments that took place in the realm of women’s rights in the kingdom prior to MBS’ entrance to the political scene.

Thus, since 2012, Saudi Arabian women have been able to do sports as well as participate in the Olympic Games; in the 2016 Olympics, four Saudi women were allowed to travel to Rio de Janeiro to compete. Moreover, within the political realm, King Abdullah swore in the first 30 women to the shura council − Saudi Arabia's consultative council − in February 2013, and in the kingdom's 2015 municipal elections, women were able to vote and run for office for the first time. Finally, and highlighting the fact that economic dynamics have similarly played a role in driving progression in the kingdom, the Saudi stock exchange named the first female chairperson in its history − a 39-year-old Saudi woman named Sarah Al Suhaimi − last February.

Further, although KSA may be known to be one of the “worst countries to be a woman”, the country has experienced a notable breakthrough in the last 5 years and the abovementioned advances in women’s rights, to name some, constitute a positive development. However, the most visible reforms have arguably been the work of MBS. The somewhat rash and unprecedented decision to end the ban on driving coincided with MBS' crackdown on ultra-conservative, Wahhabi clerics and the placing of several of the kingdom's richest and most influential men under house arrest, under the pretext of challenging corruption. In addition, under his leadership, the oil-rich kingdom is undergoing economic reforms to reduce the country's dependency on oil, in a bid to modernize the country’s economy. 

Nonetheless, despite the above mentioned reforms being classified by some as unprecedented, progressive leaps that are putting an end to oppression through challenging underlying ultra-conservatism traditions (as well as those that espouse them), a measure of distrust has arisen among Saudis and outsiders with regards the motivations underlying the as-of-yet seemingly limited reforms that have been introduced. While some perceive the crown prince's actions to be a genuine move towards reforming Saudi society, several indicators point to the possibility that MBS might have more practical reasons that are only tangentially related to progression for progression's sake. As the thinking goes, such decrees may have less to do with genuine reform, and more to do with improving an international image to deflect from some of the kingdom’s more controversial practices, both at home and abroad. A number of factors drive this public scepticism.

Reasons for scepticism

The first relates to the fact that KSA is a country where an ultraconservative form of shari'a or Islamic law continues to constitute the primary legal framework. This legal framework is based on the Qur'an and Hadith, within which the public and many private aspects of everyday life are regulated. Unlike in other Muslim majority countries, where only selective elements of the shari'a are adopted, Wahhabism – which is identified by the Court of Strasbourg as a main source of terrorism − has necessitated the strict adherence to a fundamentalist interpretation of shari'a, one that draws from the stricter and more literal Hanbali school of jurisprudence. As such, music and the arts have been strictly controlled and censored. In addition, although the religious police (more commonly known as the Committee for the Promotion of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice) have had their authority curbed to a certain degree, they are still given the authority to enforce Islamic norms of conduct in public by observing suspects and forwarding their findings to the police.

In the past few years, the KSA has been pushing for a more national Wahhabism, one that is more modern in its outlook and suitable for the kingdom’s image. Nevertheless, the Wahhabi clergy has been close to the Al Saud dynasty since the mid-18th century, offering it Islamic legitimacy in return for control over parts of the state, and a lavish religious infrastructure of mosques and universities. Therefore, Saudi clerics are pushing back significantly against democratization efforts. As a result, the continuing prevalence of a shari'a system of law raises questions about the ability of the kingdom to seriously democratise and reform to become moderate.

Secondly, and from a domestic point of view, Saudi Arabia is experiencing disharmony. Saudi citizens are not willing to live in a country where any political opposition is quelled by force, and punishments for crimes such as blasphemy, sorcery, and apostasy are gruesome and carried out publicly. This internal issue has thus embodied an identity crisis provoked mainly by the 2003 Iraq war, and reinforced by the events of the Arab Spring. Disillusionment, unemployment, religious and tribal splits, as well as human rights abuses and corruption among an ageing leadership have been among the main grievances of the Saudi people who are no longer as tolerant of oppression.

In an attempt to prevent the spill over of the Arab Spring fervor into the Kingdom, the government spent $130 billion in an attempt to offset domestic unrest. Nonetheless, these grants failed to satisfy the nearly 60 percent of the population under the age of twenty-one, which refused to settle. In fact, in 2016 protests broke out in Qatif, a city in Saudi Arabia's oil-rich, eastern provinces, which prompted Saudis to deploy additional security units to the region. In addition, in September of last year, Saudi authorities, arguing a battle against corruption and a crack down on extremism, arrested dozens of people, including prominent clerics. According to a veteran Saudi journalist, this was an absurd action as “there was nothing that called for such arrests”. He argued that several among those arrested were not members of any political organization, but rather individuals with dissenting viewpoints to those held by the ruling family.

Among those arrested was Sheikh Salman al-Awdah, an influential cleric known for agitating for political change and for being a pro-shari'a activist. Awdah's arrest, while potentially disguised as part of the kingdom’s attempts to curb the influence of religious hardliners, is perhaps better understood in the context of the Qatar crisis. Thus, when KSA, with the support of a handful of other countries in the region, initiated a blockade of the small Gulf peninsula in June of last year, Awdah welcomed a report on his Twitter account suggesting that the then three-month-old row between Qatar and four Arab countries led by Saudi Arabia may be resolved. The ensuing arrest of the Sheikh seems to confirm a suspicion that it was potentially related to his favouring the renormalization of relations with Qatar, as opposed to it being related to MBS' campaign to moderate Islam in the kingdom.

A third factor that calls into question the sincerity of the modernization campaign is economic. Although Saudi Arabia became a very wealthy country following the discovery of oil in the region, massive inequality between the various classes has grown since, as these resources remain to be controlled by a select few. As a result, nearly one fifth of the population continues to live in poverty, especially in the predominantly Shi’a South where, ironically, much of the oil reservoirs are located. In these areas, sewage runs in the streets, and only crumbs are spent to alleviate the plight of the poor. Further, youth opportunities in Saudi Arabia are few, which leaves much to be desire, and translates into occasional unrest. Thus, the lack of possibilities has led many young men to join various terrorist organizations in search of a new life.

