Category Archives: Uncategorized

President Trumps Controversial Peace Plan and Its Possible Security Implications

US President Donald Trump’s Peace plan, officially called Peace to Prosperity: A Vision to Improve the Lives of Palestinian and Israeli people or commonly known as the Middle East peace plan has caused a great amount of controversy since its unveiling on the 28^thJanuary 2020. On February 1^st2020, the Arab League unanimously voted to reject Trump’s plan designed to end the decades long Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Member states agreed the initiative did not meet the minimum rights and aspirations of the Palestinian people insisting on a two-state solution based on borders prior to 1967 which includes east Jerusalem as the capital of a future state of Palestine. The emergency meeting in Cairo was requested by Mahmoud Abbas, president of the Palestinian Authority, who pressed Arab states to take a clear stance against the US’s peace plan. States such as Saudi Arabia, Oman and Bahrain which are close US allies joined other members in rejecting the proposal after initially welcoming efforts to solve the protracted conflict. The Arab league is not the only organization to reject the proposal. Following the league’s decision, the European Union, The African Union and the Organization for Islamic Cooperation have rejected either all or parts of the plan on the 4^th9^thand 3^rdof February 2020 respectively. According to EU foreign affairs minister Josep Borrell the proposal breaks with Internationally agreed parameters adding that unresolved final status issues, which include the borders of a Palestinian state and the final status of Jerusalem, must be decided in negotiations between both parties. The EU minister warned that if implemented the plan would not go unchallenged. During the annual African Union Summit, the chairperson of the AU Commission said it had been “conceived outside of international consideration and in absence of Palestinian concerns”. South African president Cyril Ramaphosa compared the plan to elements of South Africa’s previous apartheid system. The plan was rejected by Palestinian leaders before the unveiling of the plan due to Trump’s prior policies that neglected Palestinian interests such as the recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel and the relocation of the US Embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem. In response to the announcement of the plan the Palestinian Authority cut all ties with the US and Israel on the 1^stof February 2020.

The Proposal is controversial primarily because of its political portion widely considered to favour Israel and neglect Palestinian aspirations. For instance, the plan recognises Palestinian rights to only 70 percent of the occupied West Bank and allows for Israeli sovereignty over Israeli settlements in the West Bank which, according to United Nations Security Council resolution 2334, constitutes “a flagrant violation of international law”. Over 300,000 Israeli citizens live in 121 government recognised Israeli settlements in the West Bank and roughly 200,000 live in settlements located in 12 neighbourhoods in east Jerusalem. The construction of settlements in what is widely regarded as occupied Palestinian territory began after 1967 when Israel captured East Jerusalem, the West Bank and the Gaza strip in the Six-Day War and is a major point of contention in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. In return for annexing portions of the West Bank, the plan proposes the possibility of land swaps stripping 350,000 Arab-Israeli citizens residing in 10 towns within the Israeli Triangle Zone of their citizenship. Palestinians will be given the Negev desert which is cut off from other Palestinian territories and the West Bank and Gaza Strip would be connected via a high-speed transportation link crossing under or over Israel. Moreover, Israel would be allowed to annex the entire Jordan Valley which is vital for Palestinian agriculture since it provides access to the Jordan river which irrigates 80,000 hectares of agricultural land in the West Bank. Israel regards the valley as militarily strategic.

Trump’s Middle East Plan imagines a demilitarized Palestinian state where Israel would be responsible for security at all international crossings into the proposed state with Palestinian airspace continuing to be under Israeli control. Palestine would not be allowed to have intelligence and security agreements with states and organizations Israel deems a threat to its security and the Israeli navy would be able to block prohibited weapons from entering Palestine. The plan further recognises all of Jerusalem as the capital of the state of Israel despite long-standing Palestinian aspirations to have East Jerusalem as their own capital. Instead the plan proposes Abu Dis, a village over 4 kilometres away from the old city, as the new capital of the envisioned Palestinian state. Under the plan refugees of the 1948 Arab-Israeli War and those of the 1967 Six-Day-War would have no right of return nor would their descendance. The return of Palestinian refugees would be subject to Israeli approval and the United Nations Relief and Works Agency for Palestine refugees in the near east created in 1949 would be terminated. Furthermore, the plan was made without any input from the Palestinians and designed by a team whose members had close ties to Israel and Israeli settlements. The team was led by Jared Kushner, Trumps son-in-law who, according to The Guardian has close family ties to Israeli prime minister Benjamin Netanyahu and had no expertise or prior experience pertaining to the Middle East in general. Kushner’s team included US ambassador to Israel David Friedman who has close ties to the Jewish Settler Movement in the occupied territories. Friedman has reportedly questioned the need for a Palestinian state and compared critics of Jewish settlements in the West Bank to Nazi collaborators. According to the proposal the main goal was to create a Palestinian state that lacks the ability to threaten Israel which essentially entails “the limitation of certain sovereign powers”. Hence it can be argued that the plan did not have the intention of establishing a fully autonomous sovereign Palestinian state that resembles other states in the international system.

