Thousands of people have taken to the streets of Algeria since February 22. For the fifth time in a row, President Abdulaziz Butaflika wants to run in the election. People are saying that the 72-year-old Butaflika is not only trying to stay in power for extra time – he is also unfit to run the state. The president, who has been in power since 1999, suffered a stroke in 2013. In the following year, he won the election for the fourth time, though not in public. This time, under public pressure, Butaflika announced on March 11 that he no longer wanted to be president for a fifth term; However, he said he would postpone the election. Although people on the streets of the capital, Algiers, see this as a new scam on Boutaflica, Algeria’s problems are not limited to Boutaflica. The country’s problems are deep and it has a vast geopolitics. Algeria gained independence from France in 1962 at the cost of more than three million lives. Butaflika joined the War of Independence in 1956 at the age of 19, and came to power at a very young age under Houari Boumédiene.. In 1973, at the age of 26, he became the country’s foreign minister, and led the “non-aligned movement” in the 1970s and 1980s.
After the death of President Boumediene in 1986. Butayika lost her prestige and later left the country. 1970s. After the fall in oil prices in the international market, the ruling party is a multi-party democracy. The emergence of Islamic parties, which were almost certainly complete in the 1991 elections. Towards the country. In that respect, the Islamic Salvation Front was going to get a majority. Fearing a change in the constitution, the military immediately seized power and canceled the election. This led to a 10-year civil war that killed at least 1.5 million people. In a discussion of Butaflika’s biography, Al-Jazeera says that Butaflika returned to politics in 1999, ending the war, and was elected president with 74 percent of the vote. Butaflika was able to revive the economy as the oil market was booming at the time. Butafrika did not allow the movement to grow in the country during the Arab Spring in 2011 by giving massive encouragement to the people. But when the oil market started falling again in 2014, the country’s economy was in danger again. Algeria’s economy is totally dependent on oil and gas exports. Algeria has the third largest oil reserves in the world and the 10th largest gas reserves. With the money that the government earns from exporting oil and gas to Europe and America, the government subsidizes various services for the people. Most of the food and vegetables are import-dependent. In other words, Algeria buys food and other food items with the help of oil exports. “The Algerian economy is not built on a long-term solid foundation,” said Daglia Gramey, an analyst at the Kangei Middle East Center, in an article in the Yazbek thinktank The Broker. When the price of oil falls in the international market, the people of the country suffer. In 2013, the country’s foreign exchange reserves were ‘200 billion, while the oil market was strong. Anadolu Agency says that in November 2016, the reserves came down to 72 billion. The country’s central bank says reserves will fall to 60 billion in 2019 and 6 billion in 2020. Due to its long-term import-dependence, industrial development in Algeria has been much less than it needs to be. And agriculture contributes only 6 percent of GDP, which is not enough for the country’s food production. About 45 per cent of food and 72 per cent of medicines are imported. The change of government in Algeria, however, does not mean that the country will return to normalcy easily, given the fragile economic base of the country.
Not only oil and gas, but also Algeria’s geographical location has threatened to kill the country. According to analysts, Morocco, Mauritania, Mali, its own, Libya and Tunisia, along with 1,200 km of coastline in the Mediterranean, are important to Algeria through the Maghreb in North Africa and the Sahel in West-Central Africa. Algeria’s population is also the largest in the region – four million. Six percent of the country’s population is under the age of 35, or a source of huge workforce. But the country’s breakers are now 16 percent; Among the youth, it is 25 percent. The stability of neighboring Morocco, Libya, Tunisia, Mali, Mauritania and itself depends on Algeria’s security capabilities. Mali, itself, Libya and Tunisia militant groups are controlled by Algerian security forces with a force of 500,000 troops, 120 warplanes and 340 helicopters. But the country has to spend 10 billion a year to retain the military; Which is becoming difficult in the current economy. The role of Algeria in controlling the flow of refugees from Africa to Europe is crucial. France and the United States are receiving a lot of support from Algeria in their military operations in Mali and themselves.
The rest is gone, but the Algerian problem is not going away; Because the country has been under one rule for a long time, there is no alternative political party now. Although the introduction of a leader is relatively easy, changing the foundation of the country’s economy is problematic. In an article on Radio France International, Amanda Murray says that if a weak economy destabilizes Algeria, then security in Europe, not just Africa, will be disrupted. So Europeans, especially France and Italy, are concerned about the security situation in Algeria. If Algeria is in trouble, Europe will not only be deprived of the guarantee of oil and gas, but also the security of its Mediterranean coast. Not a change of leadership in Algeria, but a stable chariot for the country will now be more important for Europe.
Video footage of the evacuation of the US embassy by helicopter on August 15 was shown on all television channels. The images will be reflected as an example of the decline of US influence worldwide. But what the United States has confirmed at the negotiating table is persuading the Taliban to make concessions on certain issues of law and refraining from declaring a caliphate in violation of international borders. Despite the defeat, the United States has carried out its intentions with the Taliban to some extent. But that may not be enough to keep the United States in global leadership
August 15 will be a memorable day for Americans, just as it will be a memorable day for the Taliban in Afghanistan. Video footage of the US embassy being evacuated by helicopter was seen on all television channels. Many parallel this with the evacuation of the US embassy from Saigon, the capital of South Vietnam, on April 29, 1985. The images will be reflected as an example of the decline of US influence worldwide. Many are wondering how the Afghan army left the entire country in the hands of the Taliban without a fight. At the same time, many are discussing the Taliban’s ideology, policies and activities.
