Societies under siege: Modern Urbanicide

Over the past four months I have had the honor of experiencing life, politics and  culture in two of the 20^th century’s iconic cities. I use the word iconic especially, as the suggestion of these two cities raises particular images in the mind of the reader; Sarajevo, whose bullet marred streets bare testament to a Thousand Days of merciless bombardment. Jerusalem, where ‘religious’ tourism is set against the backdrop of a securitized frontier town, partially segregated between a Palestinian East and a Jewish West. Both of these cities provide excellent case studies to the concept of the ‘modern siege.’

A siege is ultimately an attack on the material and mental will power of the people living in the city, I would like to focus on two aspects and discuss how they existed in Sarajevo and are present within Jerusalem. Firstly the concept of siege mentality, the feeling of isolation, helplessness and suffocation. Secondly Urbanicide, methodical destruction of buildings and infrastructure deemed crucial to the cultural and spiritual survival of the besieged. Why? Often these buildings are the corporeal manifestation of a society’s cultural and spiritual needs.  The aim of urbanicide is to apply pressure on the will of the besieged by creating a situation in which these psychological needs are physically denied.

When walking the streets you are reminded that the city of Sarajevo is no stranger to death: from the drunken, hurried shots of Gavrilo Princip that ended the life of Archduke Ferdinand in 1914; to the shooting of two female peace marchers at the hands of Serb snipers that signaled the start of the One Thousand Day Siege.

 

Looking up and viewing the surrounding hills, you really get a feel for just how vulnerable the city is and how exposed you are as a citizen. This intuitive feeling of dread, combined with the first hand stories of some of the people I met, painted a pretty accurate picture of what a modern day siege was like.

To me, this dialogue of a radio transmission between General Mladic and a Bosnian Serb Army (VRS) Colonel, best summaries the actions and intended consequences of the tactics employed against the citizens of Sarajevo:   

-General Mladic here.
    -Yes Sir.
-Don’t panic. What is your name?
    -Vukasinovic.
-Colonel Vukasinovic?
    - Yes Sir.
.- Keep the Presidency and the Assembly building under steady, direct fire and pound slowly in intervals until I give the order to stop.
-Target Muslim neighborhoods - not many Serbs live there.
-Make sure they don't get any sleep down there,
- Shell them till they are on the edge of madness.
    - Yes, no problem.

Realistically, I have no idea what the people of the city went through, but it is possible to comprehend how a siege mentality can be created and maintained. A group of men at the hotel helped me to understand and relate to some of their experiences during the siege, one recalled.

“They shot at everything, men, women with children, even the dogs. Sometimes they shot to miss, just to screw with your mind, to let you know that they had you in their sights and had decided to let you live, that feeling  that somebody is staring at you from the other end of a rifle, dictating whether you live or die, playing at God, that knowledge breaks you.” His final exclamation, coincided with the end of his cigarette, “from Olympic City- to this!, Is a terrible thing.”

As a Brit whose own Olympics started within less than a month, these words chilled me to the core.

Jerusalem is no stranger to sieges; Roman armies to Crusading Knights, Muslims and Imperial Britain, all of whom threw men against the walls of this City. But the majority of these events occurred centuries ago, then why do I still feel that here in Jerusalem, a society is under siege? For me, it is the Israeli attitude towards the Jerusalemites, primarily methods they use to demographically hinder the advancement of the Palestinian society. The VRS military leader; Ratko Mladic used shelling, here the Israeli authorities use a varied list of tactics, which include but are not limited to:

§                        House demolitions and the forced expulsion of its occupants.

§                        The restriction of movement of Palestinians from the West Bank   to Jerusalem and visa versa.

§                        Certain Palestinian neighborhoods and settlements are deemed out of the boundaries of the municipality, whilst Jewish ones are annexed to the Jerusalem Governate.

§                        The marginalization of the Palestinian economy through manipulation of taxation revenues, planning permits, and the non approval of zoning plans etc.

§                        East Jerusalemites are not given Israeli passports. They are entitled to a Jordanian passport and until they secure one, must carry separate travel documentation. They do have the right to apply for an Israeli passport, however this can lead to social and bureaucratic problems.