The announcement in January sparked small, sporadic demonstrations in the West Bank cities of Tubas, Bethlehem and Tulkarem. At least 41 people were wounded in small scale clashes following the use of rubber bullets and tear gas by Israeli forces against protesters in the Jordan Valley, Tulkarem and the Al-Orub refugee camp on the 29^thof January 2020. A series of security incidents in the West Bank relating to the plan followed in February. For instance, Israeli forces shot and killed a Palestinian teenager with Israeli citizenship during clashes in Hebron on the 5^thof February. Another teenager was shot dead in Tulkarem in clashes with Israeli forces on the 7^thof February. At least 14 Israeli soldiers were injured in a car ramming attack suspected to be terror related outside a night club in Jerusalem. The car was later found in a town outside Bethlehem in a town called Beit Jala, but the motorist has yet to be caught. Amid such high tensions, Israeli forces shot dead two Palestinians during a protest in Jenin against the demolition of a Palestinian house. Incidents have also occurred in the Gaza Strip currently governed by the armed Palestinian group Hamas. The Israeli army reported two mortar shells fired from the enclave towards Israel on the 5^thof February. On the 6^thof February Israeli aircrafts struck Hamas positions after Palestinians launched projectiles and explosive balloons from the Strip. Two rockets were launched from the Gaza strip on the 16^thof February prompting Israel to cancel a slight easing of the blockade in Gaza imposed  by Israel and Egypt since 2007. The armed group Palestinian Islamic Jihad fired 20 rockets from the Strip in response to Israeli forces shooting dead a Palestinian accused of planting an explosive device on the Gaza separation border. Israel carried out a number of airstrikes on what it referred to as “terrorist sites” in Gaza and near Damascus Syria. The PIJ have confirmed that two of its fighters have been killed in Syria.  Tensions between Palestinians and Israeli forces are still high.

If implemented the plan could have significant security implications for the Middle East region. This could further strain what historically are sour relations between Israel and its Arab neighbours. Nineteen Arab league members including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Oman, Qatar and the UAE currently fail to recognise Israel as a legitimate state. Seven Arab countries joined forces against Israel in the Arab-Israeli War including Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Egypt and Jordan who bitterly opposed the establishment of an Israeli state in what they considered  Arab territory. The very same countries were also involved in the Six-Day-War against Israel in 1967. The state of Israel survived both wars and in 1967 occupied the West Bank and Gaza strip. Thus, due to the history between Arab states and Israel as well as the continuing occupation of Arab-Palestinian territories, anti-Israeli sentiment has been historically high among Arab nations. Only Jordan and Egypt have peace treaties with Israel. The peace between Israel and Jordan in particular will likely be tested. Jordan, a kingdom where half the population is estimated to be Palestinian by origin or identity, has a complicated history with Israel. The kingdom annexed the West Bank and east Jerusalem following the Arab-Israeli War and subsequently lost the territories to Israel during the Six-Day-War. The kingdom has supported the Palestinian Liberation Organization’s efforts to establish a Palestinian state in the West Bank and Gaza strip despite tensions between the Hashemite monarchy and the PLO that culminated in a conflict in 1970 known as Black September. In 1994 the two nations signed a peace treaty officially ending a state of enmity between the two countries. Both states currently have some economic ties and cooperate on security and intelligence matters. In 2016, Israel and Jordan signed a deal worth ten billion US dollars which allows Israel to pump natural gas to Jordan’s national electricity company despite demonstrations in Jordan against the deal.

