Historic boundaries and historic injustices

Perhaps it is fitting during this week when the 100th anniversary of the Armenian genocide is being commemorated, that we note the recent words of Russian President Vladimir Putin.

In a film celebrating his 15 years in power (finally the pretense of his swapping the post of Presidency with his aide Medvedev for that of prime minister in order to circumvent the term limits on the Presidency has been cast aside), Mr. Putin yesterday stated, "It's not because Crimea has a strategic importance in the Black Sea region. It's because this has elements of historical justice. I believe we did the right thing and I don't regret anything,"


Mr Putin, soon to be in a hagiographic film starring himself. Photo from gblor.ru

What historic injustice did Putin put right in the annexation of the Crimean peninsula?

Depending on how far back one wishes to go, we might consider the three centuries of rule under the Ottoman empire in the 15th to 18th centuries, followed by Tsarist Russia annexing it in 1783. Soon after the Bolshevik revolution of 1917 was finally secured, it declared the peninsula a Crimean Autonomous Soviet Socialist Republic. In 1945 it became a Soviet oblast (province), and in 1954 was ceded to Ukraine. Those elusive and fleeting years when Russia and the Ukraine were ostensibly equal allies, the Russians maintained a Black Sea fleet based in the port capital of Sevastopol, Crimea, and Black Sea resorts allowed Russian and Soviet elite a respite at a warm ice-free setting for their holidays.

The Russian Black Sea fleet is based on the Crimean Peninsula. Photo from beforeitsnews.com

As the USSR collapsed in the early 1990s, the Crimean peninsula remained part of Ukraine until the latest upheaval in 2014 when Ukraine began to lean towards the West. Judging the West as lacking in resolve, Mr Putin and his green little men took over the peninsula and declared it part of Mother Russia once again and now we are up to date. Teatree assumes it was the unilateral decision by the Soviet politboro of 1954 to give the land to Ukraine that Mr Putin refers to as an historic injustice, though there are other possibilities.


Putin has always rejected the idea that these "green men" without official army insignias that suddenly showed up in eastern Ukraine were Russian. In the Crimea, Putin maintained the same story for a few months, but then conceded the obvious after the trumped up referendum that showed the majority of voters wanted to reunite with Mother Russia. Photo from www.independent.ie

One of the historic ethnic groups living on the Crimean peninsula were Muslim Tatars, comprising up to 25% of the population. After the Crimean War of 1853-1856 between the Tsarist Russia and Western powers fighting over the weakening Ottoman Empire,the tatars had to flee en masse to avoid persecution by the Russian victors who had ultimately maintained control. During the Bolshevik revolution of 1917-21 which devolved into a multi-year Russian civil war, the peninsula and its population was ravaged by multiple factions. The tatars who had filtered back to their native lands were ravaged once again in the 1930s by Soviet leader Stalin, who also introduced large numbers of Slavs into the region. In another irony, from 1923 into the second world war, there were efforts to move Soviet Jewry into the land, with one soviet functionary, Vyacheslav Molotov, even suggesting the idea of establishing a Jewish homeland.


The Crimean peninsula juts out into the Black Sea - it has changed hands and loyalties many times. Russian President Putin now claims it with the extra stamp of righting an historic injustice. Graphic from goodcounsel.blogspot.com

From a posting at the worldjewishlibrary, we read, "The Crimean peninsula was, for decades, a potential Jewish homeland. After Catherine the Great conquered Crimea from the Ottomons in 1783, she encouraged Jewish settlement to the region. In the following century, tens of thousands of predominantly young Jews moved to this part of "New Russia." By the late 1800s, Crimea had become a thriving training center for future Zionist pioneers who used the land to test agricultural techniques before they relocated to Palestine. In fact, Joseph Trumpeldor once trained potential migrants in the Crimea. The Soviet Politburo was even behind the idea and accepted a proposal to establish a Jewish Autonomous Region in the Crimea in 1923, though it later reversed the decision. Even so, from 1924 until 1938, the Joint Distribution Committee - through the American Jewish Joint Agricultural Corporation and its American Jewish financiers - supported Jewish agricultural settlements in Soviet Crimea."

At any rate, World War II brought savage fighting to the peninsula between German and Russian forces. Germany wanted the land for its strategic value and its warmer agricultural climate, and occupied it for nearly three years. Jews here, as well as in Ukraine were targeted for annihilation during that time. The Soviet army recaptured the capital city, Sevastopol, in 1944, and Stalin immediately ordered the entire population of Crimean Tatars forcibly deported to Central Asia as collective punishment for allegedly collaborating with the Nazis. Only late in the Soviet empire's existence were the tatars politically rehabilitated and allowed to return to what was now an ethnically slavic region with Ukrainian and Russian populations.