Analysts say the defeat of the Afghan army at the hands of the Taliban was almost certain; But no one was sure how fast it could go. According to a report in the New York Times, the Afghan army has a membership of 300,000 on paper, but in reality, high-ranking officials have been overstaffing to increase their income. Afghan soldiers were paid so little that they sold their weapons and equipment to support their families. He used more bullets without any need and sold the shells of the bullets in the market. The Taliban have used Afghan military weapons and equipment against the Afghan army. In this situation, not the weapons of the Afghan army, but their will to fight was more important. At least in the last few days, it is clear that this will was entirely dependent on the US presence on Afghan soil.
US diplomat Zalmai Khalilzad told multiple Afghan television stations that the Taliban were not the previous Taliban; They have changed a lot; They have realized their past mistakes, especially in women’s education, relations with the rest of the world, and in allowing terrorist groups to stay. However, many in the Western world do not agree with Khalilzad. They think that the Taliban are far from implementing the Western ideology. As such, they are still imposing heavy taxes on people in areas under their control; School is closing; The government is not keeping women members in the running; Etc. The West has also accused the Taliban of not including any female members or minority representatives in the Doha talks. In Doha, the West has also been unhappy with the talk of implementing some Sharia law in place of secular law. An article in the Atlantic Council, a US think tank, said the Taliban’s most short-sighted approach was failing to set a specific goal for Afghanistan. They have not been able to show any plan to run the government, provide services, or implement the rule of law. They could not give any specific direction on education, health, country reconstruction, etc.
The Taliban think they are the most different among Muslims around the world; Because they have lost the war to the United States and forced them to negotiate to leave the country. However, the Taliban have shown immaturity in terms of political goals. Zalmei Khalilzad has called for the Taliban to change, as the Taliban have shown a tendency to make concessions through negotiations. After the defeat, the United States had no right to negotiate; Even then, the Taliban have been in talks with the United States. The Taliban have reassured them by negotiating with Russia and China to consolidate their position. These things are completely different from the Taliban of the 1990s. According to a report by Al Jazeera, the current Taliban has changed significantly in terms of media and technology. They are regularly posting pictures and videos of their various activities in the media; Making statements to the media on various issues; The Facebook page is updated from time to time. The Taliban have peacefully taken control of as many cities as they have in recent times across Afghanistan. Even before entering Kabul, they have repeatedly stated that they want to transfer power without bloodshed. Taliban fighters enter the Afghan presidential palace after Afghan President Ashraf Ghani fled the country. There they completed the handover of the Palace in front of the live television and answered questions from reporters.
The Taliban say they are going to create an Islamic emirate. They have also announced that they will implement some Shariah laws. However, in complying with Afghanistan’s international boundaries, they have based their thinking on the nation-state. In July, Taliban representatives went to Moscow to reassure Russia that the Taliban would adhere to the borders of Uzbekistan and Tajikistan with Afghanistan. In the same month, an Afghan delegation led by Mullah Abdul Gani Baradar visited Beijing to relieve the Chinese. The Chinese have expressed their displeasure over the US withdrawal from Afghanistan. Their main concern was regional security. In this context, the visit of the Taliban representatives to Beijing was very important for China. This Mullah Baradar was arrested by the Pakistani government in February 2010 to please the United States. In 2016, Baradar was released from Pakistan to lead talks with the United States in Doha, the capital of Qatar. It is Pakistan that has persuaded the Taliban to negotiate with the losing power, the United States. And through this, the Taliban continue to show their willingness to give up. Britain’s The Guardian newspaper called Baradar the undisputed winner of the 20-year war. But Pakistan’s role here undoubtedly comes to the fore and highlights the dependence of landlocked Afghanistan on Pakistan. Baradar’s role at the negotiating table was very important to the West. Among the things the United States has confirmed through negotiations are persuading the Taliban to make concessions in some cases on the law and refraining from declaring a caliphate in violation of international borders. Despite the defeat, the United States has carried out its intentions with the Taliban to some extent. But that may not be enough to keep the United States in global leadership.
Photo: French President Emmanuel Macron with Madagascar’s President Andr Rojoelina. There are allegations that Rajoelina saw France’s interests in Madagascar. But there is also ample evidence that his opponents saw the interests of British America. Far from changing the destiny of the people of the country, the country is immersed in the geopolitical competition of the great powers due to the importance of the country’s geographical location. France and Britain have been the main players for a long time, but now the United States, India, China, and many more have joined.
Madagascar, the fourth largest island in the world off the southeast coast of Africa; Which is also known as Malagasy. The country of 28 million people is politically heated. A plot to assassinate President Andrei Rajoelina on July 20 has been failed, government officials say. Six people were arrested on charges of involvement in the incident; Among them are two French nationals. Two of the detainees were said to have served in the French military. Many say there are foreign hands behind the incident. Political instability in Madagascar is not new; And foreign intervention is not new there either. Throughout the country’s history, there have been political shifts in foreign fuels. But why are other countries so interested in this poor country on the coast of Africa?
