THE OCCULT OF OCTOBER: CATALONIA TODAY, SCOTLAND TOMORROW?

October is considered the best month to visit Catalonia owing to the Barcelona Jazz Festival, the human castle building competition in Tarragona, the sparkling wine festival in Sant Sadurni d’Anoia and the festivities in Girona surrounding the Fires de Sant Narcis. Yet October 2017 draws to a close on a highly contentious note with a referendum, a declaration of independence and attempts to secede being met with a military response, the invoking of constitutional provisions for direct rule and strong attempts to stop the disintegration of a country.

Spain’s political turmoil in recent months has left the world flummoxed as states, especially in European Union, cautiously observe developments within a country which once conquered large swathes of territory and enforced the use of a language that is the second most spoken in the world today. Two centuries ago, at the Battle of Maipú, Spanish control of the southern region of South America ended. While the Argentine native, Jose de San Martin crossed into Chile in 1817 and joined forces with Bernardo O’Higgins to drive the Spanish out the following year, it would be a matter of years before the Spanish were completely routed from the mainland and retained only Cuba and Puerto Rico until 1898 when they became protectorates of the United States of America following the Spanish – American War. Two hundred years later in 2017 Spain grapples with a problem within her own mainland, which has festered for centuries.

The Catalan secession bid is not new. Identified as a vital region by the Romans, leaders and their empires at varied times, have recognised autonomous rule whilst thwarting attempts of secession. Catalans even placed themselves under French rule during the reign of Louis XIII, before facing complete subjugation in the ensuing decades. The harshest times were under General Franco who did not recognize autonomy. The President of Catalania from 1934, Lluís Companys became the first democratically elected European leader to be executed when he was killed by a firing squad on October 15^th 1940, following his capture by the Gestapo and being handed over to Franco’s forces. It is against such a backdrop that the Catalan bid to secede draws international significance as the resistance movement has floundered and flourished over the centuries.

The troubling factor remains the impact on the region, given the sensitivity of the issue. Secession is never a comfortable subject given the ramifications experienced and precedents established. With memories of the disintegration of Yugoslavia, the subsequent secession of Kosovo, the division of Sudan and the independence of East Timor among others, Catalonia’s people themselves stand divided despite the overwhelming Parliamentary vote of independence.

The October 01^st 2017 referendum called by Catalan President Carles Puigdemont rang alarm bells in Spain. Immediate concern arises over the validity of the vote, at which 90% of the 43% of eligible voters supported independence. This translates into 38.7% of the total eligible voters supporting secession.

What then of the remaining 61.3% and their stance on the issue of independence?

Nationalism, Europe and secession movements

The most pressing problem in Europe at the moment was supposed to be Brexit and the efforts being made to reach a ‘deal’ which is acceptable to all. Whilst the regional body was trying to extricate itself from the logjam of Brexit, Catalonia poses fresh concern as sovereignty and regionalism are challenged once again.

Nationalistic sentiment heightened in 2017. Dutch elections saw Geert Wilders out-performing expectation. France’s Marine Le Pen came to the very doorstep of the Elysees, before losing in the final round of the Presidential election. Germany’s far-right Alternative for Germany (AfD) became the third largest party, winning seats in the Bundestag for the first time. Although moderates were able to hold sway in 2017, the ensuing period till the next round of elections in 2022 remains crucial. Policy formulation and implementation over the next half a decade will decide the demise or rise of nationalism in Europe.

The present remains most concerning. Leaders across Europe have been quick to express explicit support for Spanish Prime Minister Mariano Rajoy. Knowing the consequences of secession, they don’t want the Catalan issue spreading its tentacles or influencing separatist movements in their respective territories. France’s Macron and his government have been firm in their opposition. Nationalist sentiments in Corsica and Brittany saw Macron not winning a single seat in the former territory at the parliamentary election earlier this year, but three seats were filled by a secessionist alliance. Nationalists in Brittany waved the Catalan flag warning that it is they who would decide on their own future.