Crimean tatars loading up for exile after World War II, photo from flb.ru

In 2014, with Russian forces suddenly in charge once again on the peninsula, the tatars who had returned or remained were facing a dispiriting, though not unfamiliar dilemma. Embrace Russia or leave your homeland. An al-jazeera article captures the new plight in detail, found here.

Once again, Crimean tatars, shown here in their mosques, have been told that they must embrace Russia or face consequences. While they were neglected by Ukraine's government, they still had enjoyed relative freedom. Photo from www.theguardian.com

So on we go - the number of historic injustices are plentiful, many have been inadequately addressed, and many ignored. And Putin, like other strongmen of the past, has chosen to pick a particular slight but primarily to further his own power and influence.

The Pope names a truth

Wednesday, April 15, 2015 at sundown, begins Israel's Holocaust Holocaust and Heroism Remembrance Day, based on the start of the Warsaw ghetto uprising during WWII. It varies between April 7 and May 7 each year. January 27 is the official UN International Holocaust Day, begun in 2015. As most readers know, Israel's holocaust day and the UN remembrance itself is divisive - whole peoples deny or downplay the accuracy of the Holocaust figures. And some nations to this day would apparently love to see another Israeli holocaust occur ...

But there are other events of genocide, attempted genocide, or the vague "acts of genocide" that the US President Clinton tried to parse during the Rwandan darkness in 1994. And unlike many nations who calculate their response carefully, Pope Francis this past week stormed the citadel of obfuscation and declared the massacre of Armenians during World War I as this past century's first genocide that should not be forgotten.


Pope Francis speaking in very non-diplomatic terms ... a few days ago. Photo as published at kelmih.com

From a CNN posting, ""In the past century, our human family has lived through three massive and unprecedented tragedies," the Pope said at a Mass at St. Peter's Basilica to commemorate the 100th anniversary of the Armenian massacres.

"The first, which is widely considered 'the first genocide of the 20th century,' struck your own Armenian people," he said, referencing a 2001 declaration by Pope John Paul II and the head of the Armenian church.


One can ponder the clothing and the costumes of the Catholic and Armenian churches leadership (no shortage of symbolism and ceremony there), but sharp words can nonetheless pierce through the glitter. Pope Francis in white, the head of Armenia's Orthodox Church Karekin II, right, and Catholicos Aram I, left. (L'Osservatore Romano/Pool Photo via AP)

Pope Francis has made a number of utterances that have offended many. He has criticized growing economic inequality and unfettered markets; an excessively top-down Catholic Church hierarchy, asked for more tolerance of gays, turned away from the more lavish features of the papal lifestyle, washed the feet of convicts, has repeatedly called for greater efforts to lift up the world’s poor, denounced the killing and persecution of Christians in the past year, and said spanking children isn't all bad. For his troubles, nearly everyone is unhappy with something he has had words for, but also a bit more tuned in to what he might say next.

The mass killings of Armenians by the disintegrating Ottoman Turk empire during and after World War I is still a matter of debate as to which label to use, though the numbers 1 to 1.5 million are generally accepted. Graphic from www.armenocide.am

Modern day Turkey's response

Somewhat mystifyingly, Turkey's leadership today, under the somewhat erratic leadership of President Erdogan went "postal." As the Deutsch Welle news agency reported, "Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan on Tuesday accused Pope Francis of spouting "nonsense" and warned the pontiff not to make "such a mistake again." "We will not allow historical incidents to be taken out of their genuine context and be used as a tool to campaign against our country," Erdogan said in his first reaction to the pope's comments.

Not to be outdone, another "outraged" response came from Volkan Bozkir, Turkey’s minister for European affairs, who significantly upped the ante on his colleagues by suggesting that Argentines as a whole, and not just the pope, had been brainwashed by rich and powerful Armenians in their midst," so reports an article by the New York Times. Turkey recalled its ambassador to the Vatican.


Turkey's President Erdogan defending the honor of his country's past. He also has an interesting take on extremism at least when it occurs in countries other than his own. For example, regarding the killings in France at the beginning of this year, he has what one describes as "an unwavering belief that jihadi terrorism is caused by Islamophobia and thus victims such as the Charlie Hebdo cartoonists have it coming to them due to their actions ..." (read full article here) Photo from www.balkaneu.com

Here are a few remarks by Pope Francis from this NY Times article,

"In addressing the Armenian question, Francis quoted from a 2001 declaration by Pope John Paul II and Catholicos Karekin II, the Armenian Apostolic Church’s supreme patriarch, in which the two leaders called the Armenian slaughter a campaign of extermination that was “generally referred to as the first genocide of the 20th century.”