Vision 2030 and international image

In the context of the Saudi Vision 2030, the oil rich country is aiming to wean itself of its dependence on the natural resource which, despite its wealth generation capacity, has also been one of the main causes of the country's economic problems. KSA is facing an existential crisis that has led to a re-think of its long-standing practice of selling oil via fixed contracts. This is why Vision 2030 is so important. Seeking to regain better control over its economic and financial destiny, the kingdom has designed an ambitious economic restructuring plan, spearheaded by MBS. Vision 2030 constitutes a reform programme that aims to upgrade the country’s financial status by diversifying its economy in a world of low oil prices. Saudi Arabia thus needs overseas firms’ investments, most notably in non-oil sectors, in order to develop this state-of-the-art approach. This being said, Vision 2030 inevitably implies reforms on simultaneous fronts that go beyond economic affairs. The action plan has come in at a time when the kingdom is not only dealing with oil earnings and lowering its reserves, but also expanding its regional role. As a result, becoming a more democratic country could attract foreign wealth to a country that has traditionally been viewed in a negative light due to its repressive human rights record.  

This being said, Saudi Arabia also has a lot to do regarding its foreign policy in order to improve its international image. Despite this, the Saudi petition to push the US into a war with Iran has not ceased during recent years. Religious confrontation between the Sunni Saudi autocracy and Iran’s Shi’a theocracy has characterized the geopolitical tensions that have existed in the region for decades. Riyadh has tried to circumvent criticism of its military intervention in the Yemen through capitalizing on the Trump administration's hostility towards Iran, and involving the US in its campaign; thus granting it a degree of legitimacy as an international alliance against the Houthis. Recently, MBS stated that Trump was the “best person at the right time” to confront Iran. Conveniently enough, Trump and the Republicans are now in charge of US’ foreign affairs. Whereas the Obama administration, in its final months, suspended the sale of precision-guided missiles to Saudi Arabia, the Trump administration has moved to reverse this in the context of the Yemeni conflict. In addition, in May of this year, just a month after MBS visited Washington in a meeting which included discussions regarding the Iran accords, the kingdom has heaped praise on president Trump following his decision to withdraw from the Iran nuclear deal.

All things considered, 2018 may go down in history as the irreversible end of the absolute archaic Saudi monarchy. This implosion was necessitated by events, such as those previously mentioned, that Saudi rulers could no longer control or avoid. Hitherto, MBS seems to be fulfilling his father’s wishes. He has hand-picked dutiful and like-minded princes and appointed them to powerful positions. As a result, MBS' actions suggest that the kingdom is turning over a new page in which a new generation of princes and technocrats will lead the breakthrough to a more moderate and democratic Saudi Arabia.

New awareness

However, although MBS has declared that the KSA is moving towards changing existing guardianship laws, due to cultural differences among Saudi families, to date, women still need power of attorney from a male relative to acquire a car, and risk imprisonment should they disobey male guardians. In addition, this past month, at least 12 prominent women’s rights activists who campaigned for women's driving rights just before the country lifted the ban were arrested. Although the lifting of the ban is now effective, 9 of these activists remain behind bars and are facing serious charges and long jail sentences. As such, women continue to face significant challenges in realizing basic rights, despite the positive media endorsement that MBS' lifting of the driving ban has received.

Although Saudi Arabia is making an effort in order to satisfy the public eye, it is with some degree of scepticism that one should approach the country's motivations. Taking into account Saudi Arabia’s current state of affairs, these events suggest that the women’s driving decree was an effort in order to improve the country’s external image as well as an effort to deflect attention from a host of problematic internal and external affairs, such as the proxy warfare in the region, the arrest of dissidents and clerics this past September, and the Qatari diplomatic crisis, which recently “celebrated” its first anniversary. Allowing women to drive is a relatively trivial sacrifice for the kingdom to make and has triggered sufficient positive reverberations globally. Such baby steps are positive, and should be encouraged, yet overlook the fact that they only represent the tip of the iceberg.

As it stands, the lifting of the driving ban does not translate into a concrete shift in the prevailing legal and cultural mindsets that initially opposed it. Rather, it is an indirect approach to strengthen Saudi’s power in economic and political terms. Yet, although women in Saudi Arabia may feel doubtful about the government’s intentions, time remains to be their best ally. After decades of an ultraconservative approach to handling their rights, the country has reached awareness that it can no longer sustain its continued oppression of women; and this for economic reasons, but also as a result of global pressures that affect the success of the country's foreign policies which, by extension, also negatively impact on its interests.

The silver lining for Saudi woman is that, even if the issue of women's rights is being leveraged to secure the larger interests of the kingdom, it continues to represent a slow and steady progression to a future in which women may be granted more freedoms. The downside is that, so long as these rights are not grafted into a broader legal framework that secures them beyond the rule of a single individual − like MBS − women's rights (and human rights in general) will continue to be the temporary product of individual whim. Without an overhaul of the shari'a system that perpetuates regressive attitudes towards women, the best that can be hoped for is the continuation of internal and external pressures that coerce the Saudi leadership into exacting further reforms in the meantime. As with all things, time will tell.

▲Firma del acuerdo de paz en Cartagena, en septiembre de 2016, antes del referéndum que lo rechazó y que llevó a algunas modificaciones del texto [Gobierno de Chile]

ANÁLISIS / Camila Oliveros

El Acuerdo de Paz firmado el 26 de noviembre de 2016 entre el Gobierno colombiano y las FARC (Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia) es uno de asuntos más decisivos en las elecciones de este 17 de junio, en su segunda vuelta, y del próximo mandato presidencial.

Luego de unas largas negociaciones entre el Gobierno y las FARC en La Habana, y de la introducción de modificaciones en el texto inicialmente pactado, a raíz del triunfo del “no” en el plebiscito convocado, el acuerdo de paz fue finalmente firmado en noviembre del 2016. La larga duración de las negociaciones y el resultado del plebiscito demuestran que el acuerdo de paz es algo especialmente controversial en Colombia, donde este conflicto de 52 años supuso la muerte de 220.000 personas y el desplazamiento forzado de casi 6 millones, además de 25.000 desaparecidos y casi 30.000 secuestrados.

Claramente, todos los colombianos ansían tener una paz duradera, pero mientras unos creen que lo redactado en La Habana es la solución para lograr esa paz, otros consideran que todavía se le pueden hacer varias modificaciones al texto. La decisión sobre eso y sobre la rapidez de la implementación del acuerdo queda en manos del próximo presidente.

