Crisis in Ukraine

By the time 2014 rolled in, Ukraine was already in the middle of mass protests. The protests, nicknamed Euromaidan, were initially in response to pro-Russian President Viktor Yanukovych suspending preparations for the signing of an association agreement with the EU. The harsh crackdown by the government helped to embolden the protesters, which eventually resulted in Yanukovych fleeing the country on the 22^nd of February. Many Westerners assumed that would have meant the end of unrest in Ukraine, however that could not have been further from the truth.

Pro-Russian supporters in Crimea
Source: www.bbc.co.uk/news

The ousting of pro-Russian Yanukovych outraged his supporters and the Russian minority in Ukraine. The outrage was especially concentrated in the south and east of the country, where Yanukovych had drawn much of his support in elections. Outrage was especially pronounced in Crimea, which had the largest Russian minority in Ukraine. In fact ethnic Russians actually outnumbered ethnic Ukrainians in the peninsula. By the 26^th of February pro-Russian protesters had taken control of many positions within Crimea. Many of these ‘pro-Russian protesters’ were actually Russian servicemen in disguise. Many international observers believed that this was actually orchestrated by Russian President Vladimir Putin. When asked about this in April Putin seemed to confirm Western suspicions when he said that “of course Russian servicemen backed the Crimean self-defence forces.” A referendum was held on the 16^th of March on whether Crimea should join the Russian Federation. The vote (which was rigged) went overwhelmingly in favour of joining Russia, as a result Russia now considers the territory Russian, despite little international recognition.

After the remarkable success of Russia in taking Crimea, Putting turned his attention to eastern Ukraine. The eastern Oblasts (provinces) of Donetsk and Luhansk, known collectively as Donbass, have sizeable populations of ethnic Russians. However unlike Crimea, where ethnic Russians make up a majority of the population, they are only minorities in Donetsk and Luhansk. In the former they make up 38% and in the latter 39%. As a result simply taking the Oblasts would be far more difficult, and would be resisted much more by Ukraine. In early March pro-Russian militias began seizing government buildings in eastern Ukraine, many demanding independence from the country. They were remarkably similar to the protests in Crimea the previous month. Over the next six months the unrest turned into a full scale revolt with obvious, though unofficial, material support from Russia. Eventually a ceasefire was signed on the 5^th of September, which has been violated by both sides but is largely holding.

2015 will be an important year for Ukraine. Its government in Kiev is actively pursuing closer ties to Europe, whilst parts of the country are trying to separate. If Donetsk and Luhansk do break off this will be absolutely remarkable, and should worry countries with a Russian border. 

Ukrainian Crisis Approaches Boiling Point

The crisis in Ukraine has continued to get even hotter over the past week despite attempts by diplomats to secure a peace deal.

Eastern Ukraine has a large proportion of ethnic Russians, and many Ukrainians who are supportive of Russia. This is why the Kremlin has moved its focus from Crimea to the rest of eastern Ukraine. The series of events which resulted in Crimea joining Russia has begun to play out across the east. Armed men have taken numerous government buildings, erected Russian flags and demanded that they be allowed to join Russia. Just like the armed men in Crimea they are too well-organised to simply be pro-Russian locals. Rather, they are mostly members of the Russian armed forces. Of course Russia denies that the militia are connected to the Russian military, but they made the same statements about the militia in Crimea and have since admitted that they were actually Russian soldiers.

Yet, as I have said in my previous posts, these areas are not like Crimea. They are not majority Russian and hence the Ukrainian government will put up more of a fight for control of the region. Already Kiev had sent troops in to take some key positions back from the Russians.

Despite the chaotic situation in the east, there did seem to be some hope that a peaceful solution might actually be reached! The governments of Ukraine, Russia, the US and EU reached an agreement in Geneva. The agreement called for the dissolving of all illegal military groups, amnesty for all anti-government protesters and that the militias that have taken control of government buildings must leave them. Unfortunately that deal seems dead in the water as one of the spokesmen for the separatists has said that they are not bound by the deal.

This all plays perfectly into Putin’s hand; he gets to look like a sensible diplomat whilst continuing to destabilise eastern Ukraine through these separatists. If you want any more proof that Putin is planning on take eastern Ukraine, all you need to do is watch the press conference he held earlier this week in which he referred to the eastern parts of Ukraine as “new Russia”! If that isn’t a clear sign that he plans to go even further into the territory of Ukraine, I don’t know what could be!

We Need to Talk About Appeasement

When Russia took Crimea from Ukraine the West responded with shock. The reaction in Eastern and Central Europe was very different, for years leaders in those countries had warned that Russia had never lost its imperialistic ambitions. Fear is particularly rife in the Baltic States who, bar a brief period of independence between World Wards, spent several centuries under the rule of Russia.

If we look at demographics they may have a reason to fear Russian aggression. Estonia and Latvia have sizeable ethnic Russian minorities, particularly in the east of their countries. The county of Ida-Viru in north-eastern Estonia is over 70% Russian, even more ethnically homogenous than Crimea! When Putin decided that he was going to invade Crimea he used the excuse that he was only doing it to protect Russians from the new government in Kiev. In Latvia, Russians are frequently treated like second-class citizens. Perhaps Putin could use this as a pretext to invasion?