Contending with separatism in Italy, the country’s foreign minister Angelino Alfano condemned the independence declaration, over fears of separatism movements in the Lombardy and Veneto regions gathering momentum along with those in Sicily and South Tyrol. Catalonia’s impact spreads further caution in Croatia over Istria Country which has been demanding regional autonomy; in the Czech Republic owing to Moravia which has been seeking self-determination since 2005, and Czech Silesia; in Poland given the strong advocacy for autonomy in Upper Silesia; in Romania with ethnic Hungarians demanding secession in Székely Land; in Denmark, although to a lesser degree, over Bornholm which has sought independence since the 1990s and Faroe Islands’ similar plea since 1948; in Belgium with disagreement over Flanders and Wallonia, in Germany given Bavarian nationalism; and even in the Basque region of Spain.

Despite Catalonia constituting one of the wealthiest regions of Spain, and contributing a sizable economic value to the EU, the President of European Commission cautioned that he does not want ‘a situation where tomorrow, the European Union is made up of 95 different states.’ Jean-Claude Juncker’s fears are well founded as the domino effect of Catalonia could be experienced across the European region.

Given the plethora of struggles, it is the United Kingdom that faces the gravest threat. Scotland’s External Affairs Secretary Fiona Hyslop noted that the people of Catalonia ‘must have the ability to determine their own future’, but stopped short of openly recognizing the budding state. With Northern Ireland and Wales also harbouring secessionist movements, it is the enthusiasm of First Minister Nicola Sturgeon to discuss a further referendum on Scottish independence in autumn next year that appears the immediate consequence.

The occult of October could very well return in a year’s time as the focus moves from Spain to the United Kingdom in October 2018.

-   -   AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL

SILENCE IN THE NAME OF DEMOCRACY: A GLIMPSE AT MYANMAR AND THE NOBEL PRIZE

‘Democracy is hard to love’ expressed Iris Marion Young in her seminal work on Inclusion and Democracy, in which she looks at social exclusion and attempts to understand justice and its relation to democracy, inclusion and identity politics. While the nature of democracy has been the inclusion of all people in a country within the decision making process, in keeping with the notion of inclusivity, questions have been raised at varied periods over the actual exclusion of minorities, with many examples dotting the planet. 

Myanmar was reborn in the democratic world following the ending of decades of military rule and the gradual return to a civilian administration was hailed in many quarters. Freedom fighter, democracy advocate and long time house-arrest detainee Aung San Suu Kyi, not only emerged into the political sphere once again but her party received a mandate to lead the country. 2015 marked her re-entry having already won the general election of 1990 which the military refused to recognize. With her party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) securing 392 of the 492 seats that were contested at the time, her victory was an almost unanimous message from the people of Myanmar that they wanted change, from a military run junta to a democracy. Yet their voices went unheeded.

The failure of the military to respect the verdict did not result in countries trying to enforce the result by bringing about regime change or even using force against Myanmar. Messages were issued and speeches made but the democratic rhetoric appears to have been in its infancy in comparison with what countries in the Arab world experienced in the last decade. There was to be no ‘Asian Spring’ in Myanmar. The people had to wait for nearly three decades to go by before they could see positive change and the election of the NLD leading to the establishment of a government in which Suu Kyi would be State Counsellor and Foreign Minister, owing to her being barred constitutionally from holding the highest office.

A retrospective glance at the last seven decades since Myanmar received independence on January 04th 1948 shows very little in terms of progress as a democratic nation. Whilst General Aung San is hailed as the chief architect for Burmese independence he never lived to see it dawn. The subsequent years of civilian and military rule did little to support the democratic movement within the country, which had its name changed from Burma in 1989 by the ruling military junta, and the renaming of the capital from Rangoon to Yangon.

The country though steeped in history, mainly through its Buddhist connections with many countries in South Asia, is today facing criticism, over its handling of a minority community - the Rohingya - which is surprisingly not widely heard. Amounting to roughly two million, both within and outside Myanmar, the Rohingya community, is facing ethnic cleansing, and is not one of one of 135 distinct ethnic groups that have been recognized by the authorities. Falling outside the eight major national ethnic races of Bamar, Chin, Kachin, Kayin, Kayah, Mon, Rakhine and Shan, the Rohingya continue to face attacks. Whilst 1978, 1991-1992, 2012 and 2015 are some occasions on which the community was tortured, killed, forced to flee their homes and lost their loved ones and belongings, the suffering doesn’t appear to subside, despite the people having lived in the country for centuries.