Grado de implementación

Por ahora, luego de más de un año de la firma del Acuerdo Final para la Terminación del Conflicto, se pueden resaltar tanto elementos negativos como positivos en la implementación de lo pactado en La Habana. Según el Observatorio de Seguimiento a la Implementación del Acuerdo de Paz, a comienzos de 2018, antes de que el país entrara en el largo proceso electoral en el que se encuentra, solo se había cumplido el 18.3% del acuerdo. Es una cifra relativamente baja, que en parte puede deberse a la insuficiencia de recursos económicos y humanos para implementar los acuerdos con rapidez y eficacia, y no tanto a una falta de compromiso por parte del Gobierno.

Sin embargo, frente a ese bajo porcentaje de lo que ya se ha implementado, hay otras cifras que demuestran que el acuerdo está teniendo algunos resultados positivos. Es el caso de la disminución de la tasa de homicidios en Colombia. Esta pasó a ser una de las más bajas en treinta años, con 24 muertes por cada 100.000 habitantes. Además, el número de personas desplazadas se redujo casi a la mitad, ya que de 91.045 desplazados en 2016 se pasó a 48.335 en 2017, según la Unidad de Víctimas. El número de desplazados ya se había ido reduciendo notablemente los años anteriores, incluso a mayor ritmo: en 2002 la cifra había sido de 757.240 personas; en los siguientes 14 años se produjo un descenso de 47.598 personas de promedio anual, incluidos los 8 años de presidencia de  Álvaro Uribe, que ha sido el gran opositor a los términos del acuerdo de paz.

También el número de víctimas por minas antipersonales se ha reducido: pasó de 72 en 2016 a 58 en 2017, lo que ha ayudado a generar un clima de mayor confianza en las comunidades rurales.

Es importante resaltar que en las zonas que se habían visto más afectadas por el conflicto armado, de acuerdo con lo establecido por el acuerdo de paz, se han podido constituir nuevas compañías que se benefician de los mecanismos previstos para las “zonas más afectadas por el conflicto armado” o Zomac. Sin embargo, esas empresas se encuentran con un entorno complicado, pues aunque las FARC han completado las diversas fases de su desmovilización, como la entrega de armas y la devolución de los menores reclutados, en diversas zonas siguen actuando las disidencias de las FARC y otros grupos dedicados al narcotráfico.

Aunque ha habido algunos avances, queda por delante aún la implementación de la mayor parte del acuerdo. ¿Cómo lo afrontan los dos candidatos presidenciales, Iván Duque y Gustavo Petro?

Duque o Petro

Iván Duque es un abogado y político que ha sido senador de la República por el Centro Democrático, partido encabezado por el expresidente Uribe, gran opositor del acuerdo de paz. Eso ha llevado a muchos a pensar que si Duque llega a la presidencia, dejará en papel mojado el acuerdo de La Habana, sin darle cumplimiento en sus cuatro años de mandato. Su propuesta de gobierno está orientada a mejorar la economía, reduciendo los impuestos de las grandes empresas, financiando el emprendimiento de los jóvenes y privilegiando la inversión. Además, promueve una gran reforma de la justicia colombiana.

Gustavo Petro es economista y político, pero además desmovilizado de la guerrillera del M-19. Es del partido político Movimiento Progresista, de centro izquierda. Petro propone un modelo económico de tonos socialistas que se centra en “cambiar el modelo extractivista” y en potenciar las políticas agrícolas. Los ejes centrales de su propuesta de gobierno están en el ámbito público, garantizado plenamente los derechos a la salud, a la educación de “calidad, pluralista, universal y gratuita”.

Colombia nunca ha elegido a un candidato de izquierda para ser presidente de la República, quizá porque a la izquierda se la identifica con el comunismo y eso la asocia a las FARC. En cualquier caso, Petro no se ha mostrado en contra de los acuerdos de La Habana, y eso le hace atractivo para muchos colombianos que desean preservar lo pactado en el 2016, con la esperanza de terminar el conflicto armado vivido por el país.

Lo cierto es que es difícil dar marcha atrás jurídicamente en el acuerdo de paz, ya que una reforma constitucional estableció que los próximos tres gobiernos están obligados a cumplir lo pactado. Si gana Duque, el acuerdo de paz puede estar sujeto a más cambios, pero de ninguna forma Duque es sinónimo de guerra y Petro de paz. 

Como lo ha expresado Duque, hacer ciertas modificaciones a los acuerdos no es acabarlos. El candidato del Centro Democrático sostiene que el acuerdo debe tener ciertos ajustes que permitan alcanzar una paz “creíble, sostenible y cimentada en la justicia”. De acuerdo con sus propuestas, los principales cambios que impulsaría serían los dos siguientes:

Jurisdicción Especial y participación política

El primero tiene que ver con la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz (JEP), ya que Iván Duque en su plan de gobierno busca simplificar el sistema de justicia colombiano, pasando de las seis cortes actuales a solo una, con el propósito de conseguir mayor rapidez y eficacia en los procesos judiciales. Sin embargo, con este cambio el poder puede verse altamente concentrado y centralizado. Una modificación de la JEP prevista en el acuerdo de paz puede causar cierta incertidumbre entre los antiguos guerrilleros, con los que se había acordado cierta indulgencia.

Por otro lado, el gran cambio que podría hacer Duque tiene que ver con la participación política. Cree en que los ex integrantes de las FARC que hayan sido responsables de crímenes de lesa humanidad no pueden llegar al Congreso sin haber cumplido una pena. Duque asegura que no busca acabar con el punto 2 del acuerdo de paz, que habla de la participación política de los ex guerrilleros en el Congreso. Si a un miembro del Congreso se le ratifica una condena por un crimen de este tipo, debería dejar su curul y ser sustituido por alguien de su mismo grupo que no tenga ningún crimen de lesa humanidad.

Aunque en el caso de ganar las elecciones, Gustavo Petro no planteara especiales modificaciones a los acuerdos, sea quien sea el próximo presidente tendrá serios retos en relación al proceso de paz.