To me this is modern urbanicide, through denying a peoples’ economic, social and spiritual necessities, you reject their existence and you seek their destruction. As a General, Ariel Sharon, put this concept in better words than I. As a Prime Minister, he instigated this concept better than anyone.

“I know the Arabs. They are not impressed by helicopters and missiles. For them, there is nothing more important than their house. So, under me you will not see a child shot next to his father, it is better to level the entire village with bulldozers, row after row.” 

I have been here  for two weeks, but I am already drawing my own comparisons. The use of executive/judicial means to instigate demographic ends, was used as a tactic in some of the darkest days of twentieth century Europe. From the ghettos of Poland to the rape camps of Bosnia; the segregation and containment of societies whose only transgression was to exist, resulted in some of the greatest crimes against humanity. I do not wish to see these crimes repeated anywhere, especially here in Israel.

Damascus Gate

Starting out in Jerusalem- First impressions.

First Impressions: Overawed by the history of the place, which I wont go into too much, as various Wikipedia articles effectively summarise it far better than I. However there are aspects of the old and new city that are immensely powerful in prestige and beauty.

The Old City is amazing, I allowed myself to get lost and just wonder around for hours, imagining that I was some old pilgrim/ crusader- gawping at all the shops, towers and Gates. Be prepared to fight off the shop keepers, who will do anything to entice you into their shop, and then pounce on you- "Nice set of earrings, yes?? You have girlfriend yes?? You buy it for her, she will be happy......Have coffee and buy these (insert random piece of Holy Land jewellery) etc etc."

Amusing, but gets old quickly. One chap asked me to write the words GRAND OPENING on a piece of paper in his shop, which turned out to be a ploy to get me into said shop. Upon making it clear that I had no intention of buying anything, and turning my back I hear the sound of the paper being crunched and thrown in a bin.

The attraction that Jerusalem has to religious oddities. For example certain individuals/prophets/light-bringers that are currently residing in my Hostel.

East and West Jerusalem- Where is the dividing line, and what are the differences?

A breakdown of why the cost of living is so high in Israel, and what factors attribute to this. And what it could mean for the youth, Palestinians, and the state as a whole.

Bosnia '12

Just currently updating/ correcting my summary of my time in Bosnia this Summer. I'll be uploading a greater amout of text later on. But here is some of the shorter stuff I had to write as a summary for the group.

Bio-

My name is Ruaraidh (Rory) Stewart and I am from Chelsea, London. Currently I study at the
University of Leeds reading International Relations. I was educated at Wellington College (Berks)
where my curiosity for learning about different international politics and organisations was first
ignited. This wanderlust, stemming from my high school and university education, lead me firstly
to take part in the excellent GYC ‘12 delegation to Bosnia, but also to take a year out of university
to pursue work in Palestine. As of September 2012, I will be situated in East Jerusalem, where I will
have the fortune for working for an NGO known as the Palestinian-Israeli Journal, which primarily
deals at reconciliation between the two entities. I personally believe that the GYC delegation
has equipped me and educated me in ways that no library or doctorate paper could ever do. For
anybody who enjoys/wants to go out of their comfort zone, and experience the reality behind the
texts books & newspapers, sign up now.

Memorable experience-

The entire trip was an experience, therefore to narrow it down to one distinct thought or memory
is nigh on impossible. Or at least should be attempted by people who can better summarise than I.
However it is possible to look at some of the emotions that were brought to light by some of these
experiences. For me, upon reflection my number one emotion was sorrow. Sorrow for a beautiful
country, with a diverse range of cultures, peoples and history. That has been so marred by the
actions and orders of some of history’s most deluded and insane men. Sorrow for the people whose
country is fraught from within by inept Politian’s whose apparent goals are to intensify the ethnic
tension for their own political and personal goals, who feel the necessity to take a state owned
helicopter to grab a coffee, whilst failing to tackle the countries huge (Officially 40%) unemployment.
And finally sorrow for a country (that in my eyes) has been marred from outside, abandoned by the
international community as a whole, whose chant of “Never Again” is a reflection of their own policy
towards BIH, rather than the guilt ridden acceptance of their inability to act at the hour when the
persecuted masses of a divided country most needed that action.

