Countries Failing in the Fight Against Illegal Poaching

The trade in products from endangered animals has been a contentious issue for many years however with a black market in ivory, tiger parts etc still thriving across the world the WWF, one of the world’s leading conservation charities, is stepping up its efforts to control this trade and make individual countries responsible for dealing with those trading illegal animal parts.

In a recent report the WWF condemned several nations for failing to tackle the illegal trade in animal parts whether they were countries of origin for products such as elephant ivory, rhino horn and tiger parts, transit countries or the destination for these products.

From their report, nations such as Vietnam, Laos, Burma, Mozambique and Zambia have all failed in their attempts to solve the problem of the trade in illegal animal parts, whilst many other countries have only made minimal steps towards fighting poaching.

For the WWF this failure to address these problems has only worsened the trade that is fueled by an appetite in societies, such as China and Thailand, for luxury goods made from these illegal products. Elephant ivory is used for carvings, jewellery and other decorative pieces whilst rhino horn and tiger parts are key ingredients in Chinese medicine, which in many parts of Asia is still preferred over conventional western medicine.

In the current global financial crisis, where funding for conservation is limited and many see the black market as way to make a great amount of money, the outlook for countries trying to control the trade is not positive. Whilst there is a profit to be made from selling illegal animal parts there will continue to be a trade. For animal conservation groups, such as the WWF, in order to control the trade, there are only two possible ways to tackle the problem.

Firstly the WWF advocate that protection and security of animals within national parks, games reserves etc needs to be stepped up, with the belief that if poachers cannot get access to endangered animals the trade will cease. The countries of origin for these products, such as Mozambique, must bolster the defenses at national parks and impose harsher punishments on those convicted of poaching.

Secondly animal conservationists are striving to change the attitudes of people in countries, such as China, where the demand for these products is huge and items made out of illegal animal parts continue to sell despite apparent controls on the origin of these goods. If the global community can encourage people in these countries that there are alternatives to trading illegal animal parts then demand will decrease.

Fundamentally the trade is an issue of supply and demand and while both exist the trade will continue. What the WWF hope is that, through their report, they can highlight the poor performance of these African and Asia nations and compel them to step up their attempts to control the trade and punish those who commit offenses.

However despite the fact that some countries, such as Vietnam and Mozambique, have failed to fight the illegal animal trade, there are success stories and the WWF report highlights the positive direction that nations, such as India, Nepal and Russia have taken to enforce and control the ban on the international trade in illegal animal parts. It is hoped that when the next report is compiled those nations, that have failed, will follow the example of India, Nepal and Russia to fight illegal poaching.

By Peter Banham

North Korea: A Truly Hidden Kingdom

Many Asian states and cities have been known as ‘Forbidden Kingdoms’ or ‘Forbidden Cities’ and although not a forbidden country, North Korea, in the 21st century, is a truly hidden country. It is one that does allow access (however limited) to outside visitors, however these individuals rarely have a clear understanding of the country they have entered or the regime they see from afar.

This does not stop people drawing their own conclusions about the nation; seeing it as a rogue state steeped in communism, dictatorial politics and military fervor. These assumptions do ring true for this Far East state, which is controlled by a Communist based, family dynasty, whose power is vested in the military; however North Korea is more than simply the stereotypes generated by Western media. It is a nation with a complex politics, ancient history and vibrant culture; the problem that journalists, politicians and analysts face is the inability to gain verifiable news as the country exercises such close controls over censorship.

It is this censorship that truly defines North Korea; that makes the state a real Hidden Kingdom.

North Korea has been an enigma ever since Kim Il-Sung assumed the position of leader of the newly independent Communist country under the guide of the USSR. They had agreed, with the USA, to divide the country between the two powers to run in a post-WWII administration and Kim Il-Sung emerged as the leading figure in the new Soviet administration. When Kim Il-Sung was made leader, his communist principles were well established from the outset with sweeping land reforms creating an equal distribution of land and a policy that would be hard to integrate with the US influenced South when unification was proposed.