Yet there are massive differences between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states. The origins of the Crimean Crisis is the debate of whether Ukraine should tie itself closer to Russia or the EU. There is no such debate in the Baltic States, all three are members of the EU and NATO and are fully within the Western fold. Membership of NATO is of key importance here, no sovereign nation has invaded on of its members since its formation in 1949.

Another difference between Ukraine/Crimea and the Baltic states is of demographics and population. Estonia and Latvia have the highest proportions of ethnic Russians of the former USSR with 24.8% and 26.9% respectively. Compare this to Ukraine which has ‘only’ 17.3% ethnic Russians. But comparing country-wide percentages is not being intellectually honest. Russia has not invaded all of Ukraine, only Crimea. In Crimea 58.8% of the people are Russian. The population of these states is also important. Crimea has a population of 2.4 million, larger than both Estonia (1.3 million) and Latvia (2 million), only Lithuania with a population of 3 million is larger than Crimea. Lithuania has also got far fewer ethnic Russians, who make up only 5.8% of the population. There are more Russians in Crimea than the three Baltic States combined. The Estonian county of Ida-Viru has only 140,000 people in it. Would Putin really risk war with the West over an insignificant Estonian county? (no offence people of Ida-Viru county) When looking at the Baltic States Putin would be forced to do a cost-benefit analysis. He would then find the potential costs way too high and the benefits too few. It would seem inconceivable, but Putin has proved to be unpredictably before and will likely be so in the future.

So if the Baltic States will not be his next target, what will? The most commonly talked about are eastern Ukraine and Moldova.

Moldova is a small, landlocked country sandwiched between Ukraine and Romania. The fact that it does not border Russia, or even the sea, makes it seem strange that it might be the next flashpoint in a new Cold War. The fact that only 9.4% of Moldova is ethnically Russian further confuses the situation. Yet, as was the case with Ukraine, the problem is only part of the country. When Moldova seceded from the Soviet Union in 1991 the eastern portion of Moldova, Transnistria, seceded from Moldova. Although no UN member recognises the independence of Transnistria, it has been de facto independent for over 20 years. Another key issue is the demographics of the pseudo-independent state, it is roughly evenly split between Moldovans, Russians and Ukrainians (32, 30 and 29 respectively). Unlike the Baltic States, Moldova is not an EU or NATO member and hence is not well protected from foreign aggression.

Yet the major problem with invading Transnistria would be how could they get there? The most likely scenario would involve going through Ukraine and possibly Moldova. This could further destabilise the situation in Ukraine, especially since it would put Russian troops extremely close to Ukraine’s 4^th largest city, Odessa. Once they had control of Transnistria there would be the issue of what to do next? To move in/out of Transnistria would involve going through Ukraine, or Moldova and Romania. Considering Russia would have violated the sovereignty of the former two, they would be unlikely to willingly help Russia. Another option would be to take more territory, considering Putin’s actions already, it is not unthinkable. One issue that could prevent Russian action in Transnistria is the reaction that the rest of Moldova would have. Moldova is hoping is one day enter the European fold, Russia violating their sovereignty would likely cause them to seek closer ties with Europe sooner.

So if Transnistria is unlikely to happen, what really are the chances of Russia invading eastern Ukraine? As I have explained previously, no Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians (other than Crimea). Yet who says that Russia has to take an entire Oblast, perhaps just part of it. The city of Donetsk is 48% Russian, could Putin decide that he would likely to take that city?

Assigning probabilities is pointless as it all depends on how the West acts going into the future. If the West does nothing then the chances of Russia taking action in Transnistria, eastern Ukraine or the Baltic states would increase. If Putin does go further and the West does not take military action then we are taking about appeasement. I know accusing Putin of acting like Hitler seems drastic, but it is true. Hitler took Czechoslovakia and Poland to ‘protect’ ethnic Germans. If Putin takes Ukraine and Moldova to ‘protect’ ethnic Russians then how is he any different?

Chaos in Crimea

So the results of the referendum in Crimea are in and with a turnout of 83%, 96.6% of people voted to join Russia.

If you believe that, then you’ll believe anything. From the minute I heard about this I was convinced that it would be rigged. There’s certainly no way that the election could be considered fair, after all it’s very hard to have a fair election when there are men with guns that demand that you vote in a particular way.

Elections/referendums in which over 90% of the votes of one way are not necessarily rigged, last year the Falklands voted 99% to remain British, and not even the Argentinian government disputes the results. In the case of Crimea it does seem far-fetched that 96.6% of the voters would want to join Russia considering what we know about Crimea. Crimean Tartars are terrified of joining with Russia after how badly they were treated under the USSR. The Ukrainian population is more split, some supporting Kiev and others supporting Moscow.