Internationally, Turkey, their nemesis Saudi Arabia, as well as their protégé, the Maldives, and the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) has now been joined by India in condemning the violence that is raging in the parts of Myanmar, but global attention is elsewhere. This is not a nuclearised country nor is it of critical importance to most. Babies who are being washed ashore are on the beaches of an unknown beach. Images of torture and violence are limited to certain media outlets and widely ignored by more mainstream western media. Hence the attitude adopted at present is not surprising. Having praised the democratic transition that took place and the replacement of the military with civilian administrators, the international community prefers to remain silent than criticize that which they praised just a few years ago.

Today that transition appears cosmetic as the new leadership though having undergone immense hardship during decades of military rule, fail to realize the oppressive nature of its own administration. The Minister of Defence, Lt Gen. Sein Win, was formerly the Chief of Staff of the Bureau of Air Defence of the Myanmar Army. His deputy Minister is another general while the Ministries of Home Affairs and Border Affairs also have generals occupying the highest seats. Attention has been continuously focused on Aung San Suu Kyi, though presidential powers are retained by the little known Htin Kyaw.

Hence it is the Nobel laureate who has received condemnation for her stoic silence on the issue of ethnic cleansing. Whilst calls have been made for the award to be rescinded and withdrawn, the Committee awarding the Nobel Peace Prize has not been known for having ever revoked a prize and it is not likely to make an exception in support of the Rohingya. The irony lies in the fact that the Nobel prizes are named after a man whose premature obituary in a French newspaper read, ‘Le Merchant de la mort est mort’ (the merchant of death is dead).

Alfred Nobel realized, at least at the last stages of his life that his discovery of nitroglycerin, which was more powerful than gunpowder, as well as his invention of dynamite in 1867, gelignite in 1875 and ballistite in 1887, among 355 other patents he had been issued internationally, all brought about destruction. Coming from a family which had produced armaments in the Crimean War, Nobel even lost a younger brother and four others in the preparation of nitroglycerin in 1864 in Stockholm, yet at the time of his death had established 90 armament factories.

Though advancements made by individuals in varied fields have been hailed and rewarded in history, in the spirit of encouraging such feats and nurturing the growth of greater interest in the specified sector, the Nobel Prizes for peace, chemistry, medicine, physics and literature, have drawn criticism especially in the category of peace. 

In 1973, Henry Kissinger and Vietnamese leader Le Duc Tho were awarded the prize for negotiating a ceasefire between North Vietnam and the United States, but Tho rejected it owing to ongoing hostilities. Another American was Barack Obama who won the Prize in 2009, having been nominated just 11 days after assuming duties as President. Bringing about regime change in many Arab countries, Obama goes down in history as possibly the only recipient to have ordered the bombing of cities through the US drone programme.

Personalities such as Mahatma Gandhi and U Thant, a Burmese national to hold the post of United Nations Secretary General who was due to receive the award in 1965 for his role in defusing the Cuban Missile Crisis, seeing the end of the war in the Congo and mediating in the Vietnam War, are just two who were ignored by the Committee.

Irrespective of whether the Prize laureates have made a positive contribution or not, the Prize awarded to Aung Sang Suu Kyi will not be rescinded. A member of the 1991 Nobel Peace Prize Committee was quoted as saying that “the principle we follow is the decision is not a declaration of a saint. When the decision has been made and the award has been given, that ends the responsibility of the committee.” Her stance throughout these incidents of violence have been to claim that ‘no, it is not ethnic cleansing’.

Although the UN Secretary General has condemned the incidents, UN teams are unable to visit the affected areas owing to the non-issuance of visas for entry. The effectiveness of the United Nations is called into question once again as teams from countries wishing to act unilaterally have been able to enter Afghanistan, Iraq and Libya even without authorization from the UN, or any form of internal sanction. Yet the UN is unable to enter a country which pledged to uphold the UN Charter just months after independence in 1948.