Within years the two regions had become politically opposed, with each side supporting different ideologies and supported by a different superpower. Both superpowers helped to build up the military power of their respective spheres of influence and it was this conflict over who should control a united Korea that led to the Korean War (1950-1953).

It was after the war that North Korea began the process towards isolation. It was a small Communist country in relation to its two, much larger, neighbours China and Russia, both leading communist countries that sought to exert influence over North Korea. However Kim managed to achieve relative political isolation from both countries. He disagreed with the USSR during the leadership of Nikita Khrushchev and sided with China in the Sino-Soviet split, but then went against the Chinese government of Mao Zedong during the Cultural Revolution in China, siding instead with the Soviets. By playing these two Communist nations off against each other Kim ensured that North Korea had allies in both camps without the exclusive influence of one deviating him from creating his own form of communism in the country, however the diplomatic consequence of this was that North Korea became estranged from both countries.

However it was only once this self-determined form of communism, known as Juche, became state ideology in 1972, that North Korea began to truly become a hidden kingdom. The ideology established the idea that North Korea should be self-reliant and nearly all foreign trade was stopped. China was less interested in trading with the country and with the collapse of Communism in Eastern Europe and the USSR in the late 1980’s and early 1990’s the nation soon lost all its main partners. By his death in 1994 Kim Il-Sung had created a country completely isolated from the rest of the world

This isolation continued after his son, Kim Jong-il, took power and has not ceased even after his death and the assumption of Kim Jong-un as Premier. But it is not purely history that has created such an isolated and introverted state but the society that these leaders have created. North Korea is a country with no political reforms or freedom of the press meaning there are no real opportunities to check the power of the leader or to challenge publicly what the regime is doing. The population is told the information that the government want to reveal and often internationally observers are simply left to guess at what it is going on at the very height of power. It becomes increasingly difficult to work out the hierarchy in this country or determine who has influence over the Premier.

Under Kim Jong-un the international understanding of the Korean hierarchy has been truly tested with questions over how the leader will govern and who will be by his side as he leads the country through turbulent times in world politics.

For many observers it appears that he is ruling the country just as his father and grandfather before him did; through the military. This week Kim Jong-un was named as a Marshall, the highest rank in the North Korean army. This is a move that solidifies his position at the top of the military hierarchy, which has seen major shakeups recently with a senior military leader replaced. Ri Yong-ho was removed from his post as army chief and meanwhile Hyon Yong-chol was made Vice-Marshal. This shake up represents a North Korea that is changing without any real change taking place.

The political structure at the top is the same as it has been before despite changes to the faces leading the regime. The censorship and cult of personality that distorts all the information coming out of this nation continues to pervade every aspect of society and prevents an accurate understanding of North Korea from being established across the world. Whilst this regime continues to rule North Korea the nation will continue to remain a Hidden Kingdom.

By Peter Banham

Sport: An Important Political Tool in World Affairs

With the London Olympics only a week away, much of the attention is on the political importance of this sporting event for international relations. Sport has often been an outlet for expressing political views, settling scores and renewing bonds and world events, such as the Olympics are the biggest forum for global politics.

The London Olympics, like many events before it, has been made a political issue focusing in particular on the participation of Middle Eastern states, whose political structure has been heavily scrutinized by the international political scene.  In particular nations, such as Syria, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia and Libya have all come under close scrutiny and criticism from international players forcing Britain to respond accordingly.

Following the civil war in Libya many believed that it would be unable to put together a team to compete at London 2012, especially as the former head of the Libyan Olympic Committee was a son of Colonel Gaddafi and fled to Algeria following the Civil War. However even though Libya has put forward a small team to compete they continue to face difficulties as the new head of the Libyan Olympic Committee was abducted this week.

Saudi Arabia has seen the London Olympics being used as a forum to discuss the role of women in Saudi society and there has been an intense media focus on the decision to send, for the first time, female athletes to London 2012.