Colonial conflict over Madagascar
In an article in the Financial Times, Kenyan political analyst Nanjala Niabola questioned whether Madagascar had actually survived the colonial period. In his analysis, there has been a power struggle between the Anglophile or the British-American group with the Francophile or French-influenced group for two decades. He explained, however, that the conflict was essentially a geopolitical rivalry between France and Britain for two centuries. President Ravalomana, who won the 2002 election, received a lot of support from the United States for Madagascar. Incumbent President Rajoelina sought refuge at the French embassy to avoid police arrest during the 2009 political unrest in a bid to oust Ravalomanana. The French news agency AFP says the French rescued Rajoelina at the behest of the United Nations. Hundreds of supporters of then-President Ravalomana protested outside the embassy. Niabola says that for two hundred years, the fate of Madagascar has been decided in the western capitals.
From the nineteenth century onwards, the rivalry between the French and the British over control of Madagascar intensified. The French engineer Jean Laborda was appointed chief engineer of the state of Madagascar and built the ‘Rova Palace’ of wood for the royal family in the capital, Antananarivo. In competition with this, the Scottish missionary James Cameron built the palace with stone. Another French businessman, Jean-Franois Lambert, made a trade agreement with the King of Madagascar, which was later used to subdue Madagascar to the French. Influenced by European missionaries, in 1869 the king of Madagascar declared Christianity to be the official religion of the kingdom. Europeans design the country’s education system. The British were responsible for training the country’s army; The intention was to prevent the French from taking control of Madagascar. The law of Madagascar was made in the style of British law. Courts are also built in the European style. In 1883, the French declared war on Madagascar on the pretext of violating the Lambert Charter. This war lasted for about 13 years. Occupying some areas north of the island, the French built Diego Suarez naval base there. To force the surrender, the French navy shelled the two main seaports from the capital, Antananarivo, to the seaports of Toamasina and Mahajang. When that did not work, the French sent troops and fired heavy artillery at the capital, Antananarivo, forcing the French to surrender to Queen Ranavalona III. In 1896, the French declared Madagascar a colony and forced the royal family to emigrate. Thus Madagascar came under the complete control of the French.
After the fall of France to Germany during World War II, the British sought to take control of French-held territories around the world. The argument was that the Germans could take control of them. In 1942, the British occupied Madagascar on the pretext that the Japanese could land in Madagascar. Although the British ceded control of the island to the French, the independence movement in Madagascar began in 1948 at the end of the war. The French suppressed the revolt with strong hands, and almost a decade later the Malagasy were forced to peacefully accept independence from the French. Madagascar was declared an independent country in 1960. The French appointed Philipbert Siranana, the country’s first president. He ruled the country for 12 years. In his time, French citizens controlled important offices in Madagascar. As a result, a massive movement took place in the country. From 1972 to 1975 many coups took place. In the end, the power went to Didier Ratsirakar, a naval officer. Ratsiraka studied in Paris and began his career in the French navy. Although he led the country ostensibly towards socialism, he soon proved that he had never left Europe. Madagascar also received loans from the World Bank and the IMF after falling into economic trouble. He lost power in the 1992 elections, but returned to power in 1996.
Photo: Ravalomana, former President of Madagascar. There is considerable investment from the World Bank and the United States behind Ravalomanana to bring Madagascar out of the leadership of French influence. Ravalomanana became president in 2002. But since 2006, he has faced stiff competition from French-backed candidate Rajoelina.
Geopolitical competition in the twenty-first century
In the 2001 election, the mayor of the capital, Antananarivo, Mark Ravalomana, came to power. Ravalomanana is a Protestant Christian from a poor family; In Madagascar, almost all politicians are Catholic. The Protestant Church in Madagascar was founded by the British. He studied at Protestant Church-run educational institutions and in Europe with Scandinavian NGOs. Back in the country, he ran a dairy business and became one of Madagascar’s most important traders thanks to a World Bank loan. Europeans and Americans invest heavily in his business. His conflict with the Ratsirakar government began soon after his political aspirations began to manifest. Ravalomanana was elected mayor of the capital, Antananarivo, in 1999. Then in 2001 he became president with 51 percent of the vote. The losing Ratsiraka got 36 percent votes. When he was re-elected president in 2008, he received 55 percent of the vote. He uses his business power to the fullest in elections. Many believe that Ravalomana tried to take Madagascar out of French influence and into the British-American zone.
However, Andre Rajoelina stood in the way. Billboard businessman Rajoelina used her business power to enter politics. He bought Viva television in 2006 and started working against the government. At the age of 33, he became mayor of the capital, Antananarivo. In 2006, President Ravalomana shut down Viva television. Within days, Rajoelina rallied opposition politicians in Madagascar and took thousands to the streets. At a public meeting in January 2009, Rajoelina announced that he would lead Madagascar from now on. In March, when the army sided with Rajoelina, President Ravalomanna relinquished power and sought refuge in South Africa. According to Reuters, in a South African radio interview, Ravalomanana alleged that France was trying to take control of Madagascar through Rajoelina. In July 2006, when Ravalomana was president, French Ambassador Gildas Le Lidek was expelled from the country.