Vatican diplomats have been deliberately prudent in avoiding the term, so in using it during the Mass on Sunday, before an audience that included the Armenian president, Serzh Sargsyan, Francis clearly intended to provoke a response. He equated the fate of the Armenians with the genocides orchestrated by the Nazis and the Soviets under Stalin, while also condemning “other mass killings, like those in Cambodia, Rwanda, Burundi and Bosnia.”

“It seems that humanity is incapable of putting a halt to the shedding of innocent blood,” Francis said. “It seems that the human family has refused to learn from its mistakes caused by the law of terror, so that today, too, there are those who attempt to eliminate others with the help of a few, and with the complicit silence of others who simply stand by.”

The bottom line response from Turkey's Erdogan is that criticism against his country is a form of hate speech.

Interesting how labels are applied freely - what would George Orwell have to say ...

Nigeria election is historic - now the hard work begins

Gratifying to see pretty good coverage of Nigeria's recent election by news agencies. Because this election, conducted Saturday, March 29, resulted in the nation's first apparently successful and peaceful transition from one party to the opposition, a public exchange of respect and support by the incoming and outgoing president, a pledge to tackle corruption which has plagued this oil rich nation for decades, and finally a resolve by the new Muslim President to get serious about Boko Haram.


Nigeria - huge potential, still unrealized. Graphic from nigeriamasterweb.com

As a Voice of America report stated, "President-elect Muhammadu Buhari said his country has "embraced democracy" and put its one-party-state past behind it. “We have proven to the world that we are a people who have embraced democracy and a people who seek a government by, for and of the people," Buhari said. He spoke Wednesday in Abuja, just hours after the electoral commission declared him the official winner of Saturday's presidential election, defeating incumbent Goodluck Jonathan by more than 2 million votes.

Buhari says his government will "spare no effort" to defeat insurgent group Boko Haram. Buhari called Jonathan "a worthy opponent" and said he extends the "hand of fellowship" to the outgoing president. Jonathan, who conceded, called for peace, saying, “The unity, stability and progress of our dear country is more important than anything else.” ... There have been no reports of post-election violence in Nigeria - a major change from 2011, when news of Jonathan's victory over Buhari sparked violence in the north that killed about 800 people."


President elect Muhammedu Buhari (left) being publicly acknowledged by incumbent president Goodluck Jonathan. (Is that Kofi Annan, former UN Secretary in the background?) Photo from http://nationalmirroronline.net

Election factoids (from the Voice of America article)

*Jonathan's People's Democratic Party has ruled Nigeria since 1999.

*Buhari, 72, of the All Progressives Congress, is to be inaugurated May 29.

*Nigeria's Electoral Commission chairman Attahiru Jega announced earlier Wednesday that Buhari had officially won the election, getting 15.4 million votes to Jonathan's 12.9 million.

*President-elect Buhari was previously Nigeria's military ruler for 20 months after officers seized power in a December 1983 coup. He was toppled by another military coup, but has run for the presidency four times since democracy was restored in Nigeria in 1999.

Teatree musings

Mr. Buhari has declared two great directions for his incoming administration - 1) an end to endemic corruption that has stemmed to a great degree from revenues generated by the country's oil industry. 2) A serious fight to degrade if not destroy Boko Haram. These militants recently declared their allegiance to ISIS, the Islamic State jihadists ravaging Syria and Iraq and elsewhere.

His hands will be full. High oil prices that have long buoyed Nigeria have fallen in half in the past six months. Budgets that have been used to lavish funds on a variety of important and phantom needs alike are facing deep cuts. Now it gets serious - how to cut the fat and waste while leaving essential services functioning.


While Nigerian oil overwhelmingly flows via pipeline, apparently some fossil fuel is still delivered in barrels. In either case, the fortunes of Nigeria and revenues from its oil reserves go hand in hand. Photo from www.djazairess.com

Corruption

From an al-Jazeera article, "fundamentally, Buhari will need to oversee structural changes to the Nigerian state. Constitutional reform is needed to update or even replace the 1999 constitution with one that empowers citizens, decentralizes power and enables a more efficient governance framework. He will also need to revamp the oil sector. Jonathan’s administration was incapable of even enacting a new oil law, let alone tackling the massive corruption in the Nigerian National Petroleum Corp. There are perhaps 10 to 15 profitable years left before the world begins a concerted move away from hydrocarbons. Buhari’s administration can steer the Nigerian economy away from the curse of oil. A more efficient use of its diminished oil revenues could offer an opportunity for long-term infrastructural development and rapid turnaround in the power sector."