For Syria and Bahrain, however much attention is not on whether the nations could produce a team and in what form the team would be, but rather whether the team or officials should be allowed to take part in the events. For Syria the decision has been taken that any officials subject to an EU ban on travel, as a result of internal conflict, will not be allowed to attend the events, although the team itself can compete and this has been supported by the international community. However Bahrain has proved to be one of the biggest controversies. Prince Nasser bin Hamad al Khalifa is the President of the Bahrain Olympic Committee and for many, both in Britain and internationally, his involvement in London 2012 is seen as an endorsement of the actions of the Bahrain government, which has been accused of violence, repression and torture. Many have threatened action if the Prince arrives in London and political tensions over his continued involvement remain very high.

London 2012 is by no means the first Olympic games to deal with controversial political decisions. Beijing 2008 was marred by Free Tibet protests and activists who protested against China’s human rights record and attacked TV presenter, Konnie Huq, whilst she carried the Olympic torch in London. Many Olympics, particularly those in developing nations or with controversial regimes, have seen great protest by activists who resent these states being gifted such a prestigious event. Most famously, however, it was the 1980 and 1984 Olympics which highlighted the role of politics in sports.

The 1980 Summer Olympics was held in Moscow, then the capital of the USSR. This was a move rejected by officials in the USA and many other Western countries, including West Germany, Japan and Canada, who ultimately boycotted the event in protest at the USSR’s invasion of Afghanistan. This move by Western nations was replicated in 1984 by communist nations, led by the USSR, when the Olympics was held in Los Angeles.

However the Olympics, although one of the largest sporting events, is not the only sporting occasion in which nations play out global issues. Tours by national teams have often been used as a symbol of cross-border friendship and co-operation. Most notably this has been seen in tours by the national cricket teams of Pakistan and India, countries that have a difficult history. They have often used sport as a way to soften relations between the two presenting a forum to settle scores between the two states, without resorting to violence or military action. Following the Mumbai bombings in 2008, in which Pakistan was accused of involvement, sporting ties were cut between the two, however in recent weeks, details of a tour by the Pakistan team in India have emerged illustrating a thawing in relations.

Sport has also come under fire for its ability to over involve itself in political affairs, as was highlighted in 2012 with the Formula 1 Bahrain Grand Prix, when the decision was made to go ahead with the race despite calls from within Bahrain and from around the world to cancel the event in light of the crackdown, implemented by the government, on protestors. By undertaking this action Formula 1 opened itself up to criticism from international commentators and accusations that the people in charge believed sport transcended politics.

Clearly the role of sport in international politics is huge. It can be used both to encourage relations between two nations and to bring nations together on a global scale to participate in something greater than national politics, as the Olympics aims to do. Sport is intrinsically linked with politics; with participation being used as a bargaining chip and governing bodies coming under attack when the political actions of sport differ from the political actions of nations they represented or are involved with.

By Peter Banham

Cuba: A Nation Still Living in the Cold War Era

The Cold War ended in 1991 with the disintegration of the USSR, an event that followed the collapse of communism in Eastern Europe with the fall of the Berlin Wall. However for Cuba the Cold War never truly ended and the legacy of the conflict between the democratic West and the communist East still remains strong in the country.The main reason is that Cuba remains a communist country and for global analysts this political position has meant that the attitudes of the Cold War continue.

These analysts argue that the Cold War only ended because the communist systems in the USSR and Europe collapsed, not because of a mutual agreement by the two sides to end the conflict and this has meant there has meant that there was no official end to the conflict. Whilst the ideology that sustained the Cold War persists the conflict between pro-American supporters and communists will also continue.