Retos más importantes en el próximo mandato presidencial

La presencia de las disidencias de las FARC en zonas fronterizas del país es uno de los retos que tendrá el próximo presidente; no solo por cuestiones de seguridad, sino por su vinculación con la producción de droga, que ha aumentado un 52%. El Gobierno tiene constancia de que alrededor del 10% de la fuerza de combate de las FARC se ha mantenido en la lucha armada, lo que supone un volumen de al menos 700 individuos, si bien otras entidades incluso doblan esa cifra. Esa disidencia actúa en quince diferentes grupos, que se han venido concentrado en zonas del país como Nariño, Norte de Santander y el Cauca. Además, otro de los grupos armados, el ELN (Ejército de Liberación Nacional), ha comenzado a incrementar su presencia en ciertas zonas fronterizas, como el Norte de Santander. Esto, no solo supone una amenaza para la seguridad colombiana sino que además puede detonar una guerra entre grupos guerrilleros y de crimen organizado para por el control del negocio de la producción ilegal de coca y el narcotráfico.

Frente a la presencia aún de grupos armados en parte del territorio colombiano, ambos candidatos defienden el aumento de los efectivos militares en las zonas conflictivas. Sin embargo, frente a la erradicación de los cultivos ilegales, Iván Duque aboga por el uso del glifosato, un fuerte herbicida cuyo empleo es rechazado por Gustavo Petro alegando sus efectos medioambientales. El uso de este químico, algo polémico en Colombia, podría ser asumido como una forma eficaz de acabar con los cultivos ilícitos si su contaminación es contrarrestada, por ejemplo, sembrando nuevos árboles en las zonas que se logre erradicar la producción de coca. En cualquier caso, parte de los ambientalistas han utilizado la imagen negativa del glifosato para pedir el voto para Petro en la segunda vuelta electoral.

Otro de los grandes retos con el cual se va a enfrentar el próximo presidente es el tema de la Jurisdicción Especial para la Paz. La JEP es un organismo que está encargado de juzgar a los exguerrilleros. Tiene competencias judiciales y “representa la columna de los acuerdos firmados”. Está compuesta por cinco órganos, cada uno encargado de que se cumplan partes esenciales del acuerdo: “la Sala de Reconcomiendo de Verdad y Responsabilidad, la Sala de Amnistía e Indulto, la Sala de Definición de Situaciones Jurídicas, la Unidad de Investigación y acusación, y el tribunal para la Paz”. La JEP es un organismo complejo del depende especialmente el avance el proceso de paz. De hecho, una de las razones de los grandes atrasos que ha sufrido la implementación del acuerdo ha sido la lentitud en la constitución de esta institución, que no comenzó a funcionar hasta el pasado mes de enero. Sin embargo, los obstáculos sufridos por la JEP no solo han tenido que ver con falta de actividad, sino con asuntos como el caso de Jesús Santrich.

Santrich, uno de los jefes guerrilleros, que fue negociador en La Habana por parte de las FARC y recibió uno de los puestos asignados al nuevo partido en el Congreso, resultó arrestado en abril, acusado de participar en un plan para llevar 10 toneladas de cocaína a los Estados Unidos. Con base en una investigación de la DEA, la agencia antinarcóticos de Estados Unidos, las autoridades judiciales estadounidenses pidieron su detención y ahora esperan su extradición. Sin embargo, teniendo en cuenta que todos los miembros de las FARC deben ser juzgados por la JEP, y que este organismo no contempla la extradición, Jesús Santrich no podría ser entregado a Estados Unidos. Además, de momento no hay pruebas de cuándo se cometieron los atribuidos crímenes de narcotráfico, por lo que por ahora no se ha podido determinar si ocurrieron antes o después de la creación de la JEP. El ex guerrillero está preso en una cárcel de Bogotá y las FARC insisten en que sea puesto en libertad. El próximo presidente tendrá que determinar cómo proceder con el caso. Esto es además una muestra de que hay lagunas en el acuerdo, lo que genera mucha incertidumbre y da margen para que el próximo presidente pueda tomar varios rumbos.

Más allá de la paz

El próximo 17 de junio, en la segunda vuelta presidencial entre Iván Duque y Gustavo Petro, se decide el futuro de Colombia. Por más de que muchos colombianos creen que se decide entre guerra o paz, es errado decir esto. Como ya fue discutido antes, el acuerdo de paz es muy difícil de retroceder jurídicamente. El fondo de lo pactado debe ser respetado por los próximos tres gobiernos. Aunque sea cierto que con el candidato del Centro Democrático en el poder el acuerdo puede sufrir más modificaciones que las que aplicaría el candidato del Movimiento Progresista, la posibilidad de consolidar la paz sigue estando abierta con cualquiera de los dos. Más allá de la paz, también está en juego el modelo económico y social de la sociedad colombiana. Así la paz sea uno de los temas más importantes, el próximo presidente no debe dejar atrás otros elementos tan relevantes como son la corrupción, la seguridad, el comercio y la economía en el mandato presidencial 2018-2022 de la República de Colombia. La posición de los candidatos frente a estos temas debe también influir en los votantes.

▲ISIS Toyota convoy in Syria [ISIS video footage]

ANALYSIS / Ignacio Yárnoz

When you go to a Toyota distributor to buy a Toyota Land Cruiser or a Toyota Hilux, what they proudly tell you is how resistant, fast and reliable the truck is. However, what they do not tell you is how implicated in wars and conflicts the truck has been due to the very same characteristics. We have seen in recent newscasts that in many of today´s conflicts, there’s a Toyota truck; no matter how remote the country is. This is because, if the AK47 is the favourite weapon for militias in developing countries, the Toyota Hilux and Land Cruiser are the militia’s trucks of choice.

This is no surprise when one considers that the Toyota Land Cruiser was initially designed to be a military car inspired by the famous Jeep Willis at the time Japan was occupied by the US after Japan´s defeat in World War II. However, its popularity among terrorist groups, militias, as well as developing countries’ national armies only gained ground in the 80’s when a conflict between Chad and Libya proved the trucks’ effectiveness as war machines; simultaneously calling into question the efficacy of traditional war strategies and military logistics.

This little-known story is about how an army comprising 400 Toyota pickups of the Chadian army outmanoeuvred and overwhelmed a vastly superior force equipped with soviet-era tanks and aircrafts of the Libyan army. The historical event demonstrated how a civilian truck was able to shape international borders, tipping the balance in favour of the inferior party to the conflict.

The Toyota War

The Toyota War is the name given to the last phase of the Chad-Libyan War that raged on for almost a decade, yet did not have relevance until its last phase. This last phase began in 1986 and ended a year later with a heavy defeat inflicted on the Libyan army by the Chadians. In total, 7,500 men were killed and 1.5 billion dollars worth of military equipment was destroyed or captured. Conversely, Chad only lost 1,000 men and very little military equipment (because they hardly had any).