However, Jordan remains a supporter of Palestinian aspirations for a  state of Palestine based on borders before 1967 and its king is considered custodian of Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem, Islam’s third holiest site, a situation that can be a source of tension between the Kingdom and Israel. Trumps peace plan not only burdens the current peace between Jordan and Israel but also could create instability within Jordan as Palestinians there would likely react negatively to Israel’s annexation of over 30 percent of the West Bank and demand the Hashemite monarchy take action against Israel. Other Arab states in the region, may also have to deal with a possible rise in anti-Israeli sentiment that could follow the implementation of Trump’s plan and can lead to a greater following for radical and terrorist groups. Israel itself would possibly be less secure as its own Arab-Palestinian population could experience some form of radicalisation if the annexation occurs. The situation in the West Bank and Gaza strip would likely worsen. Palestinian territories may experience another uprising putting further Israeli and Palestinian lives at risk.

Germany’s Far-Right Terrorism and AFD

On 19 February 2020, a shooting occurred in 2 shisha bars in the city of Hanau, the Western side of Germany. The suspect has been identified as Tobias R, who killed himself and his mother after conducting the attack. The attack itself killed 9 people, 5 of which were Turkish citizens. Authorities stated that the suspect was a far-right extremist and that the motive behind the attack was racism, as a self-made racist manifesto was found amongst items left behind by the suspect. In June 2019, a politician from CDU Party, Walter Lubcke, who was famous for his pro-refugee rhetoric, was shot dead by a neo-nazi. In October 2019, another neo-nazi tried to carry out a massacre in a Synagogue with a home-made 3D printed weapon. He failed to break into the synagogue and ended up killing 2 civilian passers-by in frustration. In 2016, a far-right extremist carried out a mass shooting in Munich which targeted teenagers of non-German background. The terror attack ended up killing 9 people. Since 1990, Far-Right Terrorism in Germany is responsible for 208 deaths. Between 2016 and 2018 alone, Far-Right violence in Germany has far outstripped elsewhere in Western Europe with more than 60 incidents having occurred in Germany. Greece, which is in second place, experienced around 20 incidents, which is considered far less compared to Germany. People across Germany have pointed their fingers to one culprit for this phenomenon, the rise of the Far-Right Political Party, AFD (Alternative für Deutschland).

AFD is a far-right political party in Germany which has been using anti-refugee rhetoric and promoting islamophobia for their campaign. It is currently the biggest opposition party in Germany, holding 89 seats in the Bundestag parliament. The green party has identified AFD as a “political arm of hate”. However officials have been unable to directly link AFD with Far-Right terrorism since the party has always condemned any terror which has occurred in Germany. However, the party leaders have been known to refuse the fact that the terror perpetrators were influenced by far-right rhetoric, calling all of them disturbed individuals with psychological problems as the reason behind their actions. Political campaigns conducted by AFD have been using language which many politicians consider as being responsible for creating hate towards immigrants and Muslims. For example, AFD politicians have been calling migrant workers in Germany by using term “trash” and have positioned the AFD as a party which will dispose of those “trash”. AFD has also been describing Muslim migrants using the term “headscarf girls”, “well-fare supported knifemen”, and “other good-for-nothings”.

the AFD is believed to possess an enormous danger to bringing Germany back to Far-Right ideas. Support for AFD has been rising, varying from 10%-15% in opinion polls. Currently, the AFD might have no opportunity to directly enter the government, since all other large parties have been refusing to form a coalition with AFD. However, Germany’s current largest party, which is also the party of Chancellor Merkel, CDU, has been divided by faction for years. Since Angela Merkel’s term will end next year, the right-wing faction in CDU has been preparing to take control of the party from the centrist faction. The right-wing faction within CDU has been known for disobeying the party’s orders, including indirectly cooperating with the AFD in regional areas. If the right-wing faction takes control of the CDU after Merkel’s term ends, it is highly likely that the CDU will be eager to cooperate with the AFD in a direct manner within the national level.