Although Rajoelina took power, the ‘African Union’ or ‘AU’ and the ‘Southern African Development Community’ or ‘SADC’ called it a coup. The United States begins evacuating its Madagascar embassy. The IMF defers Madagascar’s debt. According to a Reuters report, Rajoelina was forced to accept SADC mediation in Maputo, the capital of Mozambique; He became the interim president. The referendum changed the constitution, raising the age of presidency from 40 to 35, so that Rajoelina could run in the next presidential election. However, Rajoelina was unable to run in the by-elections due to opposition from Ravalomanana’s group. In 2014, Harry Rajaonarimampiania won the presidency with 54 percent of the vote in support of Rajoelina. However, in 2016, Rajoelina took part in the election. His main rival was Ravalomana, the preferred candidate of the British and Americans. Rajoelina became president with 39 percent of the vote in the first round and 57 percent in the second round. Ravalomanana received 44 percent of the vote.
French influence is still strong in Madagascar
An article in the World Culture Encyclopedia states that Madagascar’s political leaders have been addicted to French culture since the nineteenth century. Although the people of the country speak Malagasy, French is the official language of the country due to the influence of the colonial period from 1896 to 1970. Attempts to remove the French language at various times have failed.
A report by France 24 reports that during the 1948 independence movement in Madagascar, French rebels were severely tortured; Many of whose wounds are still lingering. About 90,000 people died in that movement at the hands of the French and their colonial forces. The rest survived the physical wounds of torture. Many feel that even after 60 years, Madagascar has not been liberated from France. In a 2016 study by the London School of Economics, Omar Garcia Ponsa of the University of California, Davis and Leonard Wantchecken of Princeton University sought to explore the effects of the 1948 French atrocities. They say the French persecution of 1947 has made the people of Madagascar lose the courage to speak out. In other words, the culture of the people of Madagascar has changed. It is not the memory of the heroes who took part in the war that is ingrained in the minds of the people, but the French barbarism.
Almost all of Madagascar’s powerful men have studied in France; Otherwise they have business with France; Otherwise they have worked under any organization in France. Of the country’s 71 years of independence, only four presidents held power for 48 years. Philibert Siranana, the country’s first president after 12 years in power, studied in France and was elected to the French parliament in the 1950s as a representative of Madagascar. President Didier Ratsiraka, who took power in 1975, was an officer in the French navy. His father was also an officer of the French colony. He was in power for 21 years. The remaining 15 years are shared by the pro-British Ravalomana and the French-influenced Rajoelina.
Photo: Vasco da Gama’s way to the Indian Ocean. Those who forgot about the South African sea route that crossed Vasco da Gama due to the normal operation of the Suez Canal since the 1960s, have returned to reality after the container ship Ever Given got stuck in the Suez Canal. But over the past few decades, China’s growing trade with South America and West Africa has also kept the sea route busy.
The geopolitical importance of Madagascar
Madagascar is a poor country; With an average per capita income of less than 1,800. Readymade garments, fish, spices, etc. are the country’s export products. They import most of the industrial products, consumer goods and food items. France once had the most trade, but now it imports the most from the Chinese. However, France is still the largest buyer of Madagascar products. The World Bank says only 15 percent of the country’s population is covered by electricity. Far from changing the destiny of the people of the country, the country is immersed in the geopolitical competition of the great powers due to the importance of the country’s geographical location. France and Britain have been the main players for a long time, but now the United States, India, China, and many more have joined.
With the arrival of Vasco da Gama in the Indian Ocean in 1498, the surrounding areas of South Africa became important. Because this was the way from Europe to the Indian Ocean. Any trade, logistical or military base on this route can control trade between Europe and Asia. In the twelfth and seventeenth centuries, the Portuguese colonized the coasts of Madagascar, Tanzania, and Kenya in East Africa. The Dutch settled in South Africa in 1852. In 1815, France occupied the island of Mauritius, east of Madagascar. In 1806, on the pretext of war with France, the British colonized South Africa. Then in 1810, the British recaptured Mauritius from the French. La Reunion occupied the island but later gave it up; Which is still in the hands of France. In 18, the French occupied the island of Comoros in the Mozambique Channel. Finally, in the 1890s, the French occupied Madagascar. By then, however, the Suez Canal had become less important for trade routes around Africa.
When the war broke out in the Middle East in 1968, the Suez Canal was closed. The canal remained closed for eight years till 1975. During this time all trade and warships between Europe and Asia sailed around South Africa. On March 23, 2021, a huge container ship named Ever Given got stuck in the Suez Canal and the canal was closed for about a week. During this time many ships are stranded on either side of the canal; Some ships sailed around South Africa. This incident shows that any untoward incident in the vicinity of the Suez Canal could increase the importance of the sea route around South Africa. At the moment, it is China’s sea trade route with South America and West Africa.