Military effectiveness and Boko Haram

Perhaps most intriguing is the emphasis that Mr Buhari has placed on defeating the Boko Haram insurgency. The nation, long split between a Christian south and Muslim north, has to some degree united behind the promises of Buhari to take the fight to Boko Haram. With his Muslim credentials, he has a high degree of support from many northern Nigerians, and thus may be able to push security initiatives against the jihadists in more certain terms. Certainly the very low bar of military effectiveness to this point gives him room to improve. As recently as January, the UK Guardian stated the prognosis succinctly, "Army corruption, troop mutinies, alienated citizens and a lack of political will are among reasons that militants continue to thrive." Items three and four may have changed dramatically with this election.


Nigerian soldiers training. To Teatree, the readiness and trustworthiness of Nigeria's military is a mystery. Certainly its performance in the past several years attempting to deal with the jihadists is dismal enough. Photo from africajournalismtheworld.com

As to turning around Nigeria's military effectiveness (items one and two above), that may be a much more difficult task. Time Magazine carried a recent piece (here) where it stated, "Nigeria’s military has been in decline for the past 16 years, says J. Peter Pham, director of the Africa Center at the Washington D.C.- based Atlantic Council, ever since the country moved from a military dictatorship to a democracy in 1999. The intervening years have seen the country’s armed forces hollowed out by a combination of poor leadership, graft, misdirected staff training and a succession of civilian governments so worried about another coup that they have starved the armed forces of key resources.

To a certain extent, part of the issue is size. The country may have a 90,000 strong standing army, says Pham, but not all of them are soldiers. Nurses, medics, administration personnel and military police don’t fight, “so the actual number of combat ready troops is much lower.” Add to the fact that some 3,000 troops are currently serving in United Nations peacekeeping missions around the world, and the number left is “inadequate for the task of defending a country the size of Nigeria,” with its population of 174 million and a history of local insurgencies."

Nigeria should be respected for its successful, clean election, while the leadership's unity during the changeover should not be minimized. And yet, now the hard work of good governance has just begun.

Israel's election shows democracy is messy

Winston Churchill once reflected, "Many forms of Gov­ern­ment have been tried, and will be tried in this world of sin and woe. No one pre­tends that democ­racy is per­fect or all-wise. Indeed it has been said that democ­racy is the worst form of Gov­ern­ment except for all those other forms that have been tried from time to time.…(stated in the UK House of Com­mons, 11 Novem­ber 1947)

And so we go to Israel's latest election held a few days ago, in which Benjamin Netanyahu and his party surged in the last few days (or had led along except in the most-desired-outcome category) to win big. One might think that the only election across the entire middle east, an election that was deemed fair, without rigging, and without violence or vendettas, would have been hailed as a triumph. Even an event that all Arab states in the region should strive to imitate.


A 2013 view ranking relative freedom in elections and multiparty democracy among the world's countries. In the Middle East only Israel stands out in the sea of red, though the nation is so small relatively speaking, one can barely make it out. For a larger and interactive map of the world's nations in 2015, go to freedomhouse.org/report

And yet there are many glum faces

To the U.S. administration, and many editorial boards of western news agencies and newspapers, the outcome of this election was a political disaster. Israel's right-leaning Likud party topped the center-left Zionist Union party by an even bigger margin than previously, even though predictions based on exit polling were still assuming a Zionist Union victory. In Israel itself, the glum left of center population expressed feelings of frustration and isolation - were they alone in their "correct assessment" of what was best for Israel? How could that be?

Benjamin Netanyahu and his Likud party won, not by a slim margin, but by a solid majority - an outcome conceded by the full spectrum of critics and parties of opposition. Photo from http://www.worldjewishcongress.org


Isaac Herzog, leader of the Zionist Union party was considered to be the front runner for much of the election campaign, and was a clear favorite of the U.S. administration. While the administration criticized Netanyahu for speaking by invitation to the U.S. Congress weeks ago, it was not a problem for U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry to add his prestige to the internal Israeli candidate of choice back in January 2015. Photo from tabletmag.com

Netanyahu's performance in the last few days of the election drew the most criticism. He stated that there would be no Palestinian state in the near future while he was Prime Minister (if elected ...). As reported by Ynet news before the election, "Having previously hinted that he would accept a Palestinian state, Netanyahu reversed course on Monday, citing risks that he linked to the regional spread of Islamist militancy. He said that if he is re-elected, the Palestinians would not get the independent state they seek in the West Bank, East Jerusalem and Gaza.