For Cuba the biggest impact of the continuation of the Cold War is the continuation of the US trade embargo that has hampered economic development in the country and cut the Cuban community in America, focused around Miami, off from Cuba itself. This embargo has been in place since 1962 and was codified in law in 1992 with the government arguing that the USA would maintain the embargo for two reasons:

1. Cuba has failed to move towards greater democratization and recognition of human rights.
2. The USA holds $6 billion worth of financial claims against the Cuba government and is waiting for these claims to be fulfilled.

The argument that the trade embargo will remain until Cuba has become a fully democratic country is an interesting concept in so far as it appears to be a policy of the US government that is applied arbitrarily across the world. Although other similar countries are also subject to a US embargo, such as North Korea, whose embargo has existed since 1950, many other regimes are also deemed undemocratic but have not seen the level of sanctions, or indeed sanctions at all.

Countries including China, Laos and Vietnam are all current communist states whilst other nations, such as Turkmenistan and Eritrea, are also one party states and yet none of these regimes currently have sanctions imposed on them by the USA. If the US embargo was truly motivated by a desire to make Cuba more democratic, then critics of US foreign policy argue that the same sanctions should apply to all single party states, where democracy is not an alternative.

Many critics also question whether the US’s economic reasons for the trade embargo are justified. Although clearly the financial claims, worth $6 billion, are a motivation for the US government’s continuing trade embargo many believe that it provides an easy explanation to provide the Cuban community in America, an important voting bloc, with.

For many the trade embargo is simply representative of America’s deep-set mistrust of Cuba and whilst US culture and foreign politics continue to see Cuba as one of the greatest and closest threats to US security, the communist state will continue to remain a victim of the trade embargo. The trade embargo is claimed to have cost the Cuban government close to $685 million annually (Dollars & Sense, March/April 2009) and has severely damaged Cuban economic development with many of America’s allies treating Cuba as a pariah state.

However despite the legal establishment of the trade embargo there are changes occurring to the relationship between the USA and Cuba. In 2009 President Obama relaxed the laws regarding Cuba which allowed Cuba-Americans to more easily visit and send money to relatives in Cuba itself. Even more recently ships carrying humanitarian supplies have been allowed to sail to Cuba with the first cargo ship from Miami reaching Havana on 13th July 2012.

But a widespread abandonment of the trade embargo seems unlikely with the US keen to retain its hold over the economic and the political development of the Caribbean region and Cuba still supporting its communist government, that so alienates the US government.This rigid adherence to their political stances and the maintenance of long held divisions means that Cuba may well continue to exist in the Cold War era.

By Peter Banham

Egypt’s Elections: A Benefit for Palestine?

Egypt’s relationship with Palestine has been historically one of the more difficult amongst the Arab nations due to their peace treaty and political support for Israel. The Presidency of Mubarak saw a continuation of the policy established by his predecessor, President Anwar Sadat, of peaceful co-operation with the Israeli government. For many in Palestine this had been seen as Egypt’s betrayal of a fellow Arab, Islamic nation. However with a new government in Egypt; a government of the Muslim Brotherhood, it is widely believe that Palestine’s position in the Middle East may change. Hamas, who rule the Gaza strip, are seen as potentially the biggest benefactors of the new Egyptian government, as Hamas itself is an offshoot of the Muslim Brotherhood and has maintained strong historical ties with the Palestinian organization.

In Gaza the news of President Mursi’s election was met with great support with many officials and ordinary people believing that Mursi will open the borders for trade between Gaza and Egypt and that, because of his pro-Islamic stance will take a harder line against Israel with regards to their treatment over Palestine.

This may indeed happen. The Muslim Brotherhood are supporters of Hamas and are attempting to guide Hamas from being seen as a terrorist, military organization, fighting a war of freedom against Israeli control and occupation, to a fully operational political party that can effectively deal with many of the social and economic problems that affect the region, including high levels of poverty and unemployment. If Mursi’s government can achieve a change in the political outlook of Hamas then Gaza will be far better placed to deal with Israel and, with the support of Egypt, they could achieve far more in diplomatic talks.