I fundamentally believe in the right to national self-determination, within certain limits. I believe that if the Crimeans want to join Russia, then they should be allowed to, but it has to be done in the right way. You cannot hold the referendum whilst Russia is occupying the region and you must wait until the political climate cools, so that people can make rational choices.

Crimea becomes the third territory that Russia has taken off a sovereign nation. In 2008 Russia invaded the Caucasian nation of Georgia and took Abkhazia and South Ossetia from it. They have since become pseudo-independent nations that are in reality satellite Russian territories. Now people are wondering if Crimea will be the last territory that Russia steals, what about southern and eastern Ukraine? What about Transnistria, the pseudo-independent state formally part of Moldova?

It is important to note the special case of Crimea, Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Crimea I majority Russia, Abkhazia and South Ossetia declared their independence in the early 1990s. This is important to note as no other Ukrainian Oblast has more than 40% ethnic Russians and Transnistria has no border with Russia. Is it possible that Russia will take more of Ukraine? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Source: wikipedia

Crimean Annexation Imminent & Repeating History

The Crimean Parliament voted yesterday to become part of Russia, pending a referendum. This will further raise tensions between Russia and the West who have been exchanging verbal blows over the crisis. So what will the referendum actually say and when will it be held?

The Crimean Parliament is hoping that it can hold the referendum as the 16^th of March. It will contain the two following questions:

1.       Are you in favour of reuniting Crimea with Russia as a subject of the Russian Federation?

2.       Are you in favour of retaining the status of Crimea as part of Ukraine?

I have an issue with the wording in the first question, the use of the word ‘reuniting’ looks like an attempt to change the result. A better word to use would be joining.  Another problem with the referendum is over it constitutionality. Article 73 of the Ukrainian constitution states that only an all-Ukrainian referendum can change its territory. For a referendum to be called, the following conditions must be met.

1)      President of Ukraine calls for a referendum

2)      The Verkovna Rada (Ukrainian Parliament) calls for a referendum

3)      The people demand a referendum using the following conditions:

i)                    3 million people eligible to vote have signed a petition on the matter

ii)                   Two thirds of Ukraine’s 24 oblasts have at least 100,000 signatories

It is quite clear that these steps have not been followed, but nonetheless the Crimean Deputy Prime Minister, Rustam Temirgalier, denies that the move is unconstitutional. He claims that since the Crimean Parliament does not believe that the government in Kiev is legal, the move is perfectly constitutional. That makes no sense whatsoever.

There is no doubt in my mind that this referendum will be rigged. There is no way that the Crimean Parliament would pull something like this off without talking to Putin first. So think about this: Putin would be absolutely humiliated, both domestically and internationally, if the referendum were to turn out pro-Ukrainian. So he needs to make sure that there is no chance of losing the election, and so he will definitely make sure that it is rigged.

According to the latest Ukrainian census, Russians make up 58% of Crimea, which means that there is a good chance that they could lose this referendum if it was held fairly.

At this point I feel like Crimea may be a lost cause, but we cannot give in to the Russians.

Repeating history:

7^th of March 1936: Nazi Germany remilitarises the Rhineland, contrary to the Versailles Treaty that ended WWI. Other than some angry speeches, Britain and France do nothing.

12^th of March 1938: Nazi troops march into Austria

30^th of September 1938: Czechoslovakia agrees to hand the Sudetenland over to Nazi Germany

16^th of March 1939: Nazi troops take the rest of Czechoslovakia

1^st of September 1939: Nazi Germany invades Poland and WWII officially begins

August 2008: South Ossetia War results in Georgian loss of territory

16^th of March 2014: Crimea votes to join Russia.

??th of ????? 20??: Russia takes more of Ukraine

Fear of War Rises in Ukraine

The crisis in Ukraine is turning out to be the biggest geopolitical crisis in Europe this side of the millennium. The demands of the protesters, in the beginning, was simply a call for President Yanuchovych to turn towards the EU, rather than Russia.

Then everything changed last week.

The protests descended into chaos when the police attempted to take parts of Kiev that had been controlled by the protesters. As the situation got bloodier, a truce was hashed out between the government and the opposition, but it was not to last. The truce was declared on Thursday the 20^th of January, and dead by the 21^st! Friday turned out to be the bloodiest since protests began with an estimated 100 people killed, mostly on the opposition side.

As a result President Yanuchovych promised fresh elections, but it was too late, the Ukrainian Parliament voted unanimously to impeach him and replace him with the Chairman of the Ukrainian Parliament, Oleksandr Turchynov. Almost immediately Yanuchovych fled the country, fearful of his safety.

Unfortunately things have gotten even worse for Ukraine, the country may actually break apart! It has been evident throughout the portests that support for the EU is highest in the north and west of Ukraine, whilst support for Russia is highest in the south and east. This is because there are higher portions of ethnic Russians in the latter. This schism is being most acutely felt in Crimea, which is majority Russian.