"Whoever moves to establish a Palestinian state or intends to withdraw from territory is simply yielding territory for radical Islamic terrorist attacks against Israel," he told the Israeli news site NRG. Asked if that meant a state would not be established if he remained prime minister, he said: "Indeed."

Upon winning the election, Netanyahu and his government sought to clarify his statements, emphasizing that a sustainable two nation solution was still his goal, but the emphasis was on what could last, what could guarantee more than just promises by the Palestinian Authority.

The U.S., Israel's strongest financial backer and ally, has chosen under the current administration to ratchet up its own pressure. Instead of asking its ally to clarify the words, or the meaning of the words, or some diplomatic-speak, it has chosen to take the most brittle meaning to the Prime Minister's words and from that threaten to reassess all manner of support and future advocacy for Israel.


These two leaders do not like each other - it took two full days before U.S. President Obama to make a call of congratulations to Netanyahu for triumphing in the only fair election held for hundreds of miles in all directions, and a process repeated time and time again since its founding in 1948. Photo from www.truthrevolt.org

Teatree's understanding is this - that Netanyahu is a polarizing figure, large numbers of Israelis have no doubt grown tired of his personality and confrontiveness. Israel can ill afford to isolate itself any more from its allies than it already is, whether fairly or not. Isaac Herzog was a pleasant refreshing alternative, and one who had been focused on internal economic bread and butter issues. And those issues are important.

On the other hand, Israel is nearly surrounded by a ring of hostile neighbors, and with Iran in the distance still working on nuclear capability, still considers itself under an existential threat. In that light, U.S. columnist Charles Krauthammer stridently defended Netanyahu's controversial remarks with several points below. The full opinion piece is here.

Krauthammer points out the falsity of "the idea that peace prospects are now dead because Netanyahu has declared that there will be no Palestinian state while he is Israel’s prime minister."

"There would be no peace and no Palestinian state if Isaac Herzog were prime minister either. Or Ehud Barak or Ehud Olmert for that matter. The latter two were (non-Likud) prime ministers who offered the Palestinians their own state — with its capital in Jerusalem and every Israeli settlement in the new Palestine uprooted — only to be rudely rejected. This is not ancient history. This is 2000, 2001 and 2008 — three astonishingly concessionary peace offers within the past 15 years. Every one rejected."

"The fundamental reality remains: This generation of Palestinian leadership — from Yasser Arafat to Mahmoud Abbas — has never and will never sign its name to a final peace settlement dividing the land with a Jewish state. And without that, no Israeli government of any kind will agree to a Palestinian state."

"Today, however, there is a second reason a peace agreement is impossible: the supreme instability of the entire Middle East. For half a century, it was run by dictators no one liked but with whom you could do business. ... That authoritarian order is gone, overthrown by the Arab Spring. Syria is wracked by a multi-sided civil war that has killed 200,000 people and that has al-Qaeda allies, Hezbollah fighters, government troops and even the occasional Iranian general prowling the Israeli border. Who inherits? No one knows."

"... everything is in flux. Amid this mayhem, by what magic would the West Bank, riven by a bitter Fatah-Hamas rivalry, be an island of stability? What would give any Israeli-Palestinian peace agreement even a modicum of durability? ... With or without elections, the West Bank could fall to Hamas overnight. At which point fire rains down on Tel Aviv, Ben Gurion Airport and the entire Israeli urban heartland — just as it rains down on southern Israel from Gaza when it suits Hamas, which has turned that first Palestinian state into a terrorist fire base."

"Any Arab-Israeli peace settlement would require Israel to make dangerous and inherently irreversible territorial concessions on the West Bank in return for promises and guarantees. Under current conditions, these would be written on sand."


Israel is tiny, and then there would be a Palestinian state interspersed ... As the saying goes, what could possibly go wrong? Graphic from www.pbs.org

Ruins are Rare, Extremists not so much

'"The incredible enormities of the Commune, their massacre of the Archbishop ... and other hostages, their countless murders of other persons who refused to join them in their fiendish work, their horrid and well organized plans of incendiary intended to destroy almost the entire city ... are crimes that will never die. I regret to say that to these unparalleled atrocities of the Commune are to be joined by the awful vengeances inflicted by the [fill in the blank] troops. The killing, tearing to pieces, stabbing, beating, and burning of men, women, and children, innocent and guilty alike, by the government troops will stain to the last ages the history of [fill in the blank], and the execrations of mankind will be heaped upon the names who shall be found responsible for acts that disgrace human nature." ... The value of the architectural landmarks and other treasures destroyed was inestimable.'