The assassination attempt on Madagascar’s President Andrei Rajoelina highlights the geopolitical competition for control of important trade routes in South Africa. The incident took place at a time when troops from various countries were landing in the Cabo Delgado area of Mozambique, not far from the island nation. Although new gas mines off the coast of Mozambique have added to the region’s importance, its importance as a sea route has always been paramount. Those who forgot about the South African sea route that crossed Vasco da Gama due to the normal operation of the Suez Canal since the 1960s, have returned to reality after the container ship Ever Given got stuck in the Suez Canal. But over the past few decades, China’s growing trade with South America and West Africa has also kept the sea route busy. Many more are now involved in the 200-year-old British-French conflict.
At the same time, the United States and the European Union have refrained from criticizing Sayyid, which is discouraging the development of relations between Ennahda and Turkey. Turkey’s intervention in Libya was accepted by the West, but not in Tunisia. After the Arab Spring, it was not Tunisia’s so-called ‘democratic success’, but geopolitical competition that controlled the country’s destiny. In other words, geographical security is now more important to Western countries than the implementation of the ideological thinking of Western democracies.
On July 25, Tunisian President Kayes Sayyid fired Prime Minister Hitchem Mechichi and adjourned parliament. Speaker Rached Ghanucci, leader of the Ennahda party, the largest Muslim Brotherhood party in parliament, called the incident a coup. The “Heart of Tunisia”, “Attayar” and “Al Karama” groups are also calling it a coup. The secular “Free Desturian Party”, a supporter of former dictator Ben Ali, has not commented. On the other hand, the ‘Chaab’ party, which has 15 out of 216 seats in the parliament, has directly supported the president. People have taken to the streets for and against the president. In this context, discussions have begun on how successful Tunisia is in calling the Arab Spring a successful democracy.
A Reuters report says the international statement on the Tunisian incident depends on who is for or against Islamist groups. Western nations, including the United States, could not decide what to say about Tunisia. On July 26, the United States expressed concern over the Tunisian incident and called for stability. However, this incident was not a coup, he did not say anything about it. France, a former Tunisian colonial power, has called for the rule of law in Tunisia and called on all political parties to renounce violence. The EU also called on all parties to abide by the constitution and to refrain from violence. A spokesman for the German government told reporters that they did not want to call it a coup. They said they would talk to the Tunisian ambassador in Berlin. The Egyptian government called the Tunisian president’s decision a “war on brotherhood terrorists.” Saudi Foreign Minister Prince Faisal bin Farhan called the Tunisian Foreign Minister and hoped for security, stability and development in the country. Only Turkey has directly criticized the Tunisian president. Om Chelik, a spokesman for the ruling AK Party, called the Tunisian coup a coup in a Twitter message. Tunisia’s Ennahda Party has always had good relations with the AK Party; Many, including the Free Destroyer Party, see Turkey as trying to influence Tunisia. The talks have divided Tunisia since Turkey’s intervention in the war in Libya.
An article in G Zero Media by the US think tank Eurasia Group says that the Tunisian people think that the current politicians are as corrupt as the politicians in the previous dictator Ben Ali’s government. They have all failed to provide a better life for ordinary citizens as promised by democracy. Politicians have run the country through fragile coalitions because there are so many parties in parliament; Which has resulted in indecision in Parliament and economic stagnation in public life; And the people’s confidence in the whole political system has collapsed. The Tunisian people have been on the streets for the past year. The number of people on the streets was the highest in the last decade. The stagnant economy, growing inequality, inadequate public services and declining job opportunities were the main reasons for people’s dissatisfaction. Before the epidemic began, the youth unemployment rate in Tunisia was 36 percent! Very naturally the youth have led the movement. The situation has worsened since the Corona epidemic began. Tourism is an important part of the Tunisian economy, employing many people. It has completely collapsed due to the epidemic. Thousands of people from Tunisia are crossing the sea to Italy; The purpose is to find work in Europe. In 2020, the number of such immigrant candidates has increased fivefold.
In an interview with Vox magazine, Sarah Yorkis, a senior fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, a US think tank, sought an explanation for the political turmoil in Tunisia. Tunisia’s dictator Zine El Abidine Ben Ali’s government collapsed during the Arab Spring in 2011, and a multi-party democracy emerged. The largest party in parliament is the Ennahda Party with only a quarter of the seats; Who basically carry the thought of the Muslim Brotherhood. Although they got the highest number of votes in the last decade, they had to go to the coalition to form the government. Opposing them is the Free Desturian Party, a group of supporters of former dictator Ben Ali, who favors Tunisia’s good relations with France. The party, led by Abir Musi, is completely secular and completely opposed to Islamic groups like Ennahda. There is also the ‘Al Karama Coalition’; Those are Islamic parties and they think that ‘Ennahda’ is not Islamic enough and ‘Ennahda’ is not worried enough about the existence of Islam in the state. President Qais Sayed is no longer part of any party. Although he was against Ennahda from the beginning, he is not a part of completely secular parties. In Tunisian politics, the rivalry between Islamic parties and completely secular parties is important. Initially, there was a tendency for the parties to form a coalition by compromise, but later the parliamentarians started fighting. That is why Islamist groups such as the extreme secular Free Destroyer and Al Karama, led by Abir Musi, have become important.