The last phase of the conflict developed in the disputed area of the North of Chad, an area that had been occupied by Libyan forces in 1986 due to its natural resources such as uranium (highly interesting for Gadhafi and his nuclear armament project). At the beginning of 1987, the last year of the war, the Libyan expeditionary force comprised 8,000 soldiers, 300 T-55 battle tanks, multiple rocket launchers and regular artillery, as well as Mi-24 helicopters and sixty combat aircrafts. However, the Libyan soldiers were demotivated and disorganized. The Chadians, on the other hand, had nothing but 10,000 brave and motivated soldiers with neither air support nor armoured tanks. However, by 1987, Chad could count on the French Air Force to keep Libyan aircraft grounded but, perhaps more importantly, a 400 Toyota pickups fleet equipped with MILAN (Missile d´infanterie léger antichar) anti-tank guided missiles sent by the French Government. Additionally, it could also be equipped with .50 calibre machine guns, with archaic flak cannons for anti-air purposes or even rocket clusters to be used as WWII-style artillery.

This logistical combination proved to be superior to that employed by the Libyan army as Toyota pickup trucks could easily outmanoeuvre the heavily armoured Russian tanks. Whereas the latter consumed around 200 L/100 km, the Toyota trucks consumed a fraction, at 10L/100 km. In addition, Toyota Trucks could mobilize groups of 20 people in a single truck, enabling faster transport and deployment of troops to the conflict scene; an advantage the Russian tanks did not have.

Reminiscent of the Maginot line when the Nazi army challenged the old trenches system utilizing a fixed artillery method with the innovative Thunder war strategy, the Chad Army emerged victorious over the Libyans through a simple strategic innovation in military logistics. Something clearly demonstrated in the Battle of Fada. In this instance, a Libyan armoured brigade defending Fada was almost annihilated: 784 Libyans and CDR (Democratic Revolutionary Council) militiamen died, 92 T-55 tanks and 33 BMP-1 infantry fighting vehicles were destroyed, and 13 T-55s and 18 BMP-1s were captured, together with the 81 Libyan soldiers operating them. Chadian losses, on the other hand, were minimal: only 18 soldiers died and three Toyotas were destroyed.

All in all, this situation was one of the first deployments of the Toyota Hilux in a conflict zone, demonstrating the reliability of the truck and its high performance in harsh environments. A testament to the Toyota’s endurance was its featuring in the famous TV show “Top Gear” where a 1980’s Toyota Hilux was put to a wrecking ball, set on fire, submerged in a sea bay for 5 hours, then left on the top of a building waiting its final demolishment, yet still rolled.

Ever since, Toyota trucks have been sighted in conflicts in Nicaragua, Ethiopia, Rwanda, Liberia, the Democratic Republic of the Congo (CDR), Lebanon, Yemen, Sudan, and Pakistan and as the New York Times has reported, the Hilux remains the pirates' 'ride of choice.'  The deployment of Daesh of a fleet of hundreds of Toyotas in Mosul in 2014 was a lasting testament of the trucks’ durability.

Adaptability

How could the West deal with this issue? To deploy a massive fleet of Humvees? It would be naïve to attack an enemy with their own means. This hardly appears to constitute an effective solution. Humvees are already being substituted by JLTV (Joint Light Tactical Vehicle) due to their vulnerability to IED’s (Improvised Explosive Devices); something insurgents are allowed to use but western countries are not due to international treaties and ethical values (how can a mine be designed such that it can distinguish a civilian truck from a Toyota driven by insurgents?). This proves the challenge that counterinsurgency policies (COIN) entail and the need to move to a next generation as far as COIN strategies are concerned.

The Toyota example is one of many that clearly signals a need for conventional state armies to adapt their logistical capabilities to better match the challenges of non-conventional warfare and insurgencies; the primary forms of conflict in which our nations are today engaged. The first lesson is clearly that the traditional focus on high power and the availability of resources is poorly suited to respond to contemporary insurgencies and military engagement with primarily non-state entities. Rather, there is a growing need for logistical versatility, combining both attack power and high manoeuvrability. The Toyota issue is an interesting example that illustrates how groups like Daesh have been able to mobilize an easily accessible, relatively non-expensive market commodity that has proven to be effective in lending the group precisely the kind of logistical aid required to successfully wage its insurgency. This being said, there are a number of dilemmas posed to nation states engaging in COIN strategies that prevent them from being able to employ the same methodology. Clearly there is a need to constantly engage in the adaptation of COIN strategies to respond to new threats and the surprising innovation of the adversary. However, COIN campaigns have been difficult to manage, and even harder to win, since time immemorial.

Recent research in political science and economics investigates a number of difficulties security forces face during conflicts with insurgent actors (Trebbi et al., 2017). Development and military aid spending have uneven effects, and conventional military strategies, including aerial bombardment, can erode civilian support for the COIN. Although states have historically used mass killings of non-combatants to undermine logistical support for guerrilla actors, evidence from modern insurgencies indicates that these measures may have the opposite effect: in some cases, such measures may encourage recruitment and mobilization (Trebbi et al., 2017). As such, the challenge is to constantly adapt to meet the requirements of contemporary warfare, whilst simultaneously assessing and remaining cognizant of the effects that COIN measures have on the overall campaign.

Adaptation through learning and innovation occurs on a much different time-scale than evolution. Although both involve information exchange with the environment and with elements within the system, evolution occurs over long periods of time through successive generations that have been able to successfully survive to changes (Hayden, 2013). Learning is the process of modifying existing knowledge, behaviours, skills, values, or preferences, and innovation involves the incorporation of a previously unused element into the system, or the recombination of existing elements in new ways.

Airstrikes

In the previous example of the conflict between Chad and Libya, it was mentioned that the Libyan army had its air force inoperative due to the presence of French air support. Another important point to make is that Toyotas may have been effective war machines for the terrain and surrounding environment, yet would nevertheless have been vulnerable to airstrikes had the Libyan army been able to engage air power against the Chadians. Air and space are part of the future of COIN strategies, despite composing only one element of them. They are our eyes (UAV systems), our way to get away or deploy forces (Chinook helicopters for example) and also the sword that can eliminate the threat (e.g. Predator drones). However, maintaining complete dominance over the battle space does not guarantee victory.

