Iran Agreement Meets First Challenge

The hard-fought for agreement to end a deadlock over a nuclear program met its first major challenge on Friday with Russia cautioning that a US sanctions move could “seriously”complicate its implementation .

Iran said on Friday that its nuclear deal violated the “spirit of the Geneva deal.” Under which, Iran will curb its nuclear activities in exchange for some easing of the international sanctions that have hurt the major oil producer’s economy. It appears that the subject of economic sanctions of past blog posts have been working. However, there may be too much sanctioning because last Thursday, the US black-listed other businesses undersanctions intended at stopping Iran from gaining the capability to make nuclear weapons, according to US officials.  The deal was intended to pause Iran’s nuclear developments for six months to buy time for negotiations on a final settlement of a dispute that has encouraged anxiety of a new Middle East war.

Moscow’s announcement followed after diplomats said Iran had interrupted technical talks with the 6 nations in Vienna over how to implement the agreement, in which Tehran is to cap its nuclear program inreturn for limited sanctions easing.

What kind of effects can tightening sanctions on Iran, while Iran seems to have widened the scope of their diplomacy, have? Sanctions seem to have worked so far, but is the black-listing too excessive? Is the deal in serious trouble?

U.S. sanctions move angers Iran, Russia sees threat to nuclear deal

Iran angry over U.S. sanctions, nuclear talks interrupted

Syrian Peace Conference and Nonlethal Aid

Despite the noninvasive role of the United States in the Syrian civil war, the government has played an outside part in the conflict. In the act of supplying nonlethal aid to civilians and to the rebels, the U.S. has shown support for one side. While the Obama administration has been focused recently on only a political resolution, military and financial support have been given to the al-Assad regime from Iran and Russia, as well as other countries.  As Secretary of State John Kerry plays a prominent role in the argument for a political solution, a peace conference focused on Syria has been scheduled for January 22 in Montreux.  A great deal of attention has been brought to the possibility of creating a transitional government body that could run the country in the absence of al-Assad.  Furthermore, in the midst of such circumstances, the US government has decided to suspend the delivery of nonlethal aid to Syria, which was supplied by the State Department. However, an article yesterday in the New York Times, U.S. Suspends Nonlethal Aid to Syrian Rebels, quoted Syrian activists were stating that the suspension of aid will not affect the free Syrian army or the Islamic front alike.

As the international community seeks a solution to the Syrian conflict, the war goes on. In evaluating the lengthy duration of this conflict we can remember the article by Fearon from earlier in the semester. One of the most plausible explanations for long civil conflict presented here entails the rebel’s ability to finance the war, whether through contraband goods, or in this case international actors. The fact that both sides of the conflict are being held up by other states not only complicates the situation, but has allowed it to last much longer. A final interesting point stems from Fearon’s conclusion that wars following coups are more likely to be shorter.  For Syria, multiple coups led to the installment of al-Assad’s father, and eventually to the regime in power today.  Yet this conflict has become lengthier.

Aid to the Syrian Opposition

The US suspended nonlethal aid to Syrian opposition groups after an incident in which an extreme Islamist group stole “nonlethal” equipment. This group isn’t moderate, but also fights Al-Qaeda, which makes one wonder what each group is fighting for? Whether it is for material gains or grievances the groups continue to become more radical in appearance and action. Although the US may be supporting rebel groups with military equipment through the CIA, it hasn’t been able to find a strong moderate leader. It is even supposed that US backed rebels simply stole everything from the warehouse and disappeared. The many factions make it difficult to pinpoint a leading group. As well as allows for groups to hide, take undue or due credit. These are the same groups that battle moderates and Al-Qaeda questioning what everyones intentions are in the the conflict, greed or grievance. They have recently killed civilians and kidnapped foreigners out of neighboring countries.

The US has had a hard time finding even just a reliable group that has enough support to be effective. The whole worlds had hard time just trying to find any group with a clear message. Too make matters worse much of the aid that rebel groups receive comes from private donations often from foreigners, most notably Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. The donors tend to target more extreme and even known terrorist groups as they’ve been deemed the most effective fighters. Only polarizing and antagonizing different the factions making the situation even more turbulent. Finally the UN has found the Assad regime guilty of using chemical weapons multiple times on its own innocent civilians.

What is the UN, US, or any other country to do without at least one moderate faction to at least begin negotiations and start peace? Will the international community get involved as conflict begins to spillover in the region?

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/12/world/middleeast/us-suspends-nonlethal-aid-to-syrian-rebels-in-north.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/13/world/middleeast/un-confirms-repeated-chemical-arms-use-in-syria.html?ref=world&_r=0

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-25370803

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/11/13/world/middleeast/private-donors-funds-add-wild-card-to-war-in-syria.html

The Democratic Republic of the Congo Attempts to Transform the M23 Rebel Group

The Democratic Republic of the Congo (DRC) has been engulfed in internal conflict for more than two decades. This can be attributed to the presence of more than ten armed opposition groups to the government and the M23 rebel group who began to increase their terrorist activity since April of 2012, making them one of the most active and therefore most widely known at the international level. M23 rebels justified their actions due to the DRC government’s supposed marginalization of the Tutsi minority, showing ethnic repression, and their failure to adhere to past peace accords between the parties. With the help of a United Nations (UN) force of 19,000 troops who were mandated to neutralize armed forces, the DRC government successfully defeated the insurgency mid-November. 