The geopolitical importance of Tunisia, located on the international maritime trade route along the Mediterranean coast, is considerable. Tunisia’s importance has grown since Turkey’s involvement in the Libyan war. Turkey’s conflict with France in particular has escalated. France, a former Tunisian colonial power, does not want to see Turkish influence here. That is why it is not a matter of concern for France to take the power of President Kais Sayed, but it does not want to see the supporters of ‘Ennahda’ on the streets. Here, however, the United States and the EU have simultaneously refrained from criticizing Sayyed, which is discouraging the development of relations between Ennahda and Turkey. Turkey’s intervention in Libya was accepted by the West, but not in Tunisia. After the Arab Spring, it was not Tunisia’s so-called ‘democratic success’, but geopolitical competition that controlled the country’s destiny. In other words, geographical security is now more important to Western countries than the implementation of the ideological thinking of Western democracies.
Defender of the British Royal Navy is seen from a Russian warship off the coast of Crimea. The ‘Defender’ and the Dutch frigate ‘Everstein’ are on a mission to the Far East with the British aircraft carrier ‘Queen Elizabeth’. It is still too late for ships to reach the South China Sea; But already they have been able to create a news story like coming in the international media. British warships are regularly deployed with NATO missions in the Black Sea; However, US activities came in the media. The incident highlighted the British mission in the Black Sea.
Britain and Russia have been at loggerheads since a British Royal Navy warship collided with Russian forces in the Black Sea on June 23. The Russian news agency Interfax reported that British Destroyer Defenders were warned by Russian border guards when they entered Russian waters and were shot down by a number of unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs). Russia’s defense ministry says the British ship violated international maritime law. The Russian news agency ‘Tas’ is reporting. After the incident, the British military attache was called to the Russian Ministry of Defense. A statement from the British Ministry of Defense said on Twitter that no warning had been issued to the “defender”. Instead, the ship was crossing Ukraine’s territorial waters “innocently” in accordance with international law. Reuters says British Defense Secretary Ben Wallace told lawmakers in parliament that he was not surprised by Russia’s demands; Because such incidents are regular with Russia.
On June 24, British Prime Minister Boris Johnson said that the movement of British warships off the coast of Crimea was perfectly normal. Britain will continue to challenge Moscow to uphold freedom of navigation at sea. He said the use of international waters was perfectly correct; And the important thing here is that Britain did not recognize Russia’s occupation of Crimea. Basically Boris Johnson’s words define this conflict. Britain still sees Crimea as part of Ukraine, and Britain also sees the Crimean maritime border as part of Ukraine; Not as an area of Russia. Both Britain and Russia, on the other hand, are talking about upholding international law based on the definition of Crimea ownership. But the question is, what is Britain doing in the Black Sea thousands of miles away from its own sea?
Defender arrived in the Mediterranean with the British Royal Navy’s giant aircraft carrier, Queen Elizabeth. Separated from that group, the Defender and the Dutch naval frigate Everstein entered the Black Sea. Two days before the incident, on June 21, a military agreement was signed with Ukraine on the deck of Defender in the Ukrainian port of Odessa. The British Ministry of Defense says the agreement was signed in accordance with an agreement signed between the two countries last October. Under the agreement, Britain will build six small high-speed missile warships for Ukraine and supply two old British Royal Navy minesweepers to Ukraine. Britain will also help build two naval bases for the Ukrainian navy. At the same time, the British government is funding 1.8 billion dollars for this project. It is also mentioned that some of Ukraine’s current warplanes are suitable for carrying Western missiles. Britain will also help build a frigate for the Ukrainian navy.
In addition to implementing its objective of controlling Russia in the Black Sea, Britain seeks to take the lead in upholding international law in a changed world order; They want to use every opportunity.
Brian Whitmore, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council, a US think tank, says tensions in the region have been high since Russia annexed Crimea in 2014; The conflict between the Russians and the British warships is part of that tension. US and British military aircraft regularly patrol the international airspace in the Black Sea around Crimea, and Russian warplanes intercept them. Steven Pifer, a senior fellow at the Brookings Institution, likened the incident to a storm over a cup of tea. He says Russia is trying to say that the West has taken an aggressive role on Russia’s borders; And Russia is defending its sovereignty. In this, Russia is trying to defend itself internationally in the face of Western pressure; On the other hand, the Russian government is also seeking support from its own people. But he says Russia will continue to assert itself as a Black Sea power, and the West will continue to challenge Russia.
Britain’s interests in the Black Sea are not new. When the Russian army appeared on the outskirts of Istanbul in 1878, Russia was forced to retreat due to British obstruction. Britain is unwilling to hand over control of the strategically important Bosphorus to Russia; So speaking of the security of the Bosphorus, Britain established a military base in Cyprus; Which still exists today. Britain ensured that control of the Bosphorus did not pass to Russia during the partition of the Ottoman Empire at the end of World War I in 1917. Through the Lausanne Treaty, signed in 1923, Britain ceded control of the Bosphorus to the League of Nations. However, after the advent of fascist Italy and Nazi Germany in the 1930s, the Bosphorus was redefined by the Montreux Convention in 1936; Which are still in force today. For the first time since World War II, when Turkey sought help from the United States under pressure from the Soviet Union, the United States arrived in the Black Sea, and Turkey has been dependent on the United States for four decades. After the end of the Cold War in 2004, when the Black Sea countries Romania and Bulgaria joined NATO, Russia’s tensions with the West in the Black Sea began. In 2008, Russia invaded Georgia. Then, in 2014, after the fall of the Russian-backed government through a revolution in Ukraine, war broke out in eastern Ukraine and Russia occupied Crimea.