Panama Water Crisis a Global Problem

Panama Water Crisis a Global Problem

Panama is experiencing a water crisis, with two decades of decreased rainfall and drought resulting in a decline in fresh water. The water crisis is affecting not only the population in Panama with a reduction in available drinking water but also the Panama Canal. With reduced access to water the canal is unable to operate at full capacity which is having a knock-on effect to the amount of trade passing through the canal. Water scarcity, however, is not unique to Panama and countries around the globe have been affected by a reduction in available drinking water including, France, China and South Africa.  UN water expresses that it is unlikely that there will be a global water shortage, however individual countries and regions need to urgently tackle the critical problems presented by water stress. Water needs to be treated as a precious resource which is scarce. Focus needs to be put on managing the demand of fresh water.

Seventy percent of the earth is made up of water, however, only 3 percent of that water is fresh water. Water is a precious resource with some regions, having very limited or no access to fresh water at all. Water scarcity is more often then not caused by pollution, agriculture, population growth and climate change. Pollution to water comes from many sources including pesticides and fertilizers from farms, untreated human wastewater, and industrial waste. As well as people polluting the water by throwing rubbish into rivers and water ways. Agriculture uses most of the world’s accessible freshwater equalling about 70 percent however, due to leaky irrigation systems, inefficient application methods as well as the cultivation of crops which require a large amount of water 60 percent of that water is wasted. Many countries which produce large amounts of crops are close to or have reached their water resource limits; these countries include India, China, Australia, Spain and the United States. The population in the last 50 years has more than doubled. This rapid growth has transformed water ecosystems around the world. Today 41 percent of the world’s population lives in river basins that are under water stress. Water availability is a growing concern as freshwater use continues at unsustainable levels. Not only through drinking and sanitation, the population growth has put pressure on the production of commodities and energy which rely on freshwater to be produced. Increased population means more carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases being pumped into the atmosphere, which affects weather patterns globally. With the changes in weather patterns droughts will become more common in some places and floods in other. Glaciers and snowpack’s will disappear all affecting the freshwater supplies. Combined these will make less water available for agriculture, energy generation, cities and ecosystems around the world.

Panama is facing a water challenge despite having one of the highest levels of precipitation and also having more than 500 rivers naturally dividing the territory. Panama has water in abundance however is facing a crisis of running out of water. Not only for drinking water and sanitation but the Panama Canal as well crucial for the national economy. Panama is seeing a gradual decrease in rainfall with the last five years experiencing the worst in two decades. The rainfall in 2019 was 27 percent below average, which has resulted in years of droughts.

The Panama Canal requires 5.2 million cubic meters of water to function correctly. The waterways and artificial reservoirs which supply the canal’s lock mechanism began the dry season of 2020 with a depth of 84 feet, 10 percent short of the amount needed to operate without restrictions. In 2019 the water levels got so low that the canal authority had to implement limits on the amount of cargo that ships could cross with. In 2019 the Panama Canal Authority (PCA) implemented limits on the maximum authorised draft of shops transitioning the locks. The draft of a ship is the vertical distance between the waterline and the bottom of the hull. In January the limit was restricted to 49 feet, further reductions were made throughout the year. By July the maximum authorised draft has been reduced to 44 feet in the Neopanamaz locks and 39.5 feet in the Panamaz locks. At the beginning of 2020 the PCA implemented further restrictions on the transit of the canal. The number of slots available for ships will be cut due to droughts and a freshwater charge on ships will be implemented to maintain the thoroughfare’s levels. These actions are tightening access to one of the world’s most important trading routes. The charges were implemented on February 15 which include a fixed charge of $10,000 for any vessel over 125 feet long, as well as a variable surcharge based on the level of Gatun Lake at time of transit. The authority has reported that these measures were being imposed due to a lack of rainfall, negatively affected the supply of water from Gatun Lake. Historically the canal has handled 5 percent of world trade and the restrictions being implemented could damage this as it is limiting an important source of money for the Panamanian economy, as well as for global trade. The ACP are concerned that if rainfall does not rise and the restrictions stay in place ships transiting Pacific-Atlantic waters will opt for other global routes. These routes include the Suez Canal in Egypt or via Arctic transits north of Russia or Canada as polar ice melts. The ACP have said that millions of dollars need to be spent to guarantee the water supply to the canal.