From confusion over whether to still call the country Burma or Myanmar; the absence of a strong expatriate community; its location on the world map and the inability for most to find it; and the democratic transition the country faced in recent years, have resulted in a general silence being maintained. Condemning those who were praised remains a tough call, and one that most are unwilling to make. The question that thus arises is whether Myanmar is living up to the democratic values it yearned for years, or is the country still stuck in its autocratic past.

- AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL

THE MALACCA STRAITS AND JAPAN'S TIGHTER GRIP OF ASEAN

Japan has stepped forward to increase cooperation and assistance to ASEAN. Japanese Transport Minister Keiichi Ishii joining his Malaysian counterpart in declaring open the ASEAN Regional Training Centre for Vessel Traffic Services in Port Klang, Malaysia’s largest port on August 29, 2017, noted that advancements in the ASEAN region would result in greater traffic. The contribution of Japan which has been estimated at US$ 4 million has enabled the setting up of the facility, but more importantly and of much higher value is that it has given Japan a deeper stake in a region that once abhorred anything Japanese. 

Mistrust, prejudice and hatred stemming from the Second World War were to have a lasting impact on Japan’s relations with South East Asia, given the numerous war-time atrocities. Yet it was the Asian Development Bank, originally a concept of Thai banker, Paul Sithi-Amnuai that saw Japan gaining favour in the region. Calling for a regional bank, Sithi-Amnuai identified the need for an institution geared towards developing intra-regional trade. He did so when addressing a trade conference organized by the Economic Commission for Asia and the Far East (ECAFE) in 1963.

At first the United States vehemently opposed the creation of another regional bank, in the wake of the establishment of the Inter-American Development Bank in 1959, and given that the World Bank and International Monetary Fund possessed the ability to assist countries in the developing world, especially in South East Asia. A new venture was seen to curb American influence, and hence wasn’t a welcome suggestion.

With the escalation of the Vietnam War, President Lyndon Johnson was persuaded to support the establishment of the ADB in 1964. Senator J. William Fulbright, then Chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued that the War would not only bleed American blood and treasure, but would also be detrimental for America's image in Asia. Subsequently realizing the potential of such a bank, Johnson tasked former World Bank President Eugene Black with assisting in the establishment of the new institution.

Secretary of State Dean Rusk was keen on seeing Japan play an important role in the ADB, arguing that the biggest danger to American foreign policy in Asia was Japan's inability to integrate into the Asian society of nations following the animosities of the World War. Whilst countries expressed distinct opposition to Japan’s participation, persuasive American diplomacy resulted in Japan being accepted by the majority of participating nations, and a proposal was made that Tokyo would be the site of the bank's headquarters.

Meeting stiff opposition from Philippine President Ferdinand Marcos, who threatened to travel to every Asian capital and scuttle the idea, a decision was taken to locate the headquarters in Manila, thus silencing Marcos, and as a ‘concession’ to the Japanese, the inaugural presidency, which would be on a rotating basis, would first go to Japan. Interestingly the position has been retained by Japan ever since, with the concept of rotation long abandoned. Whilst taking up the presidency, Japan also arrogated itself control over critical "reserve positions" such as the directorship of the Budget, Personnel, and Management Systems Department.

By the end of 1972, Japan had contributed US$173.7 million, which was 22.6% of the total ordinary capital resources and US $122.6 million, 59.6% of the total special funds, while the United States contributed only US $1.25 million to the special fund. The ADB then focused much of its assistance on food production and rural development, with early loans going largely to Indonesia, Thailand, Malaysia, Republic of Korea and the Philippines, accounting for 78.48% of the total ADB loans between 1967 and 1972.

The mistrust, prejudice and hatred which had once bedeviled relations seemed to have rescinded as American strategy and Japanese implementation saw the tide change in relations between Japan and most of South East Asia. The usage of a bank and finances altered the perception of a country, and more importantly improved relations to such an extent that Japan cooperates extensively with countries, specifically in ASEAN.

The latest move to establish the ASEAN Regional Training Centre for Vessel Traffic Services comes in the wake of the collision of the USS John S. McCain on August 21, 2017 off the coast of Johar, Malaysia, which was the fourth accident that involved American vessels. The US vessel, from its home port of Yokosuka in Japan, had been on its way to Singapore. Collisions, ship wrecks in the waters, piracy and haze are just some of the challenges navigators of the Strait have to overcome.  