So recounts the historian David McCollough in his book, "The Greater Journey: Americans in Paris" of a dark two years of France's history, 1870-1871, when an anarchist movement took control of the city, only to be defeated by the government in exile two years later. The specific quote above is from the US ambassador to France at the time, Elihu Washburne - who critics dismissed as unfit for the job when first appointed by President Grant, yet distinguished himself throughout his long appointment, over eight years through a tumultuous time.

On the other hand ... who remembers the Commune, much less Elihu Washburne today? And what were those architectural landmarks and other treasures destroyed in Paris at that time? It brings us to this post - a musing over ruins and remnants of previous civilizations that are being destroyed by the extremists of the day - the jihadists. While the tragic slaughter of various peoples by ISIS and fellow jihadists is no doubt the bigger story, the loss of ruins are easier to stomach, and no doubt sooner to be forgotten.


"The ruins of the ancient city of Hatra, a center of religion and trade for the Parthian empire, are in present-day northern Iraq. The city flourished during the first and second centuries BC." photo by Nik Wheeler and quote both found at kids.britannica.com


Artifacts within a museum in the ancient Assyrian village of Nimrod are also offensive ... An image from video posted on a social media account affiliated with the Islamic State group, Feb. 26, 2015, militants take sledgehammers to an ancient artifact in the Ninevah Museum in Mosul, Iraq. Photo: Associated Press

Beyond ISIS, there are the ruins destroyed by Islamists in Timbuktu, Mali, a few years ago.


An ancient shrine in Mali of great offense. Photo from a video posted by the jihadists (what's with their insistence this all has to be recorded for posterity???)


What started off the latest round of purging was the destruction (courtesy of artillery used by the Taliban) in Afghanistan of a large carved image of Buddha. Photo from the NY Times.

This rising up of various extremists - anarchist, fascist, communist, now Islamist - at regular intervals is what keeps intact ruins rare ...

PS - some ruins elsewhere are under attack ...


Mayan ruins in Central America are subject to acidic rain, pollution, and simply the vibrancy of the jungle that has overtaken and hidden many ancient artifacts from today's pilgrims. Photo from water-spouts.blogspot.com

Much at stake in Nigeria's March election

Nigeria is Africa's most populous nation with over 173 million citizens. It is also the country where Boko Haram, the jihadist faction, has terrorized the northern half for the past several years, with little competent response from civil and military authorities.


Nigeria, in West Africa, and the jurisdictions where Boko Haram has been active in intimidation, kidnapping, general violence, and even massacres of villagers and university students. Graphic from The Economist.

So, there is some point to paying attention to its presidential and general assembly election scheduled for March 28, which is a six week postponement from the original plans. The current President, Goodluck Jonathan, has presided over nearly five years of apparent incompetence in attempts to contain and degrade the Boko Haram. Teatree is unsure whether this is due to distraction with other matters, or the exposure of a hollowed out military with a lack of discipline and focus when confronted with this internal force of marauders (ie. think of the meltdown of the Iraqi army when attacked by the Islamic State).


President Goodluck Jonathan, now facing an election where Boko Haram has become the main political issue, and one in which his track record is fairly dismal. Photo from festiveinspire.com

Officially, Nigerian leadership's reason to postpone the election was reported this way, "The security authorities claimed that a six-week military operation against the radical Islamist group Boko Haram, which is being conducted in the northeast of the country, was scheduled to begin on the same day as the election, leaving an inadequate security presence for voters in the rest of the country." President Jonathan's internal critics and political rivals for the presidency have called into question the postponement of the presidential elections, describing the extra weeks as a way for to him consolidate and build electoral support.

President Jonathan's main challenger is General Muhammadu Buhari, described in a Feb 20 Newsweek article as a "devout Muslim, ... a former military general [who] has failed on three occasions (2003, 2007 and 2011) in his bid to return as Nigerian president since the country moved from a series of military rulers to a democratic system in 1999. He survived a Boko Haram assassination attempt last July when a suicide bomber aligned to the radical Islamist group targeted his car in the northern city of Kaduna."

Nigerian opposition leader Buhari shown here speaking in London in early February. Photo by Afolabi Sotunde/Reuters

As many are aware, Nigeria is characterized as having a Christianized southern population and a Muslim northern population. The political and military leadership over the past decades of independence have generally taken into account the two mainstream perspectives with northern representation in roles of authority when a Southern individual was in power and vice versa.