However Gaza’s dream of a new relationship between Palestine and Egypt faces many problems, both from within Egypt and from international political pressure, that does not want to see an escalation in Middle East tensions. Within Egypt the limitations of the new government are profound and will likely hamper any further development in Egyptian-Gaza relations. The new President will have to fight with the ruling army officials for control within government and thus control over foreign policy, meaning that improved relations and agreements with Gaza may take longer than many assume. Limitations in Egypt are also seen in society with the new regime looking to solve its own problems in both the economy and society first, before dealing with its international position in the Middle East. Only once it is stable can it use its political power to influence the wider Middle East region.

But limitations are not just on the Egyptian side; in Palestine itself, the political situation may undo any potential development. For many in Hamas, the Islamic regimes in Turkey and Egypt are key to their future success but it could propel many in the political party towards a more radical stance on Islamic politics in the belief that they have support across the region. However a move towards radicalism is heavily opposed by many in Egypt who believe that instead Hamas should focus on becoming a more moderate party who are prepared to work alongside the authorities in the West Bank and Israel.

Ultimately those observing the situation believe that Gaza’s politics could be their biggest obstacle to development and trade with Egypt. If a more moderate stance is not adopted by Hamas, Egypt will be reluctant to invest and help develop the nation, instead seeking to maintain its relationship with Israel and not further isolate itself from large global players, such as the USA. However if Hamas and Gaza can achieve a more stable and politically strong regime then the potential to work with the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt is huge, possibly leading to a new era in Palestinian politics.

By Peter Banham

South Sudan: What is it Like One Year On?

South Sudan was a country born out of conflict and the first year of its independence has been clouded in difficulty; with its relationship with Sudan and economic future the main problems facing the country at the moment.

On the 9th July 2011 South Sudan gained independence from Sudan creating the world’s newest country in the heart of Africa. However there was much controversy in the build up to independence which was brought about after decades of ethnic and religious conflict between the Arabic/Muslim population in the North and the African/Christian population in the South. South Sudan contains most of the oil resources in the country, a major source of income and investment from nations, such as China. With independence Sudan has lost 75% of the oil and tensions between the two nations have centred around the oil rich regions, such as Abyei, which exist on the border and contain vast quantities of the highly prized resources.

This relationship continues to dominate the foreign relations of the South Sudan and many of South Sudan’s other neighbours, including Uganda, have pledged support to President Salva Kiir in his dealings with Khartoum and President Omar al-Bashir, a leader who is becoming increasingly isolated, both within African and global politics.

With this guarantee of support from African leaders South Sudan’s position in central African politics appears more secure, however if Sudan decides to escalate its military action it may fundamentally threaten the stability of the world’s newest state, which lacks the military power to take on the might of its Northern neighbour and the political strength to recover from an armed conflict.

However South Sudan does not simply have to think about its political future; in order to function effectively as a nation it has to look to its economic future. Although it has 75% of Sudanese oil supplies it lacks the infrastructure to extract and transport the oil and thus cannot make an effective profit on this resource. They, as a landlocked country, have a difficult task to ship the extracted oil and thus must rely on their neighbours, including Sudan, who export most of their oil through the coastal city of Port Sudan. Disagreements over transit fees. however, have caused a halt in South Sudanese oil exports and thus intensified the economic pressures in the country.

With heavy investment from nations such as China, who are looking to secure their energy futures, the potential to develop the economic infrastructure is huge and so the economic future many improve for South Sudan, although overcoming the poverty and economic problems in this African nation will prove to be difficult. South Sudan’s economy was certainly the focus of President Kiir’s speech on the anniversary in which he called for the ‘economic independence’ of the country, which many analysts have taken as a sign that South Sudan wants to distance itself from Sudan.

The future for South Sudan is clearly difficult, with economic and political issues defining the future for the African state. The oil industry and its relationship with Sudan will be the focus for many in Africa and around the world that have a vested interest in the future development of the World’s newest state.

By Peter Banham