In November 2004, ASEAN members along with Bangladesh, China, India, Japan, South Korea and Sri Lanka signed the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAPP). It was Japanese Prime Minister Junichiro Koizumi who first articulated the need for the agreement at the ASEAN plus Three Summit in Brunei in 2001. He wanted the maintenance of a database, the conducting of analysis and carrying out the task of being an information clearing house.  

Efforts to boost cooperation and ensure greater involvement, though continuous, are being increased amidst attempts by ASEAN to ensure a balance of power in the region. China, following a similar model as Japan and the ADB, through their own mechanism, the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank which is augmenting the work of the One Belt One Road initiative of President Xi, is seeing results, as relations improve with ASEAN, in comparison to what they were a decade ago, or even a couple of years ago when looking at the Philippines.

China’s growing assertiveness in its relations cause concern for allies such America and Japan, who want to thwart, or at the very least, mitigate the impact China is having and the influence China is gaining in the region. Whilst the issues of the South China Sea seem to have abated, if only for the present, thanks in part to Philippine President Duterte and his altered policy towards China, and with attention focused on North Korea, China has been able to enhance economic influence in the intermission.  

While both Japan and China are keen on infrastructure development, and the Japanese having used the Overseas Development Assistance (ODA) programme since 1954 after signing the Colombo Plan, are confronted today with a stronger, determined and confident China. For the infrastructure development to occur, they also realize they need to maintain or at the very least ensure secure sea lanes, with the Malacca Straits being the most contentious at present. Running between Indonesia, Malaysia and Singapore, the Straits which are claimed to be the second busiest waterway in the world, rose in significance as it serves as a gateway in trade to and from Asia. Yet it has remained a source of friction as nearly half of the world’s total annual seaborne trade tonnage is said to pass through the Straits. Expansion of trade and the implementation of the OBOR initiative have seen the Straits gain in significance, and also become more vulnerable to regional and international rivalry.  

As Malaysia becomes home to the ASEAN Regional Training Centre for Vessel Traffic Services on the eve of its 60^th anniversary of independence, the role of the Centre, the entrenched involvement of Japan, the heightened influence of China, as well as the impact these two countries would have on ASEAN, are at spilling point. 

For Japan, the latest move indicates a step towards enhancement of ties with ASEAN. Yet ASEAN, whilst celebrating half a century under the banner of ‘Partnering for Change, Engaging the World,’ has balanced regional rivalry, and more importantly, gained in the process.

-          AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL

WHY REGIONAL INTEGRATION IS THE WAY FORWARD

Synergy has been closely related with mergers and acquisitions in the realm of business and commerce, yet the concept when related to International Relations (IR) and the engagement of states has the potential to replicate similar results. The process whereby two or more entities work together to create a result that none would have achieved on their own, has been experienced in Europe through the model of the European Union (EU). From an IR perspective, integration has seen the EU become one of the most advanced cooperative models the world has known. As a region, it has traversed decades and merged vital areas of trade, agriculture, immigration, currency and even foreign policy. The Coal and Steel Pact of 1951 saw Belgium, France, West Germany, Italy, the Netherlands and Luxembourg merging their vital resources, and not transfer them to a negative list, which other less-successful regions have done. 

The Treaty of Paris was aimed at achieving a political Europe through shared leadership, a common market and reaching the goal of a European Federation. The signatories thereof understood the herculean task ahead and realized they wouldn’t see the fruit of their action, yet they knew the beneficial nature of integration would auger well for the peace, security and unity of a region they called home.

Collective development

With the ending of the Second World War and the devastation in which Europe found itself the main focus was on avoiding further conflict, preserving peace and aiding development in countries that were caught up in the numerous battles that had ravaged lives, livelihoods and economies. The ensuing phase of development aided by America through the Marshall Plan and pursuant to the Truman Doctrine saw countries working with Germany, a country whose leadership had brought much destruction, albeit in its divided form.