Unfortunately, the situation with the Panama Canal is not all that is affecting Panama and causing a water crisis. There is a pressure on water resources in Panama due to population growth, economic development, urbanisation and climate change have all affected the water in Panama. As well Panama has seen a drastic increase in recent years of flooding which contaminates the drinking water. Another aspect affecting the issue of flooding and water reduction is that the forest coverage has decreased significantly. Because forests play an important role in providing clean water, in addition, forests also absorb rainfall, refill groundwater aquifers, slow and filter storm water runoff, reduce floods and maintain watershed stability resilience. As well as a reduced forest in Panama there is also a lack of infrastructure, limiting access to drinking water and sanitation services in non-urban areas. The government in Panama have implemented actions of restoration and conservation around areas of watershed, including restoring forests in watersheds. Also, the implementation of sustainable water management and water infrastructure. The main cause of flooding as reported by Emilio Sempris the Minister of Environment in 2018 was that the storm drains have not been modernised in over 50 years since they were placed. Meaning that water has difficulty running away and causes flooding. Another key element is the lack of education of the population, with people throwing garbage into rivers and not understanding the consequences of their actions.

Water is an important resource and needs to be monitored not only by countries at risk of running out of or are low on water, but by all countries across the globe. It is not just third world countries which are at risk of running out of drinkable water which is crucial to human life. France in the summer of 2019 faced its worst droughts in 30 years. Rivers dried up, reservoirs were struggling to meet demands and rationing measures were implemented in the most severely hit areas. France experienced nine months of exceptionally dry weather with up to 60 percent less rainfall then normal. Climate change and the reduction in rainfall seemed to play a crucial role in the water shortage experienced in France. Farmers reported that their crops were at risk as irrigating fields were restricted in 50 of the country’s 95 departments. Another city which experienced a water crisis was Cape Town, South Africa in 2018. With rapid urbanisation, a dry climate and a high per capita water consumption, linked to three years of poor rainfall, the city announced drastic action was needed to avoid running out of water. A key priority for the administration in Cape Town was to reduce the demand a series of water-saving initiatives were introduced. Including instructions to limit shows to no longer than two minutes. Flushing the toilet when only necessary with a campaign slogan “if it’s yellow, let it mellow”. As well as the pushing of using recycled water. People were limited to a use of 50 litres per person per day which is low, considering the average daily per capital of use in California was 321 litres per person per day. The South African government took a risk and announced “day Zero” a moment when dam levels would be so low that they would turn off the taps in Cape Town and send people to communal water collection points. The announcement did prompt water stockpiling and panic as well as a drop in tourism bookings. However, it worked with the water use in Cape Town dropping from 600million litres per day to 507 million litres per day. Residents said that “The day zero campaign made us all think twice about water, we’ll never, ever, ever take water for granted again.” In most recent events we have seen the effects of climate change and reduced rainfall with the huge bush fires which hit Australia at the beginning of 2020. Due to drought the land was dry, and fires were able to spread easily causing mass devastation across the country. Successive droughts and the extra water that was needed to fight intense bushfires have caused an unprecedented shortage, with these regions now facing the prospect of the taps running out of water. As global temperatures continue to rise, cities and countries around the world will have to figure out how to do more with less water.

Proactive actions need to be taken by governments, businesses and even people across the globe to help prevent the running out of water. Water is a vital resource which needs to be taken seriously, to prevent water shortages. These preventions include sustainable water management, with the improvement of infrastructure as a priority. Using reclaimed water, rainwater harvesting, and recycled wastewater allow for a reduction in scarcity and ease the pressures on groundwater sources. Pollution control & better sewage treatment, without proper sanitation, the water becomes full of diseases and unsafe to drink. A key element in prevention is awareness of the potential scarcity of water and educating people on the possibility of water crises and how to prevent them. It is necessary to radically change the forms of consumption from individual use to supply chains of large companies.

Malawi’s Presidential Elections Ruling: A Bittersweet Turning Point

Malawi’s Presidential Elections Ruling: A Bittersweet Turning Point

Following months of instability characterised by violent protests and attacks on rights activists, on 3 February 2020, Malawi’s constitutional court annulled the presidential election results from 21 May 2019. Fresh elections will be held within 150 days, according to the court ruling. This new development in Malawi’s electoral destiny signals a progressive new chapter in the country’s attempts to maintain the integrity of its democratic process. Equally, this unprecedented ruling by the constitutional court means that the prospect of further violence and political instability in Malawi is likely to continue for at least 6 months.

