Latest news with #TerritorialDisputes
The National
24-07-2025
- Politics
- The National
The complex legacy of Srebrenica and why today's wars never seem to end
Earlier this month, the world commemorated the 30th anniversary of the Srebrenica genocide. The tears of the relatives of victims will not dry for as long as they live. What do they signify? A fundamental insight is that the past is always with us, and we fail to understand details at our peril. In Srebrenica's case, 19th-century Austro-Hungarian and Ottoman imperialism triggered unrest among subject Balkan populations. This was a factor in the First World War and led to a Serbian kingdom that was re-named Yugoslavia in 1929 and conquered by Nazi Germany in 1941. The successor postwar communist republic fell behind the Iron Curtain in 1945 and fragmented into six states in 1991. Thus, the Balkan states – like others elsewhere – have long formed and re-formed. The lesson for our 80-year-old United Nations age is that the sanctity of national boundaries is a recent innovation against history's repeated wars over land that has strong symbolic value everywhere. Nowadays, with 150 territorial disputes frozen, smouldering or raging worldwide, is it futile to find definitive solutions? Perhaps diplomats would be more effective, not by solving such disputes, but by getting nations to disagree in peace. The contrary winner-loser approach via international courts is usually unsuccessful, as with the many maritime disputes in the South China Sea. Furthermore, whatever the dispute, the political economy determines outcome. The relatively stable and prosperous Yugoslavia crumbled after disruption in the 1980s. The lesson for contested corners of the globe is that this is how states are made or broken. What about state structure? Like Yugoslavia, many federations have come and gone. The US and Switzerland are most successful. The Soviet Union was less so, and the Egypt-Syria-Libya and Singapore-Malaysia federations were short-lived. Several contemporary federated countries remain strife-ridden works in progress. When factors of economy and democracy are stripped out, neither federations nor unitary states (such as Afghanistan, Haiti and Lebanon) are superior in terms of stability. That is worth remembering when prescribing governance models for conflicted Myanmar, Iraq and Syria. What matters more is 'ethnicisation'. Genetic variations among humans do not result in biologically defined racial differences. But social, cultural and religious variety are easily manipulated. Yugoslavia illustrated how ambitious leaders instrumentalised the scant differences between Orthodox Serbs, Catholic Croats and Muslim Bosniaks. The lesson for outsiders is to beware the challenges of stretching such fault lines, as the European Commission (now Union) did by hurrying to recognise Serbia, Slovenia and Croatia, thereby entrenching their ethnic majorities. Germany – haunted by its past Nazi role in the Balkans – led the policy to stabilise post-Yugoslav turmoil through 'ethnic cantonisation'. That left multi-ethnic Bosnia and Herzegovina open to bitter warring in the early 1990s. Misdirected bombs and bullets wreak collateral damage among nearby innocents, weaponised language triggers wider horrendous psycho-social trauma transmitted down generations Colonial ethnicisation led to the 1994 Rwanda genocide that included a failed UN peacekeeping mission. No lessons were learnt as the Srebrenica massacre of nearly 8,400 Bosnian Muslims unfolded a year later, watched by a UN protection force. That genocides happen under public gaze and are rarely prevented is the sombre conclusion. The quest for justice in Srebrenica provides more lessons, the first obstacle for accountability being the recognition of a genocide. This was first determined by the International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia in 2004 and confirmed by the International Court of Justice in 2007. By then, the genocide was over. All genocides suffer the same slow reckoning, leaving survivors to get what comfort they can from subsequent commemorations. One reason for tardiness is that states prefer genocide determination to be left to international mechanisms, which take time to negotiate. That allows states to avoid inconvenient implications for foreign relations, although the Genocide Convention empowers them to judge genocide cases. Germany and France have boldly done so, but selective determinations are perceived as political, undermining the universal significance of the most egregious crimes against humanity. Meanwhile, criminal justice for genocide requires finding individuals guilty. That usually means leaders because genocide is generally an act of state or authority. Thus, guilty verdicts get misrepresented as symbolic shaming of a whole nation. This is evident now in rising global anti-Semitism because of Israeli war tactics. After the Srebrenica verdict, Serbian nationalists felt insulted. 