Organisation Overview-

Atlantic Initiative:

 RUARAIDH STEWART

The meeting with the Atlantic Initiative organisation, this year lead by Maida Cehajic, was
thoroughly enjoyable and informative. One of the key areas discussed presented was looking at
precisely how the BIH security sector should be reformed in allowance to possible NATO and EU
integration. Maida pointed out that is required reforms not only within the army and police of the
country, but also on attitudes towards these structures and whilst many within the international
forum recognise the formation of the security sector within BIH as one of the great successes, much
more is needed to be done if the country is going to take the next step in becoming a region asset
for NATO and the European Union.

Ministry of Defence:

The meeting with the BIH Minister of Defence gave the group the much needed insight in to machinations of BIH politics and especially political attitudes
towards NATO and other neighbouring states. On top of this, the Minister demonstrated that
it was possible for a female to succeed in the world of Bosnian politics, which provided further
food for thought for the delegation, and perhaps dispelling some of the groups presupposed
concepts of Bosnian politics/ politicians. Most interesting perhaps was how the Bosnia ministry/
security, was able to educate other states military personal in inter-ethnic violence and post conflict
reconciliation. Whilst BIH contributions to conflicts such as Afghanistan are small, it was hinted that
its present in these regions was along the lines of this work.

Below are some of the photos from the trip. I will be adding more, along with some dialogue about them in the future. 

Tiger Hug.

Got sent this photo by a family friend working out in Africa. Enjoy

Re-Reading Tolstoy; decent quote.

"Why did millions of people begin to kill one another? Who told them to do it? It would seem that it was clear to each of them that this could not benefit any of them."

That do you think? - In international relations/ morality has no purchase

I tend to agree with this statement, what do you think? Please comment, it helps broaden my own views on International Relations.

“In international relations, where power is unequally distributed, morality has no purchase. States pursue their own national interests and the strong rule wherever they can. This is not a doctrine that Might is Right. It is rather the view that Right is irrelevant. Might just is what everywhere prevails.”

	David Fisher, 2011 : Morality and War: Can War Be Just in the Twenty-First Century?

 

Essay Extract: To what extent is it accurate to suggest that the Soviet Union was a Totalitarian Empire?

Just another extract from some of my on going work. Please feel free to comment.

It is important however to define what this essay regards as totalitarian (both in governance and as a debate), revisionist and empire. Also important is how the Soviet Union is related to these definitions, for example the Soviet Union’s known distance from any form of imperialistic values may be at ends with certain definitions of ‘empire’ so it is important to define this early on in the essay.  The Oxford English Dictionary defines empire as “an extensive group of states or countries ruled over by a single monarch, an oligarch, or a sovereign state” and in the mass noun “supreme political power over several countries when exercised by a single authority.” (Oxford English Dictionary) If the Soviet Union can be defined within this definition, it is possible to compare the USSR to other empires, for example, the Roman, British and Russian empire. The problem here is obvious, that the Soviet Union was created entirely in opposition to the values and ideas of these entities, in particular the Imperial Russian Empire. Therefore to avoid these obvious pitfalls this essay will try to define the Soviet Union as an empire within itself, and to avoid comparisons with other notably ‘Imperial’ regimes. However there will in some areas be comparisons with these imperial regimes, but this will in no way diminish the conclusion that the Soviet Union was a totalitarian empire. This essay will also define totalitarianism (as the form of governance, not the stance in the debate) as a “form of government falling into the general classification of dictatorship, a system in which technologically advanced instruments of political power are wielded without restraint by centralised leadership/ for the purpose of affecting a total social revolution/ conditioning of man on/ ideological assumptions, proclaimed by the leadership in an atmosphere of coerced unanimity of the entire population.”  (Linz: 2000, pg 66)

             