 Coinciding with this government offensive, rebel military commander, Gen. Sultani Makenga and his force of 1,700 surrendered to army officials in the neighboring country of Uganda. The rebel group used Uganda as a “safe haven” to resupply and to escape the DR Congo military forces. 

“A report by the UN group of experts has said neighbouring Rwanda provided weapons, recruits and training to the M23. It also alleged that some in Uganda's military supported the rebels”

 The UN report shows the porousness of the countries’ border and the regional influence the rebel group maintained.

The reason I bring up this topic now is because the M23 rebels and the DRC government just signed documents Thursday to officially end rebellion (in Eastern DRC), to demobilize and transform the M23 group into a legitimate political party. These documents also stated that there will be no “blanket of amnesty”, those that committed war crimes will be held accountable to international law, while those not accused will be reinserted back into society. 

In regards to the DRC government's success in defeating the M23 rebels with assistance from UN forces, should the UN continue to mandate the use of force to neutralize insurgencies in other conflicts? Do you agree with the DRC government’s choice to attempt to transform the M23 rebel participants into a legitimate political party? Should there be any consequences for the Ugandan or Rwandan government or military for assisting the M23 rebel group? If so, why or why not?

Execution in North Korea

Jang Sung Taek, until recently, was Kim Jong Un's uncle and one of his closest advisors. In the past Jang had been sent to a steel mill for reforming work due to party disloyalty. This time Jang had been caught opening up the north borders to allow trade between North Korea and China. His crime was for not working as a unit with the other political officials. He had also been caught gambling and other corrupt actions. This lead to Kim using Jang as a message to the people of North Korea that corruption is punishable by death, even for royal family. KCNA released Jang Sung Taek's execution on December 12. Kim Jong Un wanted to send a message that North Korea is going to go through some internal reform, but will not allow people like Jang Sung Taek to undercut the people working on it.

It seems to me like Kim wasn't really a part of this. If KCNA come out with the story in less than a week of it happening then obviously Kim had nothing to do with it or else that would have never been released to the outside world. It also seems like Kim was backed into a corner here because his uncle made him look bad and party disloyalty is punishable by death, whether you're family or not. I don't think Jang was in the wrong for opening up the trade borders between North Korea and China.
Economist:
NK News
Free Public News

History was made yesterday as Uruguay became the first country in the world to legalize the production and sale of Marijuana. After 12 hours of debate, with a pass of 16 votes to 13, the government-sponsored bill was approved and Uruguayans are now allowed to cultivate up to six plants per household or join those licensed to grow up to 99 plants. Pharmacies will carry marijuana, supplied by private firms, but are only allowed to sell to Uruguayan citizens. Uruguay's reasoning behind the historic bill is that with the new law in place, police can better focus on stopping violent crimes as well as stopping the smuggling of harder drugs. Uruguayan Senator Roberto Conde was quoted saying that "it was an unavoidable response to reality, given that the war against drugs had failed." Other Latin and South American governments such as Guatemala and Colombia are now considering following Uruguay's decision in hopes to stop battling criminal gangs who are profiting from exporting drugs.

The bill is hardly without opposition however. The UN is against Uruguay's decision and says it violates international law. Although I highly disagree with the statement, the INCB, the International Narcotics Control Board, an independent, quasi-judicial expert body for the implementation of the UN drug conventions, previously 'warned that the move would endanger young people and "contribute to the earlier onset of addiction". The INCB chief Raymond Yans claimed the government's reasoning for passing the bill to rely on "rather precarious and unsubstantiated assumptions". So what will be the future outcome for this Uruguay law? Will the INCB or UN intervene? Will the legalization of production and consumption of marijuana for Uruguayan citizens 18 and up help to stop drug fans, smuggling, and violent crimes? What's your view on this bill that marks the first ever country to fully legalize bud?

Ukraine Crisis

Ukraine is facing its biggest crisis since the Orange Revolution in 2004. Tempers have flared in Kiev amongst the oppositional party because they say their offices have been raided by police, ordered by the President. President Viktor Yanukovych refused to sign a treaty with the EU, and is leaning towards a Russian led economic union. There is a sense of corruption amongst the political leaders. Protesters are demanding a reelection to dismantle Yanukovych and his party, saying he is bowing to russian interest. Much hatred towards Putin has risen for the Ukrainian people, Sparking protesters to riot in Independence Square. "We call on people to stand their ground, and peacefully, without using force or aggression, to defend their right to live in a free country," said heavyweight boxing champion Vitaly Klitschko, who has emerged as one of the leaders of the protests. There have been clashes between protesters and the riot police, yet none of the skirmishes escalated too immensely. The Lenin statue standing in the City Center was taken down and divvied up amongst protesters, who want the government to embrace the West, in particular the EU.

It's clear that the Ukrainian people want independence from Russia, but how can they do that with their very own president acting like Vladimir Putin's puppet? Yanukovych isn't ready to give up the economic ties of the East, mainly Russia, but the people are demanding the democratic, economic ties of the West, mainly the EU, as I stated above. The last time the Ukrainian people rose up against the government, they became a democratic republic. I think if something isn't done soon to resolve the issues at hand, there could well be a full blown revolution that possibly extends beyond Ukrainian borders to defend against the clutches of Putin's Russia.

BBC News- Ukraine Crisis Explained
Ukraine police move in on protesters and opposition party
EU-Russia Battleground