The landmark ruling is significant because this is the first election to be legally challenged since Malawi’s independence in 1964. The ruling demonstrated the independence of the country’s judiciary, and more crucially, the judiciary’s ability to flex its legal muscles in a meaningful way. While the judges ruled that the election was not stolen, it said that there was blatant evidence of widespread rigging, which compromised the integrity of the election. This ruling came in favour of opposition parties, despite reports on 22 January 2020 of bribery attempts by a prominent Malawi Banker, Dr Thompson Mpinganjira. The implications of this decision are multi-fold. At a local level this is a win for opposition parties in Malawi and impedes on a culture of widespread impunity. The ruling also stands to change the political landscape of Malawi because the judges have declared the current first-past-the post system is unconstitutional; a gain of more than 50% is required in future elections. This has effectively weakened the power of the incumbent ruling party which had won 38.6% of the vote. Furthermore, this could change the strategic approaches of opposition parties in future elections, where coalitions are more likely.

At a regional level, Malawi’s decision has disrupted the status-quo of mired elections, dogged by broken and ineffective judiciaries. The recent contended results in the Democratic Republic of Congo and Zimbabwe election could have brought a different outcome, if the judiciary had taken similar action to that of Malawi. This ruling also comes at an opportune moment where opposition parties in the southern Africa region in 2019 generally fared badly during their respective elections. A big power shift from liberation movement parties to more contemporary parties had been projected, amid growing dissatisfaction with regional governments, poor service delivery, rising unemployment and inequality. The annulment of Malawi’s 2019 election signals an opportunity for the continued spreading of democracy in the wider southern Africa region, after it appeared as though these gains were backsliding. This hope is important at a time where former liberation movements see their support base eroding, and some governments look to “managed democracies” like Russia or China as a model.

Although the election annulment could have set a precedent of fair judicial arbitration in Malawi, it could prompt more authoritarian regimes to limit the effectiveness of an independent judiciary.

From a security perspective, the judicial ruling may have worked to maintain the integrity of a fair democratic process in Malawi; however, it has done little to assuage the challenge of maintaining public order and political stability amid heightened political tensions. In the months after the 21 May 2019 elections, there was widespread violence which involved looting and destruction of property. Two people, one police officer and one civilian- were reportedly killed during the multitude of anti-government demonstrations. In a report released in December 2019, by Malawi’s Human Rights Commission, it confirmed that at least 8 women were raped and sexually violated during October’s post- election unrest. The incident of the rapes had led to E.U diplomat to Malawi, Sandra Paesen, being ordered to leave the country for protesting the crime.

Despite the constitutional court ruling on 3 February 2020, reports surfaced on 6 February that foreigner’s shops were looted by mobs seeking to take advantage of the political uncertainty. On 13 February 2020, protestors padlocked the offices of the electoral commission in an effort to force the chairwoman of Malawi’s Electoral Commission to quit.

On the same day, the Constitutional Court in Malawi rejected the appeal brought by President Mutharika and Malawi’s Electoral Commission, to suspend its earlier judgement.

Although the judicial intervention in Malawi’s calamitous election saga may have protected the integrity of Malawi’s democratic process, so far this has resulted in more questions than answers, causing further instability in the country. As Malawi attempts to fund and run new presidential elections in under five months, it is likely for political tensions and civil unrest to escalate, which may result in demonstrations and incidences of violence continuing. The constitutional court has not just ordered a rerun of the elections, it has ruled that the country should do away with the first-past-the post system. In theory it is a matter of implementing the ruling, in reality, a consensus is unlikely on the exact interpretation of the decision. How political parties decide to strategically organise themselves and potentially coalesce for the elections, could be another source for instability and possible violence.

The period leading up to this rerun, the unknown outcome, and reaction to the results means that Malawi is likely to experience continued instability for at least the next 6 months.