Russia is trying desperately to make sure that Ukraine stays within its influence. Before the breakup of the USSR, Moscow held sway over all of Eastern Europe, today only Moldova, Belarus and Ukraine are under its wing. If Russia were to lose Ukraine, it would be a massive blow to its influence in the region. As a result Russian President, Vladimir Putin, is doing everything he can to make sure that he does not lose Ukraine. On 26^th of February, Putin put 150,000 troops along the Ukraine-Russia border ‘on alert’. Two days later armed men took control of several government buildings in Simferopol, Crimea’s capital, and raised the Russian flag. Some suspect that the level of organisations of the men indicates that they had likely been trained and that the Russians were behind them.

To make matters worse, the Upper House of the Russian Parliament voted today, unanimously, to allow troops to be used in Ukraine! This looks like the beginning of the first war in Europe since Kosovo in 1999!

So what should the West do? I say fight fire with fire. We must promise that if Russia invades Ukraine, that we will send in troops to oppose them. I know it sounds drastic, but the only language Putin understands is brute force. By showing him that the West remains strong, he will have no choice but to stand down.

Horrific Violence in Ukraine

Violence has descended upon the streets of Ukraine once more, as clashes between police and protesters worsened. So far 26 people have been killed, 14 of them protesters and 12 police.

This is absolutely horrific, especially considering that just last week there were hopes of a deal. Protesters had agreed to leave some parliament buildings, in exchange the government would grant amnesty to the protesters. At the moment we don’t know whose fault it is for the violence, as both sides blame each other. Yet in the ensuing chaos it’s pretty clear that the government side has acted a lot worse. They have repeatedly broken promises they made and even set a building on fire, forcing people to jump out of buildings to escape the flames!

It was hoped that a truce agreed yesterday would give the politicians a chance to agree to something more long term. Unfortunately that truce has broken down thanks to the government. It didn't even last 24 hours! Today alone at least 17 protesters have been killed according to the BBC! This raises the total killed this week to 43, 31 of them protesters.

The only way out is for fresh elections, and if the government wins then I would be in favour of ending the Euromaidan protests. The current president, Viktor Yanukovych, won the highly dubious 2010 election with barely 3% more than his opponent. Some people would argue that as he won that election, that the protesters should simply wait until the next election in 2015, after all he was democratically elected! The problem with this argument is that Ukraine is not a stable democracy like Britain or America. This makes it more vulnerable to destruction. Four years may not appear like enough time to turn a democracy into a dictatorship, but remember: it only took Hitler two.

Thankfully the West has decided to act, America is preparing to impose sanctions and the EU is probably going to in the next few days. This has angered the Ukrainian and Russian governments who hope to crush the opposition. Russia’s foreign ministry blamed the West’s “conniving politics” for the protests. The great irony is: it was Russia’s ‘conniving politics’ that was the cause of the protests in the first place!

One of the many injured people
Source: BBC

Gay Rights - The Bad News

Unfortunately the news surrounding gay rights has not been entirely rosy. The West did appear to move forward together, the same cannot be said of other countries. The biggest anti-gay news came out of Russia and India which seriously disappointed gay rights activists. Africa and the Middle East continued their terrible reputation with gay rights.

Gay Rights – Russia

When the Soviet Union finally collapsed in 1991 the new Russia seemed eager to show its progressive side on social issues. In 1993 gay sex was legalised, four years later transgender people could legally change their gender and in 1999 homosexuality was declassified as a mental illness. Then came Vladimir Putin, he rose to Prime Minister in 1999 and after only a few months became President following Boris Yeltsin’s resignation. Originally he did nothing to gay rights, but as the years progressed he began to ally himself with the homophobic Russian Orthodox Church. To help cement the support of the religious right, he (and his United Russia party) began hacking away at gay rights. Although homosexuality is still legal in Russia, a law was passed last year that made ‘homosexual propaganda’ illegal.

The law itself is truly terrible and stops any sort of gay pride event or meeting in which homosexuality is discussed positively. In Russia if you break the law as an ordinary citizen you are fined 5,000 Russian roubles (£93/$153/€110). For public officials the fine is 50,000 roubles (£932/$1,525/€1,102), the maximum fine for organisations is 1 million roubles (£18,631/$30,500/€22,037) and they must halt activity for up to 90 days. If you try and ‘promote homosexuality’ over the internet you can get fined 100,000 roubles (£1,863/$3,050/€2,204)! If you are a foreigner you can expect to get detained for 15 days before being deported, after paying your 100,000 rouble fine of course.

The disgraceful treatment of gays has resulted in people calling for a boycott of the Winter Olympics, which are to be held in Sochi, Russia later this year. Particularly vocal have been George Takei, an American actor, and Stephen Fry, a veteran British broadcaster. Both are openly gay and have drawn on their substantial fan base to call for a boycott of the games. In Fry’s letter to Prime Minister David Cameron he compared Putin’s treatment of gays to Hitler’s treatment of Jews in 1936, when the Olympic Games were held in Berlin. It is worth noting that Fry is of Jewish descent and had relatives die in the Holocaust.