Due to the success of the air campaign in Operation Desert Storm, airpower seemed to be the predominating weapon of choice for future warfare. Yet, recent operations in Afghanistan and Iraq have called that assertion into question. Airstrikes in ground operations have proven to be controversial in small wars, especially when it comes to civilian casualties and its impact on civilian morale (an element that could enhance local support to insurgents). This is why, to win popular support, the US air force had to rethink its operations in Afghanistan and Iraq to win popular support (this also a result of Taliban and Pakistani propaganda and political pressure). Most recently, the US, along with France and the UK, have engaged in massive airstrikes on strategic infrastructure devoted to chemical development supposedly for a military use. Although being calibrated, proportional and targeted, those attacks have created a lot of internal debate in the West and have divided society. As such, the future environment seems certain to further limit the kind of strikes it can make with airpower and missiles.

Consequently, technologically superior air assets nowadays face significant challenges in engaging dispersed and oftentimes unseen opponents. The Air Force must determine how modern airpower can successfully engage an irregular opponent. Air power, the “strategic panacea” of Western policymakers (Maxey, 2018), will no longer maintain the same utility that it does against rural insurgents. Although tactical Predator strikes and aerial reconnaissance may have shifted the street-to-street fighting against Daesh, such operations are severely limited within expansive megacities. The threat of civilian casualties is often too high, even for precision-guided munitions with limited blast radius. Further. buildings and layers of infrastructure often obscure a clear overhead view.

For 2030, the United Nations (UN) suggests that around 60 percent of global population will live in urban areas. There are 512 cities of at least one million inhabitants around the world, and this is expected to grow to 662 cities by 2030. Many of the megacities that will emerge will come from the developing world. That is why it is so urgent to design strategies to adapt to operating within metropolitan environments where small roads prevent large tanks to manoeuvre, where buildings give cover to heavy cannon targets and where one is more exposed to the crosshairs of insurgents taking cover in civilian infrastructure. 

As U.S. Army Chief of Staff Gen. Mark Milley remarked in 2016; “In the future, I can say with very high degrees of confidence, the American Army is probably going to be fighting in urban areas. We need to man, organize, train and equip the force for operations in urban areas, highly dense urban areas, and that’s a different construct. We’re not organized like that right now”.

In addition to this, National armies must be able to work through host governments, providing training, equipment and on-the-ground assistance to their local partners. The mere presence of a foreign army in the area often creates a negative perception among the local population and, unfortunately, in other cases, violent opposition. However, if the army patrolling the city wears the national flag, things change. Defeating an insurgency depends upon effective state building.

REFERENCES

Engel, P. (2018). These Toyota trucks are popular with terrorists — here's why. Business Insider. [Accessed 21 Apr. 2018].

S.L.P., I. (2018). La guerra de los Toyota en Siria. Instituto de Estrategia S.L.P. [Accessed 21 Apr. 2018].

Wang, A. (2018). How did the Toyota pickup become terrorists’ favorite truck?. Quartz.

Maxey, L. (2018). Preparing for the Urban Future of Counterinsurgency.

Smallwarsjournal.com. (2018). Air and Space Power COIN / IW | Small Wars Journal.

Costas, J. (2018). El lado oscuro y bélico del Toyota Land Cruiser. Motorpasion.com.

Tomes, R. R. (2004). Relearning counterinsurgency warfare. Parameters, 34(1), 16-29.

Hayden, N. K. (2013). Innovation and Learning in Terrorist Organizations: Towards Adaptive Capacity and Resiliency. System Dynamics Society.

Ryan, A., & Dila, M. (2014). Disruptive Innovation Reframed: Insurgent Design for Systemic Transformation.

Trebbi, F., Weese, E., Wright, A. L., & Shaver, A. (2017). Insurgent Learning (No. w23475). National Bureau of Economic Research.

▲Viktor Orban, en un acto cerca de la frontera con Rumanía en mayo de 2017 [Károly Árvai/Gobierno húngaro]

ANÁLISIS / Elena López-Doriga

El 8 de abril de 2018 se celebraron en Hungría las elecciones parlamentarias para la renovación de los 199 miembros de la Asamblea Nacional, la única cámara del Parlamento húngaro. La alta participación del 68,13% superó la de los comicios de 2010, cuando acudió a votar el 64,36% del censo electoral, un dato récord que no se veía desde 2002. El primer ministro, Viktor Orban, en el poder desde 2010, se aseguró un cuarto mandato, el tercero consecutivo, dado que su partido, Fidesz, y el aliado de este, el Partido Popular Demócrata Cristiano, ganaron 134 de los 199 escaños. Orban, el dirigente europeo con mayor tiempo como jefe de gobierno después de Angela Merkel, se ha convertido en ciertos aspectos en un líder tan influyente como la canciller alemana.

Esos datos electorales –la alta participación y el amplio respaldo logrado por un líder no bien visto por todos en Bruselas– dan pie a algunas cuestiones. ¿Cuál es el motivo por el cual ha habido tanta movilización social a la hora de votar? ¿Por qué el resultado de estas elecciones está en el punto de mira de la Unión Europea?

Antecedentes históricos

Hungría es un país situado en Europa Central que fronteriza con Austria, Croacia, Rumania; Serbia, Eslovaquia, Eslovenia y Ucrania. El segundo río más grande de Europa, el Danubio, atraviesa todo el país y divide la capital de Budapest en dos territorios diferentes (Buda y Pest).

Hungría accedió a la Unión Europea en 2004. Este acontecimiento fue muy anhelado por los húngaros ya que lo veían como un avance en su democracia, un paso adelante para el desarrollo del país y un acercamiento al admirado Occidente. Era el deseo de hacer un cambio de rumbo en su historia, ya que, después de la disgregación del Imperio Austro-Húngaro en 1918, el país vivió bajo dos regímenes totalitarios desde la Segunda Guerra Mundial: primero bajo el mandato del Partido de la Cruz Flechada (fascista, pro-alemán y antisemita), durante el cual 80.000 personas fueron deportadas a Auschwitz, y más tarde por la ocupación de la Unión Soviética y sus políticas de posguerra. En aquellos tiempos las libertades individuales y de expresión dejaron de existir, el encarcelamiento arbitrario se convirtió en habitual y la policía secreta húngara llevó a cabo series de purgas tanto dentro como fuera de las jerarquías del Partido. Así, pues, la sociedad húngara sufrió una gran represión desde el comienzo de la Segunda Guerra Mundial en 1945, que no se detuvo hasta la caída del Telón de Acero en 1989.