Belarus: Caught between the East and West

The recent escalation of tensions between Russia and Belarus has created concern that Moscow is gearing up to annex Belarus like it did with Crimea. Russia and Belarus began 2020 without renewing their oil and gas contracts, resulting in Russia stopping its deliveries to the latter. This came after new oil taxes were expected to cost Belarus between $8-12 billion by 2024. While Belarus’s view is that Russia is exerting undue economic pressure on it, Kremlin-controlled media has accused Belarus of exploiting Russian resources. The country asked Russia last year to compensate its losses due to its ‘tax maneuver’. Russia responded by demanding a revitalisation of a 1999 Union State Treaty between the two. Belarus and Russia created this integration format in which they would retain sovereignty, territorial integrity, and constitutions. It provided for the unification or coordination of most economic and social policies, and at some time a united parliament and a constitutional act. Most importantly, they would share one head of state.

The Union State treaty has been at the centre of the dispute. Belarusian President Lukashenko has previously accused Russia of using this oil cut-off to attempt to force Belarus into joining it. “I understand what all those hints mean: You get the oil but you break up your country and join Russia,” he said at a December news conference. In January, he said that he did not wish to be the last president of Belarus. The Belarusian government has responded to the oil cut off by announcing it would reduce its energy dependence. Russian oil could be replaced with Norwegian, Polish, Ukrainian, and even American. Despite these efforts to retain Belarus’ sovereignty several protests against an integration with Russia were held in Belarus throughout January. Talks between the two has been conducted in secret, generating fear that Belarus will give up its sovereignty.

However, Lukashenko has warned that that unless the energy dispute is resolved Moscow could lose its only ally on the western border. If Russia continues pressuring the country, it may follow in Ukraine’s footsteps and start viewing it as a hostile nation. This would be a problem for Russia as it wants to retain Belarus as an ally. According to Yalowitz, former US ambassador to Belarus, Moscow has never forgotten that both Napoleon and the Nazis were able to come through Belarus when invading Russia. The country has long provided discounted oil to Belarus in return for it being a loyal buffer between Russia and Europe. The confrontation between Russia and the West after the 2014 Ukraine conflict started has only aggravated disagreements between Russia and Belarus. The worst-case scenario is one where a military conflict between NATO and Russia is initiated. Situated between the two, Belarusian territory could then become a battleground. In order to prevent this from happening it has taken a neutral stance in the conflict between Russia and Ukraine, and have encouraged peace talks. However, Moscow has started using economic levers, including the oil issue, to push Belarus to stand by it. If Russia succeeds in ‘taming’ its ally, this could be a potential problem for Western countries.

With Moscow’s history of invading neighbouring Georgia and Ukraine’s strategic Crimean peninsula, it is no wonder that there is speculation that Belarus might be next. Clark and Bugayova, analysts with the Washington D.C Institute for the Study of War, wrote in a May 14, 2019 briefing that the Kremlin “has a strategic interest in consolidating control over Belarus and ensuring the long-term alignment of its government and its people with Russia.” They wrote that Putin likely fears further integration between the West and Belarus, and wants to expand its military basing in the latter country. In addition, Putin could view leadership of the Union State as a possible way of remaining in power after the end of his last presidential term in 2024. However, other experts disagree. While Russia has in recent years performed several land grabs, annexation between Russia and Belarus is less likely. They say that Belarus does not have the same geostrategic appeal for Russia. From a military perspective, annexation would mean that the border between Russia and NATO would be lengthened which could increase Russia’s vulnerability. The move would also most likely provoke a tough response from the West.

In any way, Moscow will most likely continue to try asserting influence over Minsk. Even if full integration remains unlikely, at least for the immediate future, Russia will keep using political and economic means to strengthen its influence over Belarus. Meanwhile it will be difficult for Belarus to turn to the West as long as it remains an authoritarian state. Despite these tensions, Belarus could be the key to solving issues between Russia and the West. It could provide a place for regional security talks for the actors, including Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the United States. It is uniquely placed to encourage the establishment of regional security cooperation as it is situated between NATO and Russia. Indeed, it has held peace talks to settle the situation in Donbas, which was considered key in the search for ways to restore peace in eastern Ukraine. In this way, Belarus could play an important role in reducing tensions and improving Eastern European security.