 

Russian gay rights supporters being beaten by police
source: the Guardian

Gay Rights Elsewhere

India was the only other country to produce major anti-gay news. In 2009 the Delhi High Court ruled that Section 377 was unconstitutional and that all prohibitions on consenting sexual activities between adults that did not involve a commercial transaction were also unconstitutional. Section 377 of the Indian Penal Code was passed in 1860 by the ruling British government. Unfortunately the Supreme Court of India decided in December that the colonial era law was actually constitutional. This meant that gay sex was once again illegal in India.

It is a bit ironic when you think about it: When this law was passed in 1860, Britain was highly homophobic whereas India was not. Fast forward 160 years and you find a homophobic India and Britain leading the pro-gay rights charge!

Uganda has been at the centre of attention for several years now in relation to gay rights. Homosexuality is already illegal in Uganda, being found guilty of it could result in up to seven years of imprisonment. Yet for some that is not enough! In 2009 MP David Bahati introduced a bill that would call for the death penalty for people who had gay sex on multiple occasions. It was dubbed the ‘kill the gays bill’ and got immediate international attention, which resulted in it failing. Then last year the Speaker of Parliament, Rebecca Kadaga, introduced a new bill that was not quite as harsh as the original bill, but still demanded the death penalty for ‘aggravated’ homosexuality. That bill passed Parliament last month and new awaits President Yoweri Museveni’s signature.

More minor bad news for gay rights came out of Croatia, Zimbabwe and Australia. In Zimbabwe a referendum was held at the same time as other elections that banned same-sex marriage constitutionally. Considering Zimbabwe was never going to legalise same-sex marriage, this has little affect. Similarly Croatia had a referendum in which marriage was defined as being between one man and one woman. The result was 66% against marriage equality. It wasn’t entirely bad news though as the government immediately announced that it would try and pass a civil union bill this year. In Australia the Australian Capital Territory (Canberra) became the first Australian jurisdiction to legalise same-sex marriage! Hurray! Not so fast, unfortunately the federal government challenged the constitutionality of the same-sex marriage law, the court unfortunately ruled in the government’s favour. This means that gay marriage will not be becoming legal any time soon in Australia.  

Ukraine Should Remind us that the EU is Still Important

The EU has not had a great few years, the Euro currency has been in constant pain since the economic crisis of 2007-2009. The wealthier Euro nations such as Germany, Netherlands and Finland have had to support the appropriately named ‘PIIGS’ countries. All across the EU euro-scepticism is rising with the likes of the National Front in France and UKIP in the UK. You might think that with all that pain on the inside, non-EU nations would be hesitant about creating closer ties with the organisation. Especially when there is a viable alternative.

It will then come as a surprise to you to learn that there is a country in which pro-EU sentiment is strong enough to spark a revolution! That country is Ukraine.

The EU has eyed Ukraine as a country that it wishes to create closer bonds with. As part of the European Neighbourhood Policy it was trying to get Ukraine to sign an Association Agreement, so long as it implements certain reforms. The major problem was that the agreement is opposed by Ukraine’s ally, Russia. The President of Russia, Vladimir Putin, really hates the deal as he wants Ukraine to join the Eurasian Economic Community of five former Soviet States and eventually the customs union that includes only Russia, Belarus and Kazakhstan. The strong opposition from Putin caused Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych to refuse to sign the Agreement on the 29^th of November as he was supposed to. This sparked fury in Ukraine.

For the past ten days people have protested in cities all across Ukraine, but particularly in the capital, Kiev. The Ukrainian people have grown fed up with the historic influence of Russia and the Kremlin. They wish to leave its bitter embrace and join with Western Europe, in the hopes of some fresh air. The statue of Lenin in Kiev was torn down yesterday, as it was seen as a symbol of Russian oppression. It was replaced with the European Union’s flag – now a symbol of hope and democracy in the poor Eastern European country.

This is not the first time Ukrainians have taken to the streets to protest against Yanukovych. In 2004 he won a highly disputed election that resulted in mass demonstrations and the election being annulled. In the second election Yanukovych was easily beaten by his opponent, Viktor Yushchenko. The Orange Revolution, as it was later called, should have served as a warning to Yanukovych that if he messed with the Ukrainian people, then he would pay a high price.

It is difficult to say whether these demonstrations will actually cause a change in government, but they nonetheless show that the European Union is still important. To many people living in well-established democracies like the United Kingdom and France, the EU has outlived its usefulness. Founding it was meant to make war impossible amongst the ‘Great Powers’ of Europe, and in that it has succeeded. Yet to those who live in fledgling democracies, which could fail at any given moment, the EU is a beacon of light. It is something that they can work towards and will help stabilise their countries. It is something that has proven to bring economic well-being to the less advantaged nations. Ireland, Greece and Portugal may seem to be in a bad economic situation now, but it is still better than what it was in their pre-EU days. If the countries that did not ‘need’ the EU were to leave, you would find a significantly weaker EU, one that could not help the nations that need it.  

Britain Won't Intervene

Syria has dominated the headlines over the past few days and for good reason. It was announced that the UN inspectors would be finished and out of Syria by Saturday, the BBC revealed a new regime-committed atrocity, and France and America will likely intervene in Syria. But the biggest news came out of the UK.