The collective development the region experienced through gradual forms of integration resulted in the creation of a Common Market, adoption of common currency and reaping of shared benefits. Regarded as one of the strongest economic areas, the region has a population of 500 million, which is 7% of global population but accounts for 23% of nominal GDP in the world. A reduction of costs and prices has been realized through free trade and the removal of non-tariff barriers, with household income also increasing.

The collective decision to remove customs barriers has resulted in less paper-work, greater confidence and enabled countries like Ireland, Portugal and Spain to make significant economic progress owing to their membership in the regional bloc, which also boasts of countries which are occupy the highest rungs of the Human Development Index.

Reducing tension

While regionalism helped reduce suspicion, tension and brought Germany closer to countries in Europe, the process of interdependence enabled South East Asia to forge a cooperative system. Once countries realize the economic benefit of working together, tensions reduce drastically as they opt to engage rather that antagonize neighbours. The economic facilitation of dependence, though frowned upon for it’s over reliance, can, in an appropriate proportion, produce positive returns.   

As colonialism plagued South East Asia, countries responded individually as they grappled with the impact of the Cold War, the Vietnam war, border disputes, rivalries over islands, differing political systems and general widespread diversity. It has however been able to convert many challenges in to opportunities through its collaborative framework which was born through the Bangkok Declaration in 1967. The key focus on respecting state sovereignty, nonintervention in internal affairs and renouncing the use, or threat of use of force in resolving disputes that may arise, has collectively made a massive impact on an otherwise conflict prone region. Possessing an exhilarating diversity of community, language, traditions and geographical conditions, what could result in turmoil is being used instead to foster unity and cooperation.

Respect, more than tolerance, remains critical. Whilst tolerance is touted as an essential prerequisite for effective integration and general cooperation, it is the effort of going further and not merely tolerating, which itself has a negative connotation, but instead learning to respect difference and diversity that remains at the heart of reducing tension.

Strengthening security

Reduction in tension and the ability to co-exist augurs well for internal regional security but also has an added aspect of strengthening the security and stability of the region as a whole. Having overcome political differences, states look to consolidating their security, be it in the spheres of defence, economic, human, food and the list could be endless. It is argued that defence of the EU is more guaranteed by the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) than by the EU itself, yet the unified stance of countries even in a body such as NATO has seen them receiving a vital blanket of security, which they would otherwise have had to manage individually. It is integration that matters, and irrespective of the source of such integration, the resulting benefits accrued by member states, has seen a heavy reliance rather than indifference towards integration.

With terrorism, organized crime and cyber crime remaining at the top of the list of priorities in Europe, countries have done well to intensify the process of standardization, thereby raising the bar across the region, which in turn has boosted national mechanisms. The borderless region that has been created requires this intensified security mesh if it is to remain secure. Through Europe 2020 Strategy, the region is, through integration, introducing a collective security plan to protect ‘citizens, society and economy as well as infrastructure and services, prosperity, political stability and wellbeing.’  

Although the EU is hailed as the best model of integration, Brexit brought to the fore the question of whether the region integrated too much. Could they have continued in the form in which they existed or was it necessary to continue the process of seeing a truly borderless region in the realization of a European Federation? While a few, like the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP) felt they had, they led the charge of taking Britain out of the Union and have been successful in getting the required public support. Yet others, who benefited from integration, like the German Chancellor Angela Merkel truly believe in the European model and have found like-minded adherents in French President Macron and other European leaders.

At the signing of the Bangkok Declaration, Singapore’s Foreign Minister S. Rajaratnam cautioned that countries had to think at two levels, national and regional, at when embarking on integration. He noted that ‘if we are really serious about it, regional existence means painful adjustments to those practices and thinking in our respective countries. …If we are not going to do that, then regionalism remains a utopia.’ The visionary thinking fifty years ago saw South East Asia merge, just as Europe did owing to decisions taken nearly seven decades ago. The synergy of their actions from then to the present are benefiting generations now and will continue to do so in the future. Whilst the ‘pain’ Rajaratnam warned about remains a part of every collective decision a region has to take, it also means another step has been taken towards prosperity through collective development, peace through a reduction in tension and security through a cohesive policy.

-            

       -      AWARELOGUE EDITORIAL