En términos económicos, la transición del comunismo al capitalismo fue muy dura para vastos sectores sociales. De una economía centralizada con sectores muy protegidos y fuertes subsidios agrícolas, se pasó a un plan de ajuste, especialmente severo, adoptado por el Gobierno electo en marzo de 1990 en las primeras elecciones libres.

El acceso a la Unión Europea simbolizaba marcar un antes y un después en la historia de Hungría, en un proceso de incorporación a Occidente que previamente vino señalado por la entrada en la OTAN en 1999. Formar parte de la UE era el paso hacia la democracia que Hungría deseaba y ese amplio consenso social quedó de manifiesto en el mayoritario apoyo que el ingreso obtuvo –el 83% de los votos– en el referéndum de 2003.

Hungría en la Unión Europea

Convertirse en un nuevo miembro de la UE tuvo un impacto positivo en la economía de Hungría, dando lugar a un evidente desarrollo y proporcionando ventajas competitivas para las compañías extranjeras que establecían una presencia permanente en el país. Pero a pesar de esos apreciables avances y de la ilusión mostrada por Hungría al acceder a la UE, el panorama ha cambiado mucho desde entonces, de forma que el euroescepticismo se ha extendido notablemente entre los húngaros. En los últimos años, en la opinión pública nacional ha emergido un gran desacuerdo con las políticas de Bruselas adoptadas durante la crisis de refugiados de 2015.

Ese año Bruselas decidió hacer una reubicación de los 120.000 refugiados que habían llegado a Hungría (provenientes de Siria, que se estaban desplazando por la ruta de los Balcanes hacia Alemania y Austria) e Italia (en su mayoría procedentes del norte de África). Para distribuir a los refugiados se establecieron cuotas, fijando el número de refugiados que cada país debía acoger en función de su tamaño y de su PIB. La política de cuotas fue cuestionada por los países del Grupo Visegrado (Polonia, Hungría, República Checa y Eslovaquia) y por Rumanía. Hungría levantó una valla de varios cientos de kilómetros en su frontera sur y se negó a aceptar las cuotas de acogida.

Esa actitud de cierre de fronteras y rechazo a acoger refugiados fue criticada por los dirigentes de la Unión, quienes llegaron a amenazar con sanciones a esos países. La dificultad de un consenso llevó a firmar en 2016 un acuerdo con Turquía para que este país retuviera el flujo de refugiados sirios. En 2017 vencieron las cuotas para el reparto a través de la UE de los refugiados que previamente habían llegado, sin completar así la reubicación inicialmente planteada. Aunque el momento de mayor confrontación política sobre esta cuestión en la UE ha pasado, la crisis de los refugiados ha creado una gran divergencia entre los dos bloques apuntados, erosionando el supuesto proyecto común europeo.

A la vista de esta situación, las elecciones parlamentarias de Hungría del 8 de abril de 2018 eran especialmente importantes, ya que los ciudadanos de ese país iban a tener la oportunidad de pronunciarse sobre el pulso mantenido entre Budapest y Bruselas.

Los principales candidatos

En las elecciones, la opción que partía con todas las encuestas a favor era la coalición del partido conservador Fidesz y el Partido Popular Demócrata Cristiano, con Viktor Orban, de 54 años, como candidato. Orbán se dio a conocer en 1989 cuando, con 26 años, desafió al régimen comunista y comenzó a erigirse en adalid de los principios liberales, lo que lo convirtió en símbolo de las aspiraciones de los húngaros por liberarse del totalitarismo y adoptar los valores occidentales. Sin embargo, su vuelta al poder en 2010, tras un primer mandato entre 1998 y 2002, estuvo marcada por un giro hacia una tendencia conservadora, caracterizada por un mayor control sobre la economía, los medios de comunicación y la justicia. Orban se reivindica defensor de una “democracia iliberal”: un sistema en el que, aunque la Constitución pueda formalmente limitar los poderes del Gobierno, en la práctica estén restringas ciertas libertades como la de expresión o pensamiento. Orban pone a prueba a menudo las líneas rojas de la UE al presentarse como defensor de una "Europa cristiana" y detractor de la inmigración irregular.

El partido que pretendía plantear el principal pulso electoral a Fidesz, sustrayéndole buena parte de sus votantes, era sorprendentemente uno situado aún más a la derecha: Jobbik (Movimiento por una Hungría Mejor), fundado en 2003 y considerado como una de las organizaciones políticas de extrema derecha más poderosas de la Unión Europea. Durante años, este partido no escondió su carácter xenófobo, anti-gitano, anti-semita, nacionalista y radicalmente opuesto al sistema político imperante en la UE, apostando por una Hungría fuera de esta. Sin embargo, a partir de 2013 moderó su lenguaje. Mientras que Orban fue adoptando una línea cada vez más radical, el líder de Jobbik, Gábor Vona, fue atemperando las posiciones de su partido para presentarlo como una opción conservadora, alternativa a Fidesz, capaz de captar votos del centro. Gyöngyösi, uno de los líderes nacionalistas del partido decía: “Somos el partido del siglo XXI, mientras que Fidesz es del siglo pasado y representa lo antiguo. Ya no tiene sentido esa división entre izquierda y derecha, eso ya es parte del pasado, de la vieja política”.

En el otro lado del espectro político, se presentaba a las elecciones una lista formada por el Partido Socialista (MSZP) y el partido ecologista de centro-izquierda Parbeszed ("Diálogo"), encabezada por un dirigente de este, Gargely Karacsony. El candidato de la izquierda contaba con amplios apoyos del MSZP, pero no con el de sus excompañeros del partido ecologista LMP, del que se separó hace cinco años, lo que podía conllevar una división del voto.

La campaña electoral

Durante la campaña se especuló sobre una posible pérdida de votos de Fidesz debido a una serie de escándalos de corrupción que involucraban a autoridades del Gobierno, acusadas de malversar dinero de ayudas europeas. Jobbik y otros grupos de la oposición aprovecharon esa situación para promocionarse como partidos anti-corrupción, centrando buena parte de su campaña en este asunto y abogando por una mejora de los servicios públicos, especialmente la sanidad. 