Last night the House of Commons rejected David Cameron's proposal that we should have some form of limited intervention in Syria. This was despite Cameron conceding that intervention would have to follow the UN inspectors' report, that there would be a second vote in the House of Commons and we should at least try to go through the UN. The pro-intervention side said that we must show Assad that we are serious and that intervention would be perfectly legal from a humanitarian standpoint. Unfortunately Labour won the vote, 285 against intervention, 272 in favour. This means that Britain will not be able to intervene in Syria and it sends the message to Assad that Britain will not act against him if he uses chemical weapons again.

As this vote was taking place last night, the BBC was releasing evidence of a new atrocity in Syria. A Syrian air-force jet dropped, what is believed to be, some form of incendiary bomb on a school playground. The BBC reported that the injuries from nearby victims was consistent with that of napalm. So far, ten have died.

Meanwhile the US has revealed that it is certain that Assad used chemical weapons earlier this month. The report claimed that the US knows exactly when the attack took place and where the chemicals were launched from. The report claims that 1,429 people were killed and 426 were children. So the US and France are intervening, whilst Britain sits on the sidelines and Russia raises tensions by sending a warship to the eastern Mediterranean.

Watch this space folks.

Legality of Homosexual Acts Worldwide

In li­­ght of Russia moving backwards on gay rights, I have decided to look into how the world treats gays. In 123 countries homosexuality is legal, this accounts for 5,470,620,000 of the roughly 7.1 billion humans. In 74 countries, accounting for 1,261,145,000 people, homosexuality is illegal. The reason the numbers don’t add up is that whilst homosexual acts are still technically legal, Putin’s anti-gay law makes it effectively illegal. Here is a breakdown of the countries you really should not visit if you are gay:

Homosexuality punishable by death (Eight countries, 371 million people)

Afghanistan	Mauritania*1	Sudan
Iran	Nigeria*2	Yemen
Maldives*2	Saudi Arabia

Homosexuality punishable by life imprisonment (Six countries, 140 million people)

Barbados*4	Guyana*3	Tanzania
Burma/Myanmar	Sierra Leone*3	Uganda*2

Homosexuality punishable with a lesser punishment (60 countries, 890 million people)

Algeria	Kenya	Samoa
Angola	Kiribati*3	Senegal
Antigua and Barbuda	Kuwait*3	Seychelles*3
Bangladesh	Lesotho*3	Singapore*3*4
Belize*3	Liberia	Solomon Islands
Bhutan*4	Libya	Somalia
Botswana*4	Malawi	South Sudan
Brunei	Malaysia	Sri Lanka
Burundi	Mauritius*3	Swaziland*3
Cameroon	Morocco	Syria
Comoros	Namibia*4	Togo
Dominica	Nauru*3	Tonga*3
Eritrea	Oman*4	Trinidad and Tobago*4
Ethiopia	Pakistan	Tunisia
Gambia	Palau*3	Turkmenistan*3
Gaza*3	Papua New Guinea	Tuvalu*3
Ghana	Qatar	UAE
Grenada*3	Saint Kitts and Nevis*3	Uzbekistan*3
Guinea	Saint Lucia	Zambia
Jamaica*3	Saint Vincent and the Grenadines	Zimbabwe*3

*1 no executions since 1987

*2 Varies

*3 Female legal

*4 Unenforced

In these countries homosexuality is legal, but there may be other reasons why you don’t want to visit if you are gay:

Albania	Estonia	Mozambique
Andorra	Fiji	Nepal
Argentina	Finland	Netherlands
Armenia	France	New Zealand
Australia	Gabon	Nicaragua
Austria	Georgia	Niger
Azerbaijan	Germany	Norway
Bahamas	Greece	Palestine
Bahrain	Guatemala	Panama
Belarus	Guinea-Bissau	Paraguay
Belgium	Haiti	Peru
Benin	Honduras	Philippines
Bolivia	Hungary	Poland
Bosnia Herzegovina	India	Portugal
Brazil	Indonesia	Romania
Bulgaria	Iraq	Rwanda
Burkina Faso	Ireland	San Marino
Cambodia	Israel	São Tomé and Príncipe
Canada	Italy	Serbia
Cape Verde Islands	Japan	Slovakia
Central African Republic	Kazakhstan	Slovenia
Chad	Kosovo	South Africa
Chile	Kyrgyzstan	South Korea
China	Laos	Spain
Colombia	Latvia	Suriname
Congo (Democratic Republic of)	Lebanon	Sweden
Congo (Republic of)	Liechtenstein	Switzerland
Costa Rica	Lithuania	Taiwan
Côte d’Ivoire	Luxembourg	Tajikistan
Croatia	Macedonia	Thailand
Cuba	Madagascar	Timor-Leste
Cyprus	Mali	Turkey
Czech Republic	Malta	UK
Denmark	Marshall Islands	Ukraine
Djibouti	Mexico	Uruguay
Dominican Republic	Micronesia	USA
Ecuador	Moldova	Vanuatu
Egypt	Monaco	Vatican
El Salvador	Mongolia	Venezuela
Equatorial Guinea	Montenegro	Vietnam

As you can clearly see, the world has a long way to go on the issue of gay rights. Yet the world 50 years ago looked very different, with only a handful of countries allowing homosexuality. At the start of the last decade homosexuality was illegal in the US state of Minnesota, today there is legal same-sex marriage. This issue is rapidly advancing, and although there are a few Russias, most countries are moving in the right direction.