With Boko Haram now savaging regions of the country, this election has bigger consequences at stake. Essentially, who can best tackle the jihadist scourge is the leading concern (while addressing corruption stemming from managing oil revenues being the perennial issue). One of Nigeria's best known voices, Wole Soyinka, was interviewed by the BBC recently. A website, Culture Custodian describes the interview this way, "Soyinka admits that President Goodluck failed in tackling Boko Haram but that the problem began with previous governments. Soyinka asserts that General Buhari represented one of the more brutal phases of military dictatorship but that he is willing to allow him take control of the country now. He also goes on to say that Nigeria must be prepared to deal with any betrayal from its leaders as we cannot continue with the cycle of evil and irresponsibility."


Wole Soyinka, Nigerian writer and world figure, might be characterized as thinking Nigeria is caught between a rock and a hard place when considering the two presidential contenders. Photo by Tomi Idowu February 16, 2015 in culturecustodian.com

In recent days, a suddenly motivated Nigerian military has claimed advances against the Boko Haram, but Teatree wonders how much of these gains might be better characterized as pronouncements that might influence the electoral outcome. Boko Haram, for its part, has attacked villages in Cameroon, Chad, and Niger over the past weeks, regionalizing its conflict into four countries rather than just Nigeria.


By now, most of us are at least aware of Boko Haram. In a BBC summary, we can read, "Founded in 2002; Official Arabic name, Jama'atu Ahlis Sunna Lidda'awati wal-Jihad, means "People Committed to the Propagation of the Prophet's Teachings and Jihad"; Initially focused on opposing Western education; Launched military operations in 2009 to create Islamic state; Designated a terrorist group by US in 2013; Declared a caliphate in areas it controls in 2014." A screen grab by the BBC from a video distributed from the group itself.

In any case, jihadists across northern Africa and in the Arab world have displayed their ability to bring down governments, or at the very least significantly destabilize them (Yemen, Libya are the two latest) so Nigeria's election is being watched with more than passing interest.

Uruguay benefits from humble but competent leadership

Let's take a break from the ever-increasing horrors of the jihadists(across the Arab world and in Africa), and Putin's undermining of its neighbor Ukraine.

Uruguay is a small country nestled between South American giants Brazil and Argentina. With its size similar to the US state of Washington, but with a population of just 3.4 million (half of Washington's), Uruguay does not exactly play large in world geopolitics. But it has a positive story to share.


Uruguay as a region was competed for by the two major European colonizers, Spain and Portugal who controlled Argentina and Brazil respectively. Spain gained the upper hand in the late 1800s, but the Spanish colonists and native population rose up and gained independence from Spain in 1811. Portugal made its move to occupy the country in 1817, but the Uruguayans regained independence in 1828 after a three year war. Part of the reason Uruguay was able to win against two superpowers of the day is that there was little apparent wealth that either colonial power found worth fighting too hard for. At the same time, England and Argentina (read Spain) both found it useful to "check" Portuguese power by supporting Uruguayan independence. Independence does not usually come independently! Graphic from twitter.com

Four highlights to help understand Uruguay

First, José Gervasio Artigas is considered Uruguay's founding father, similar to George Washington for the USA. He was instrumental in playing off forces of Spain and Portugal through their colonies of Argentina and Brazil. He was committed to the concept of republicanism vs the monarchy. To enter the Uruguayan view of life and the nation's history, he is a central figure.

Second, the composition and location of Uruguay's population is interesting. Approximately half of Uruguayans live in the capital city Montevideo and much of the rest live in 25 cities spread along the coast. The sparsely inhabited interior is mainly the terrain (and it is flat) of long time cattle ranchers, and a more recent not-insignificant acreage of tree plantations. Similar to Argentina, most of the population is ethnic European, with its most historic and native Indian tribe, the Charrua, now representing just .4 percent of the population.

Third, the country's economy and delineation is connected to one of its two major rivers - the Uruguay, which empties into the the Rio Del Plata.

The Uruguay river separates Uruguay from Argentina with its major urban center Buenas Aires not that far from Montevideo. Quite an urbanized region! Graphic from www.nature.com

Fourth, Uruguay had two large pulpmills planned in 2003 that have been at the center of a dispute with its neighbor Argentina for nearly a decade. The dispute began when plans for building the pulpmills at the river's edge, apparently did not adequately address Argentina's concerns over the shared river asset, in particular possible pollution. The disagreement moved from early official protests, to street protests, to presidential phone conversations, but the completion of the first pulpmill occurred in 2007. The two nations traded changing accusations before the Organization of American States (OAS), plans for the second mill were eventually dropped, but official blockades of the river and the building of concrete walls across highways followed. The simmering dispute over the operating pulpmill led to the eventual involvement of the Catholic Church as "dialogue facilitators," followed by appeals and opinions presented to the World Bank, the European Union, and MERCOSUR .