'We are not a genocidal people' was a popular slogan. And so, denial became Serbian state policy, hampering collective healing. The country remains mired in citizen discontent with unresolved historical undercurrents, including the further 'ethnicised' loss of Kosovo in 2008. Bosnia and Herzegovina also remains a fractured land. The divisive legacy continues with the neighbouring Russia-Ukraine war, where many Serbians feel a cultural affinity with Russia while the EU supports Ukraine. Russian leaders have been indicted by the International Criminal Court for war crimes and crimes against humanity, while Russia invokes alleged Ukrainian collusion with Nazi genocidaires during the Second World War. The discomfiting conclusion is that genocides provide excuses for future bad behaviours. Srebrenica also left the world more divided, as indicated by the 2024 UN General Assembly vote that established July 11 as the day for commemorating the genocide. Just 84 states voted in favour while 68 abstained and 19 opposed. The horror that should have united the world has, instead, sanctioned toxic denialism. That is echoed in current controversy on whether or not Gazan suffering under Israeli attack constitutes genocide. The stark lesson for others seeking genocide-related redress – for example, Sudan's Darfuris, Iraq's Yazidis, Myanmar's Rohingya or Ethiopia's Tigrayans – is that adversarial western judicial traditions can trigger angry pushback rather than contrite 'never-again' pledges. Such justice may seed further conflict when remembrances give prominence to a predominant category of victim while overshadowing other suffering. As with those who also suffered – such as righteous non-Jews during the Holocaust, 'good' Serbs in Bosnia, Hutus in Rwanda, Buddhists in Myanmar or Arabs in Darfur. The paucity of Nelson Mandelas means that inclusive justice through truth and reconciliation is generally not favoured. Srebrenica's lessons are not static as each generation sees the past with new eyes including the significance of genocide. Especially in our era where wars are waged not only through drones and missiles but via words to demonise and dispirit opponents. The most potent verbal assaults deploy the language of genocide because the implicit moral censure is a powerful mobiliser of political narratives that continue in Central and Eastern Europe. Meanwhile, the brutalities that accompany modern conflict, be it sexual violence in Darfur or starvation in Gaza, mean that victims and observers struggle to find language adequate for their pain and outrage. And so, cries of genocide get more common, regardless of the strict criteria of the 1948 Genocide Convention. Invoking genocidal language by human rights violators and defenders alike is one reason why today's wars never appear to end. Because while misdirected bombs and bullets wreak collateral damage among nearby innocents, weaponised language triggers wider horrendous psycho-social trauma transmitted down generations. As the flowers laid during Srebrenica commemorations fade, their biggest message is that when there are no universal settled truths, or if narratives around the lived experiences of affected people are sharply contested, peace retreats further away.
Free Malaysia Today
22-05-2025
- Politics
- Free Malaysia Today
Beijing slams video posted by US embassy in Singapore about South China Sea
The South China Sea is believed to contain valuable oil and gas deposits. (EPA Images pic) SINGAPORE : China slammed a video shared on social media by the US embassy in Singapore which criticises Beijing's South China Sea claims, comparing them to the actions of an inconsiderate neighbour who intrudes on others' space. The roughly 90-second video shows a government-built apartment block inundated with clutter, voiced over in a Singaporean accent. 'This happens right outside Singapore's doorstep too, in the South China Sea, where one neighbour thinks he owns basically everything,' the narrator says, as the video cuts to a series of news clippings on China's territorial disputes. The post sparked a strident reaction from China's embassy in Singapore late yesterday. On its Facebook page, the Chinese embassy said the video 'deliberately distorts the ins-and-outs of the South China Sea issue'. 'Under joint efforts of China and Asean countries, the current situation in the South China Sea remains overall stable,' it added, referring to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations bloc. The embassy said it was 'universally recognised that the US is the least qualified to even talk about international law'. Beijing claims almost the entire disputed waterway, through which more than 60% of global maritime trade passes, despite an international ruling that its assertion has no merit. The South China Sea is also believed to contain valuable oil and gas deposits, and there are concerns that Beijing is seeking to expand its reach. In Southeast Asia, Brunei, Malaysia, the Philippines and Vietnam have partial claims to the sea. Singapore's foreign ministry said in a statement yesterday that it rejects interference by foreign embassies. 'The Singapore government rejects attempts by foreign embassies to incite domestic reactions to international issues involving third countries,' the statement said. 'Complex issues are best resolved through appropriate channels for effective diplomacy,' it said.