Green - countries where homosexual acts legal
Red - countries where homosexual acts are illegal (and Russia)
Grey - North Korea, where the law is unclear
Source: Me

Russia Cannot Host Olympics

Recently I have been writing about how gay rights has been taking great leaps forward in recent months. Unfortunately one country has been leaping in the opposite direction: Russia. Although homosexual acts are technically still legal, Putin and the Russian government have made any sort of expression of it illegal. The new law bans "propaganda of non-traditional sexual relations". Waving a gay pride. Illegal! Saying that homosexuality is normal. Illegal! Being openly homosexual. Illegal! The law applies to tourists as well, if you are caught performing any of the outlawed activities, you will be held for 14 days and then deported. This would mean that former Icelandic PM, Jóhanna Sigurðadóttir, could no longer visit Russia if she became PM again.

It is clear that this law is barbaric and it is symbolic of how the hope for Russia, following the collapse of Communism, has faded away. The law has faced, deservedly, harsh criticism from around the world and much of the world wants to act. The target the world found: the 2014 Winter Olympic Games. The games were awarded to the Russian city of Sochi in 2007 and since then the games have been marred in corruption scandals. In recent days there has been an increasingly vocal call for the Olympics to be moved from Sochi to somewhere else, anywhere else.

I fully support these efforts to move the 2014 Winter Olympics to somewhere else. The IOC recognises the rights of LGBT people and so cannot stand idly by whilst this barbarism continues in Russia. Stephen Fry has compared the Sochi Olympics to the 1936 Berlin Olympics when the IOC ignored Hitler's rampant anti-Semitism and allowed the games to go ahead. Putin's homophobic laws don't just criminalise and marginalise gays, they empower thugs and militias to beat up and kill gays. I urge Prime Minister David Cameron, the British Olympic Committee and the IOC to try and move the games to another venue. There are plenty of suitable locations worldwide, the Alps, Japan, Korea, Scandinavia, the US & Canada could all host the games easily, so they would not struggle to find a replacement city.

The barbarism must stop. Sign a change.org petition here to move the games. Also sign here to ask the sponsors of the Olympic games to act.http://www.change.org/petitions/stand-against-russia-s-brutal-crackdown-on-gay-rights-urge-winter-olympics-2014-sponsors-to-condemn-anti-gay-laws

Syria Talks Stall at G8

It's looking increasingly unlikely that the world is ever going to agree on what to do about Syria. In a joint press conference with Obama, Russian president Putin warned that Europe will suffer if they arm the rebels. There was one agreement though, both men agreed that chemical weapons should not be used. Which really isn't that big a leap, and as shown recently, Russia will simply reject any Western intelligence indicating the use of chemical weapons by the Assad regime.

This will have disappointed Cameron and Hollande who have been pressing the international community, particularly Russia and China, to do something constructive in Syria. Earlier today Cameron said the following:

"What we do need to do is bring about this peace conference and this transition so that the people in Syria can have a government that represents them rather than a government that's trying to butcher them."

There is a lot to worry about with intervention in Syria, frequently things are made worse by intervention. If we arm the rebels we risk what happened in Afghanistan, when American armed the Taliban to fight the Soviets, repeating itself in Syria. Boris Johnson has warned against arming "Syria's maniacs and fanatics". Personally I'm also wary of arming the rebels, what I favour is implementing a no-fly-zone. That way we help the rebels, but we don't give them anything that they could later turn on us.

I do fear what will happen in Syria regardless of what we do, 93,000 people have died since the uprising began. How many more must die before this brutal civil war will end? 

Terrorism

Terrorism did not slow down in 2012 unfortunately, thousands of people were killed across the globe in terrorist atrocities. Yet most of those attacks took place in just a handful of countries:

Country	Attacks*	Dead
Iraq	55	1,676
Afghanistan	35	543
Nigeria	21	511
Pakistan	30	425
Yemen	14	328
Somalia	11	78
Russia	9	51
Kenya	8	47
Colombia	5	31
China	2	26

*Co-ordinated attacks that take place on one day are counted as one attack.

Looking at this rather horrifying table you can see that Iraq had the worst year of any country. Terrorists killed over three times as many people as in Afghanistan, the second worst affected country. One of the most prominent terrorist attacks of the year was not in Iraq or Afghanistan, but Pakistan; the shooting of 15 year old Malala Yousafzai. Thankfully Malala survived and is recovering well in a British hospital. There were protests all across Pakistan against the assassination attempt and 50 Islamic clerics issued a fatwā against the perpetrators. Despite this the Taliban claim they still want to kill her and her father. So what was her ‘crime’? Trying to get young girls into education in Pakistan, this infuriated the Taliban who are anti-education especially when it comes to women. As Malala rose to fame in Pakistan, the Taliban increasingly sent death threats to her home and on the internet. But she continued in her struggle, in 2011 Desmond Tutu nominated her for the International Children’s Peace Prize and later won Pakistan’s first National Youth Prize. Time magazine recently selected her as the runner up of Time Magazine’s person of the year.