The disputed pulpmill under construction in 2006. Photo from www.talouselama.fi


One of the blockades involving the pulpmill. This one is on an international highway linking Gualeguaychu in Argentina and Fray Bentos, Uruguay where the pulpmill is situated. Photo from www.washingtonpost.com

The International Court of Justice in the Hague, Netherlands ruled in Uruguay's favor at one point noting that while Uruguay did not inform Argentina adequately regarding the pulpmill operations, in fact, fears over pollution were not valid as the mill was meeting all international standards. The conflict only ended in 2010, during the presidencies of Cristina Fernández de Kirchner (Argentina) and José Mujica (Uruguay), with the establishment of a joint coordination of the activities in the river.


In 2010, the then-new Uruguay president José Mujica made a great effort to end the dispute meeting with president Cristina Fernández de Kirchner four times in a few weeks. They subsequently signed an agreement concluding the dispute. Photo from http://en.wikipedia.org

Enter Uruguayan President Jose Mujica

From a recent article found here, we read that in March, the 79-year old president of Uruguay, Jose Mujica, finishes his five-year term . "Uruguay does not allow a president to stand for reelection, so later this spring, Mujica will take a seat in the senate. In the 60s and 70s, Mujica was a guerrilla leader, imprisoned and tortured by Uruguay’s repressive government. Freed in 1985, Mujica shed his violent past, opting instead to become the voice of pragmatism – the art of the possible. His Socialist leanings are apparent still. As president, he lives in a farmhouse with wood heat, saying it frees him from the shackles of consumerism."


From guerrilla or opposition activist to President (as many have elsewhere, including Czech Vaclav Havel, Pole Lech Walesa, Israeli Menachem Begin), Mr Mujica joins an even smaller list of stellar Presidents by all accounts. Photo montage from rafaelmartinez67.tumblr.com

From the beginning of his Presidency in 2010, he actively worked to end the tension-filled disagreement with Argentina regarding the pulpmill, and more importantly, from the article again, "on Mujica’s watch, the proportion of people living in poverty dropped from 40 percent to around 12 percent.

While many South American countries shun outside investment, local and foreign money has risen to 22 percent of GDP under Mujica. The U.N. reports that in 2014, direct foreign investment slumped by 23 percent in Latin America and the Caribbean while soaring 9 percent in Uruguay.

The World Bank ranks Uruguay ninth out of 32 countries in the region for “ease of doing business.” That is far higher than neighboring Brazil and Argentina, where nationalist policies have foiled foreign investors and local producers alike, and socialist Venezuela."


No lines of scarcity here as in Venezuela. Photo of city center and the Plaza Independencia, by www.happytellus.com

Let's savor that 40% to 12% reduction in poverty rate for a moment, something accomplished in just 5 years. It also fits in context with a series of seemingly miraculous accomplishments that were propelled, if not started by Mujica. From wikipedia, "Uruguay is ranked first in Latin America in democracy, peace, lack of corruption, quality of living,... and equally first in South America when it comes to press freedom, size of the middle class, prosperity and security. On a per capita basis, Uruguay contributes more troops to United Nations peacekeeping missions than any other country. It ranks second in the region on economic freedom, income equality, and per capita income. Uruguay is the third best country on the continent in terms of GDP growth, innovation and infrastructure.

The Economist named Uruguay "country of the year" in 2013 acknowledging the innovative policy of legalizing production, sale and consumption of cannabis. Same-sex marriage and abortion are also legal, leading Uruguay to be regarded as one of the most liberal nations in the world, and one of the most socially developed ..." Of interest for Americans, "Uruguay has no official religion; church and state are officially separated,and religious freedom is guaranteed" (This last sentence is a quote from Wikipedia.)

Finally and fittingly, Mujica's 5 year term ends as it began, with a connection to a pulpmill - in this case a "flagship" foreign investment from which the mill (Montes del Plata one of the largest in the world) was built in a free economic zone on Uruguay's Rio Del Plata at Punta Pereira. Starting operations in June 2014, the plant, which meets stringent European air and water quality standards, creates 5,000 direct and indirect jobs, with an annual payroll of over $100 million. It is also expected to contribute $844 million to Uruguay's GDP. The industry’s importance to Uruguay is equivalent to that of Boeing in Washington. (again from Brunnel's article)

The Swedish company, Stora Enso, built this one, and Teatree must admit, new pulpmills kind of look the same. (This mill and the one on the Uruguay River both get all their wood supply from sustainably managed Eucalyptus plantations.) Photo from brightmarketinsight.com