Japan Times
17-03-2025
- Politics
- Japan Times
Japan needs academic programs focused on territorial issues
Recently, while working on my upcoming academic article about the Senkaku Islands — specifically Japan's whole-of-government efforts in 1979 to survey and construct a heliport on Uotsuri Island — I realized that despite the government's attention to its territorial disputes with Russia, South Korea, China and Taiwan, Japan lacks a dedicated university or graduate program on territorial issues. This stands in contrast to Western countries, where such academic programs exist. Yes, there are both Japanese academics and foreign experts — including myself — in Japan who specialize in territorial disputes, whether involving this nation or other countries. Others focus on related aspects, such as international law or joint development. Some of these experts are affiliated with think tanks and institutes like the Japan Institute of International Affairs and the Sasakawa Peace Foundation in Tokyo, where their insights help inform both domestic and international audiences. However, there are no undergraduate or graduate programs that focus on territorial issues, and more specifically, cover aspects like history, security, international and maritime law, natural resources, marine life, economic development or diplomacy, among others. This should be both a surprise and a shame. It is surprising given Japan's situation. While many countries have border or territorial disputes with their neighbors — in fact, there are at least 150 active disputes worldwide — Japan faces issues with nearly all its neighbors, including Russia (the Northern Islands), South Korea (Takeshima) and both the People's Republic of China and Taiwan (the Senkaku Islands). In other words, the country is surrounded by territorial disputes and is a party to all of them. As such, it would benefit from an academic program allowing deeper examination of the problems and the exploration of international cases for comparative purposes. It is also a shame because the Japanese public in general is either unaware or indifferent to these disputes. In a recent Cabinet Office poll, for example, only 54% of those surveyed nationwide said they have a certain degree of knowledge about the Northern Territories issue. While this is better than the 35% who say they have heard of the dispute but know nothing about it, it's still a low number considering that Japan's territorial dispute with Russia over the Northern Islands is the nation's longest-running postwar issue. The program could possibly be named the Department (or Graduate School) of Territorial Disputes/Problems and be established within existing universities by bringing together current faculty from relevant fields, outside practitioners and scholars specializing in territorial disputes. It could take an interdisciplinary and international approach to the issue. Students, both undergraduate and graduate, especially those specializing in one of Japan's territorial disputes, would be expected to visit contested locations and the countries involved whenever possible, such as Russia, South Korea, China, or Taiwan. Ideally, they would also learn the languages of the parties to better understand debates and arguments in their original context. This would help them gain deeper insight into the other nation's stance. They would engage with local experts, activists and government officials, as well as those directly affected by a dispute, such as fishermen caught up in contentious maritime issues. Of course, understanding is not the same as acceptance. Unless a country's position was particularly weak, no country would want to refuse to engage such students eager to better understand the historic and contemporary stances of the parties in dispute or other factors. The program would, of course, accept international students as well to better enrich such discussions and dialogue. They could provide language assistance, much like their Japanese classmates could help them with reading Japanese language materials and adjusting to life in Japan. By sharing lessons from different countries and case studies, solutions could be found for current and future problems that arise. Currently, there are several international programs, such as those at Durham University and the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom, the University of Arizona in the United States, the University of Victoria in Canada, the University of Eastern Finland and the University of Geneva in Switzerland. However, these are primarily centers or research units within existing departments and some focus more on issues like migration that stem from territorial disputes rather than addressing territorial issues directly. A program in Japan, on the other hand, would be a first in Asia. Graduates of the program could pursue further academic study or careers in think tanks, foundations, governments or other international organizations. By Japan, a highly trusted global partner, taking the lead in establishing such a program, there should also be a positive public diplomacy effect. It would bring students from around the world together to examine territorial issues in a more objective and dispassionate manner. Furthermore, many graduates of the program would likely become future negotiators — and they may find themselves discussing issues and seeking solutions with their former classmates. This shared background could make it easier to reach resolutions. Obviously, the disputes are far more complex and difficult to resolve than described here, and therein lies why this program is so necessary. The urgency is heightened even more as tensions over territorial issues continue to rise. Robert D. Eldridge is a former political and public diplomacy adviser to the U.S. Marine Corps in Japan. He is also a recipient of the Ohira Masayoshi Foundation Award for his book, "The Origins of the U.S. Policy in the East China Sea Islands Dispute" (Routledge, 2014).