There was some pleasant news on the terrorist front, Anders Breivik, was finally sentenced to Prison for this mass shooting and bombing in July 2011.  There is finally closure for the families of the 77 killed and those that were on the island of Utøya on that fateful day.

Up until November 2012, Northern Ireland was relatively quiet on the terrorism front, apart from the odd bomb scare. Then on the 1^st of November a prison officer was shot dead. Then trouble began after Belfast City Council voted to fly the Union flag on certain days of the year. That seriously upset some unionists who for the past few weeks have been causing chaos across Northern Ireland, but particularly in Belfast.

Terrorism is something that will likely always exist, it will never go away but certain places such as the Basque region, Northern Ireland and Sri Lanka all prove that things can be done to improve the situation, to show the terrorists that talking produces better results. The West should learn from these if it ever wants to truly ‘defeat the Taliban’.

Malala Yousafzai's page in Time Magazine

Syria Crisis: Day 716

In the 716 days that have succeeded the 15^th of March 2011 roughly 40,000 Syrian civilians have been killed in the Syrian Civil War that threatens Bashar Al-Assad’s regime. Despite set-backs in the early parts of the War, more recently it would seem that in recent months the Syrian opposition has been slowly gaining ground and possibly the upper hand. On the international stage the Syrian opposition is continuously gaining ground over the Assad regime, with the formation of the ‘National Coalition for Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces’, the revolution gained on a key diplomatic front. Since then 11 countries (Bahrain, Kuwait, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, UAE, France, Turkey, UK and Italy) have recognised the National Coalition as the ‘sole legitimate representative of Syria’, most of the rest of Europe and the United States have given the NC at least some recognition.

Inside Syria things are looking darker for the regime; rebel forces have taken a number of military bases, including an airport, in the eastern province of Deir Ez-Zor. The rebels have also made some significant advances in Syria’s second city of Aleppo, capturing at least five army bases in the past few weeks. Capturing these bases not only provides the rebels with good morale, but with crucial tanks, heavy weapons and anti-aircraft missiles. High profile defections seem to happen every couple of weeks, this helps to weaken Assad politically.

Yet it’s not all over for the Assad regime, international allies in the form of Iran and Russia are proving vital for the regime. There have been reports that Russia has been supplying Assad with tonnes of banknotes to prevent the economic collapse of the Syrian government. Russian made weapons have also allowed the regime to gain a significant advantage over the rebels in technology.

Despite this, the odds are stacked against Assad, what worries many people are the possibility of the use of chemical weapons. The international community does know that the Assad regime has many chemical weapons; if Assad chose to use them they would devastate Syria. Releasing just one chemical weapon in a densely populated city such as Aleppo would kill thousands of civilians in one fell swoop. Although the Assad regime has promised never to use them, we know he is not a trustworthy person.

If Assad did choose to use chemical weapons, it would be the end for his regime. There is no way Russia could justify supporting his regime if he used this form of attack. It would spark such an outrage in western countries that military intervention could become a possibility, President Obama and David Cameron have both spoken about how the use of chemical weapons would be a red line. If Assad chooses to use chemical weapons, his end would be swift 

Pussy Riot Convicted

Devastating news for Russian democracy came today with the news that three members of Pussy Riot have been sentenced to two years each in a penal colony. The band drew international attention after performing a “punk prayer” in the Christ our Saviour cathedral in Moscow. The song called for the Virgin Mary to remove President Vladimir Putin from power and included many profanities. The case has divided Russia, many of Putin’s strongest supporters are very religious Conservatives, and to them this was blasphemy.  Many in the Orthodox Church felt that Pussy Riot should have been given an even harsher sentence.

Although I completely understand why many Christians would be offended by this, I also believe that what Pussy Riot did was right. Ever since Putin returned to the Kremlin earlier this year (in a rigged election), there have been numerous laws passed that crackdown on dissent and opposition. When Pussy Riot performed their song, they understood that the consequences for them personally would be grave, but this has given them a national and international stage to speak of their grievances. They have received widespread support in Russia and abroad, many artists such as Madonna, have come out in their support and calling for their release.

Today as the final verdict of guilty was given to the three band members (other band members not involved in this particular stunt are still free) up to 50 protesters were arrested outside the court room. Afterwards the chorus of international condemnation began with governments and institutions in America, Britain and the European Union brandishing the imprisonment as proof that Russia has lost its freedom of speech.

The next few days will be very important for the future of democracy in Russia, watch the public reaction to their conviction. If there are protests in Moscow then they will have been successful, and even if there isn’t, it still brought attention back to Russia’s lack of freedoms.