The British Royal Navy’s destroyer ‘Defender’ and the Dutch frigate ‘Everstein’ have set out on a mission to the Far East with the British aircraft carrier ‘Queen Elizabeth’. It is still too late for ships to reach the South China Sea; But already they have been able to create a news story like coming in the international media. British warships are regularly deployed with NATO missions in the Black Sea; However, US activities came in the media. The incident highlighted the British mission in the Black Sea. In addition to implementing its objective of controlling Russia in the Black Sea, Britain seeks to take the lead in upholding international law in a changed world order; They want to use every opportunity.
1890 photo of a residential school in Canada. The history of Canada’s ‘cultural genocide’ in the British Commonwealth has resurfaced at a time when ‘Global Britain’ is trying to regain leadership in a changed world. While Britain’s efforts, along with those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have been called into question in Canada, they also bring to light the history of the Australian Indigenous Genocide. The British government can never stop reminding the world of the racist history of the British leadership.
At least three mass graves have been found in Canada since last May, identified as the graves of the children of indigenous peoples. The incident is causing a flood of emotions across Canada. These graves belonged to indigenous students studying in residential schools. So far, at least 1,100 graves have been found in the vicinity of government-funded boarding schools in Canada. The BBC reports that the purpose of these boarding schools was to force Indigenous peoples to accept Canada’s European culture and to destroy Indigenous peoples’ own culture and language. But the discovery of this mass grave is nothing new in Canada. Throughout the history of the country, there is this scandalous activity; Which is now new in the world media.
The first mass grave was found in May near the town of Kamloops in the western Canadian province of British Columbia. Two hundred and fifteen graves were discovered using radar. The school in Kamloops had about 500 indigenous students studying together. The school was open from 1890 to 1969. So far, 651 bodies have been found in another mass grave in Saskatchewan province in June. One hundred and seventy-two bodies were found in a mass grave at another school in British Columbia. This school was in operation from 1912 to 1960. The country’s tribal leader, Chief Rozan Kasimir, said some of the tombs discovered may have been less than three years old. The bodies of thousands of children who died in these boarding schools were not sent to their relatives. From 184 to 1998, government-funded activities in at least 130 residential schools forcibly removed about 1.5 million indigenous Metis and Inuit children from their families. In the 1920s, boarding schools were made compulsory for indigenous children. Disobeying this order was punishable by imprisonment. Children had to leave their own language to learn English or French and convert to Christianity
A 2015 report by Canada’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, dubbed 2009, called the government’s actions a “cultural genocide.” At least 6,000 children died as a result of deliberate disregard for the government, the church and the school, the report said. Children were kept in extremely bad and unhealthy environments, severely punished, and denied medical care. The dire impact of this environment on children was known to all the leadership of the government. The report also noted that some children ran away from boarding schools after being physically and sexually abused. The rest die of various diseases or accidents or negligence. Until 1945, the infant mortality rate in tribal boarding schools was five times higher than other boarding schools. Survivors of the boarding school said that at different times they suddenly noticed that they could not find a friend. In some cases, children born out of wedlock were allegedly snatched from their mothers and thrown into the furnace.
Although Justin Trudeau’s government announced new measures, tribal leaders were not happy. They want the truth to be fully revealed first. That’s why tribal leaders Murray Sinclair and Chief Bellegard say mass graves need to be found in all 130 schools. The BBC reports that in the 1980s and 1990s, representatives of the United, Anglican and Protestant churches apologized for their actions, but no statement came from the pope, the Catholic Church’s supreme leader. In 2016, Trudeau called on Pope Francis to apologize, but the Vatican refused.
But is this mass grave in Canada just a matter of the church? According to The Guardian, the statues of British Queen Elizabeth and Queen Victoria have been smashed in Canada in connection with the mass grave incident. On Canada Day, July 1, a statue of Queen Victoria in Manitoba was covered in cloth, painted red, and thrown to the ground. These statues are an example of Canada’s colonial history to indigenous peoples. Thousands of people chanted “Shame on Canada” and “Bring them back” at a rally in Ottawa’s “Parliament Hill” area called “Cancel Canada Day.” A few days ago, a statue of Egerton Ryerson, known as the architect of the Canadian boarding school system, was also demolished. A message from the British Prime Minister’s Office said that the British government was protesting against the destruction of the statue of the British Queen. However, the statement also said that the British government expressed solidarity with the sentiments of Indigenous Canadians.
The government of Justin Trudeau of Canada and Britain’s attempt to bypass the mass graves of Downing Street aboriginal children have come as a blow to the British liberal secular ideology. While Trudeau wants to continue to blame the Catholic Church, the Catholic Church’s power in Canada’s liberal culture remains to be seen. At least some of the aborigines have realized that the blame should not be placed solely on the Catholic Church; That is why they also vandalized the statue of the British Queen. The history of this ‘cultural genocide’ in Canada in the British Commonwealth has resurfaced at a time when ‘Global Britain’ is trying to regain leadership in a changed world. While Britain’s efforts, along with those of Canada, Australia and New Zealand, have been called into question in Canada, they also bring to light the history of the Australian Indigenous Genocide. The British government has not been able to stop the world from constantly being reminded of the racist history of the British leadership.