No obstante, el tema más destacado de la campaña electoral no fue la corrupción, el mal funcionamiento del sistema de sanidad pública o los bajos salarios, sino la inmigración. El Gobierno de Orbán se había negado a aceptar las cuotas de refugiados que imponía la UE desde Bruselas, aduciendo que acoger a inmigrantes es un asunto de política doméstica en el que las organizaciones exteriores no deben intervenir. Insistía en que Hungría tiene derecho a negarse a recibir inmigrantes, y más si son musulmanes, reiterando su rechazo al multiculturalismo, que considera una mera ilusión. Orbán opinaba que los refugiados que llegaban a las puertas de Hungría no estaban luchando por su vida, sino que eran inmigrantes económicos en búsqueda de una vida mejor. Por lo tanto, la campaña política de Orbán era un claro mensaje: Inmigrantes ilegales en Hungría: ¿sí o no? ¿Quién debe decidir acerca del futuro de Hungría, los húngaros o Bruselas?

Reducir la convocatoria electoral a una pregunta tuvo el principal efecto de una amplia movilización social. Según la oposición, Orbán utilizó el tema de la migración para alejar la atención popular de la corrupción generalizada.

Otro punto clave en la campaña política de Fidesz fueron las constantes acusaciones a George Soros, a quien Orbán identificó como el principal enemigo del Estado. Soros es un multimillonario estadounidense, de origen judeo-húngaro, que a través de su Open Society Foundation (OSF) financia diversas ONG dedicadas a promover valores liberales, progresistas y multiculturales en diferentes partes del mundo. En 1989 Soros financió a Viktor Orban para que estudiara en Inglaterra, y en 2010 donó un millón de dólares a su Gobierno para ayudar en la limpieza medioambiental tras un accidente químico. Pero la reputación de Soros en Hungría recibió un golpe durante la crisis migratoria de 2015. Su defensa del trato humano a los refugiados se topó con la actitud de Orban. Durante la campaña, este acusó a Soros de usar la OSF para “inundar” Europa con un millón de inmigrantes al año y socavar la “cultura cristiana” del continente.

Además, antes de las elecciones, Fidesz aprobó una enmienda a la ley de educación superior húngara, que establece nuevas condiciones para las universidades extranjeras en Hungría, algo que se ha visto como un ataque directo a la Universidad Central Europea de Budapest. La institución, financiada por Soros, goza de gran prestigio por fomentar el pensamiento crítico, los valores liberales y la libertad académica. La nueva legislación pone en riesgo la autonomía universitaria, la libre contratación de profesores y el carácter internacional de los títulos.

La Comisión Europea mostró sus diferencias con el Gobierno de Orbán acerca de varias de las cuestiones que ocuparon la campaña electoral. Así, expresó su insatisfacción por la nueva ley universitaria, al considerar que no es compatible con las libertades fundamentales del mercado interior de la UE, pues “vulneraría la libertad de proveer servicios y la libertad de establecimiento”. También criticó que Orbán no hubiera cumplido con la cuota de refugiados, a pesar de la sentencia del Tribunal de Justicia, y que hubiera hecho campaña utilizando electoralmente el desacuerdo que tiene con la UE.

El resultado de las elecciones

En las elecciones del 8 de abril de 2018, el partido Fidesz (en su alianza con el Partido Popular Demócrata Cristiano) obtuvo un tercer amplio triunfo consecutivo, aún mayor que el anterior, con casi la mitad del voto popular (48,89%) y su tercera mayoría absoluta de dos tercios (134 de los 199 escaños). Era la primera vez desde la caída del comunismo en 1989 que un partido gana tres veces seguidas unas elecciones.

El partido Jobbik logró convertirse en el principal partido de la oposición, al quedar en el segundo lugar con el 19,33% de los votos y 25 escaños. Sin embargo, su crecimiento de votos fue mínimo y solo obtuvo dos escaños extra, quedando prácticamente estancado en las cifras de 2014. El segundo puesto de Jobbik más bien se vio propiciado por la debilidad del Partido Socialista Húngaro (MSZP), cuya debacle lo llevó a quedar en tercer lugar, con el 12,25% de los votos y 20 escaños. Fue la primera vez desde 1990 en la que el MSZP no quedaba en primer o segundo lugar, poniendo fin al bipartidismo que mantenía con Fidesz desde 1998.

Por otra parte, desde su vuelta al Gobierno en 2010 Fidesz modificó significativamente el sistema electoral, reduciendo el número de legisladores de 386 a 199 y eliminando la segunda vuelta, cosa que no favorece a los partidos más pequeños, que podrían formar alianzas entre las rondas de votación. Al asegurarse dos tercios de la cámara, Fidesz podrá seguir gobernando cómodamente y reformando la Constitución a su medida.

Reacción de la UE

Una semana después de las elecciones, decenas de miles de opositores salieron a las calles de Budapest, en desacuerdo con un sistema electoral calificado de “injusto”, que le ha dado al primer ministro Viktor Orban un triunfo arrollador en las urnas después de una campaña basada en la negación de aceptar refugiados.

Diversos medios valoraron que la carta de felicitación que el presidente del Consejo Europeo, Donald Tusk, dirigió a Orban fue más fría que la emitida en otras ocasiones similares. A la UE le preocupa que Orban continúe con su defensa de una democracia “iliberal” y que parece estar conduciendo el país hacia tendencias autoritarias. La compra que en los últimos años el Gobierno ha hecho de muchos medios de comunicación, para aislar a la oposición y hacer más propaganda, le asemeja a lo que ha ocurrido en países como Rusia y Turquía.

Es cierto que con Orban al frente del Gobierno Hungría ha crecido económicamente a buen ritmo y que las clases medias han mejorado su situación, pero su última victoria se ha debido no solo a la buena gestión económica, sino la defensa de valores que el pueblo húngaro considera importantes (esencialismo, cristianismo, respeto de las fronteras).

Los socialistas europeos no se han mostrado satisfechos con la nueva victoria de Orban insinuando que se trata de un retroceso para la democracia en Hungría. La alegría que los partidos populistas han manifestado por su triunfo es la prueba de que Orban, cuya formación Fidesz sigue perteneciendo al Partido Popular Europeo, se ha convertido en un exponente del ultranacionalismo moderno, que amenaza ideas democráticas de la Unión Europea.

De momento, Bruselas está siendo cautelosa con Hungría, incluso más que con el Brexit británico, puesto que Viktor Orban, visto por muchos como “el rebelde de la UE”, a diferencia del Reino Unido, quiere permanecer dentro del bloque, pero cambiar parte de los ideales que representa.