In Tokyo, Indonesian Defense Minister Pravovo Subianto and Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi. East Asian countries are joining hands with Japan to control China’s influence. As part of the US-controlled world order, both China and Japan are concerned about the safety of their seas; Which is helping the United States retain military power in Asia. The United States is increasing its dependence on its Asian allies to control China as part of the ‘Great Power’ competition in a changed world order; Which is inspiring the militarization of Japan
On March 30, Japan and Indonesia signed an agreement. Japan will export military equipment to Indonesia under an agreement called the Defense Equipment and Technology Transfer Agreement. The agreement was signed during a “two-plus-two” meeting between the two countries’ foreign and defense ministers in Tokyo. Japan’s Kyodo News says Japan is concerned about China’s influence in regional geopolitics behind the deal. At a joint news conference, Japanese Foreign Minister Toshimitsu Motegi said the two countries had discussed strengthening China’s position in the South and East China Seas. According to a law passed by the Chinese government in February, the Chinese Coast Guard will be able to shoot down ships of other countries in the waters claimed by China. Japanese Defense Minister Nobuo Kishi said the law does not allow the Chinese to infringe on the legitimate rights and interests of other countries. Prior to the agreement with Indonesia, Japan had already signed defense agreements with Australia, Britain, France, Germany, India, Italy, Malaysia, the Philippines and the United States. Motegi said the agreement laid a solid foundation for advancing Japan’s security relations with Indonesia; And at the same time, it will be a symbol of joint efforts by the two countries to address regional threats. He added that the Japanese government was providing ৫ 453 million to deal with natural disasters in Indonesia. On the other hand, Indonesian Defense Minister Pravovo Subianto said that his country was inviting Japan to be a partner in the development of Indonesia’s defense industry. Discussions have now begun on how Japan’s defense deal with Indonesia could affect regional geopolitics.
An analysis by the defense magazine IHS Genes suggests that Japan may be able to export Mogami-class frigates to the Indonesian navy, which it is currently building for its own navy. The two countries have been discussing the transfer of military technology for several years. The agreement was signed in late 2020 as a result of an agreement. At that time, Indonesian officials met with the Japanese shipbuilding company Mitsubishi Heavy Industries. The Indonesian Navy shortlisted four designs for their frigate purchase project; Among them were the designs of Holland’s Damen, Italy’s Fincantieri, Japan’s Mitsui and Britain’s Babcock.
In August last year, Japan agreed to sell four state-of-the-art air defense radars to the Philippines for 103 million. According to a report in the New York Times, in April 2014, the Japanese parliament legalized arms exports by amending Article 3 of 118 of the Defense Act. Accordingly, the Japanese government provided 5 TC90 surveillance aircraft as a grant to assist the Philippine surveillance in the South China Sea. An article in Forbes magazine said the radars sold to the Philippines would be used primarily to monitor Chinese military activity in the South China Sea, where the Chinese have developed several artificial islands and set up military bases. Japan wants to monitor the movement of Chinese ships in the Bashi Channel, which runs between Taiwan and the Philippines. In that case, they want to work with the Philippines. Earlier, Japan sold a 10:44-meter-long patrol boat to the Philippine Coast Guard for ৯ 191 million. Japan is currently building a 2.90-meter offshore patrol vessel for 132 million. In July, Japan signed an agreement with Vietnam to export 8,79-meter-long offshore patrol vessels for 400 million. In each case, the Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA) is financing the project. And the main task of all ships will be to control China’s influence in the South China Sea. Forbes reports that Japan’s military equipment has been scarce due to its inability to export. Japan can now try to reduce costs by exporting equipment for a variety of aircraft, air defense systems, patrol boats, etc .; So that they can sell arms at a more competitive price to implement their foreign policy.
Japan’s foreign policy is based on the anti-war constitution drafted by the United States after World War II. However, in recent times, due to the strong position of the Conservatives, Japan is deploying military forces around the world through legal changes and exporting weapons abroad. The aggressive stance of China and North Korea has given Japan a legitimacy to increase its military might. But Japan’s foreign policy is still in Washington’s favor as it is in line with US Indo-Pacific policy. Although the East Asian countries have not forgotten the history of Japan’s aggression during the Second World War, only the Chinese are talking about Japan’s new foreign policy. East Asian countries are joining hands with Japan to control China’s influence. Although Japan’s military industry is quite advanced, it is still not technologically independent of the United States. Sea routes in the South China Sea and the East China Sea are important not only for China, but also for Japan and Korea. However, Japan has no political goal in controlling them, which is in conflict with US policy. Japan’s financial assistance is playing an important role in defense exports. Although the country is leading the way in influencing by capitalizing on its huge economy, they are still childish in terms of political influence. As part of the US-controlled world order, both China and Japan are concerned about the safety of their seas; Which is helping the United States retain military power in Asia. The United States is increasing its dependence on its Asian allies to control China as part of the ‘Great Power’ competition in a changed world order; Which is inspiring the militarization of Japan.