This essay will identify that the largest comparison between the Soviet Union and other empires, is in how it deals with the problems of nationalities. How the Soviet Union dealt with the nationalities issue will provide evidence of an empire nature within the distinctly totalitarian Soviet Union. The issues surrounding the problem of nationalities should be addressed before the entering the totalitarian/ revisionist debate. This essay will first assert that the Soviet Union was indeed an empire, then latter develop upon why it was so totalitarian in nature. Therefore the first area that needs to be asserted is the Soviet Union’s imperial nature, in particular with regards to its nationalistic policies and its treatment of its ethic majorities and minorities. The issue of nationalities is something that every Empire throughout history at some point, had to address, and the Soviet Union was no different. From its early days of the Bolshevik revolution, to its eventual break up in 1991, the Soviet Union had taken a derisibly imperialistic approach to its nationality problem. “In the modern world empires collapse along national lines; the Soviet Union collapsed along national lines, therefore, the Soviet Union was an Empire.” (Martin: 2001, pg. 19) In the early days of the Soviet Union, Lenin was all too aware of the strength (and dangers) of unchecked national fever, undoubtedly influenced by the breakup of the Austro-Hungarian empire and observing the role played by the ethnic groups. Lenin and Stalin therefore where acutely aware of the danger of being labelled as imperialistic in an era where nationalism was so strong. “The Soviet Union became the first multi-ethnic state in world history to define itself as an anti-imperial state. They were not indifferent to the word “empire.” They rejected it explicitly.” (Martin: 20001, pg. 19) The main issue asserted was the difference between the ‘Core and Periphery’ of the Soviet Union, the totalitarian nature (as the nature of the communist party) of governance from the core, could all too easy be interpreted by the periphery (and internationally) as distinctly Imperial. “One of the main methodological precepts/ holds that the USSR was a direct continuation of the Russian empire, with a multi-ethnic formation dominated by a central ethnic group.” (Shlapentokh: 2001, pg 12) However by looking at the way the core (by the core I am referencing the leadership of the Soviet Party and the majority Russian/Slavic ethnics) dealt with this problem, we can identify a particularly totalitarian and ultimately imperial nature of the governing party. The early Bolshevik leadership in its totalitarian nature manipulated the Soviet Union so as to remove any concept of a powerful and distinctly Russian ethnic core, running a subjugated colonial periphery of independent ethnic groups. “To avoid this perception, the central state would not be identified as Russian. Russian national self-expression would be downplayed.” This is what Terry Martin discusses as the early Bolshevik strategy of an Affirmative Action Empire, which too an extent supports the revisionist debate.  The result of these policies saw a focus in the upward mobility of rural and lower class Bolshevik supporters, which benefited the periphery of the Soviet Union greatly, demonstrating that there was “bottom up” movement from within the party. “Soviet “affirmative action” policies/ by which upwardly mobile urban workers and peasants and their children were recruited into a new elite” (Fitzpatrick: 2007, pg 84) Indeed these upwardly mobilised groups would eventually take the places of many of those who falling to the purges in the 1930’s, creating and instating a whole new generation of distinctly socialist ‘intelligentsia’ within the Soviet elite, even surviving the reversion of this policy by Stalin. “In the early 1930’s at least half a million people of working class origin moved into white-collar and managerial jobs” (Christian: 1997, pg 312)

However Stalin orchestrated a complete reversion of this process by the late 1920’s, which demonstrates the weaknesses within the revisionist debate. Stalin very much believed that the key lay within survival and modernity of the state lay within the suppression of non-Russian nationalities. After securing widespread control in the centre, Stalin orchestrated a policy to “institutionalise a nationalities policy that was based on national assimilation. Officially only Russian nationalism was allowed to survive.” (Rezun: 1992: pg 5) Here we see the process of aggressive assimilation of nationalities within the Soviet Union that was to define Stalin’s reign and the beginnings of the Soviet Empire. Integral to this was the role of the purges and the ‘Great Terror’ of the 1930’s , which will be discussed in the next segment of this essay. Expressive control from the party leadership to preserve the Soviet Union through a system of rapid de-colonisation and imposing purist Russian nationalistic imperatives upon its widespread ethnic diaspora is distinctly totalitarian in nature. This thus supports to a great extent that it is accurate to describe the Soviet Union as a totalitarian empire.

Friedrich & Brzezinski outlined various key distinctions of a totalitarian system; this essay will utilise these as way points to demonstrate that the Soviet Union was distinctly totalitarian in nature. The combination of the six points will effectively support the observation of Shelia Fitzpatrick who summarises the totalitarians-model scholarship’s view of the Soviet Union as a ‘top-down entity’ (Fitzpatrick: 2007, pg 80). “The destruction of autonomous associations and the atomization of bonds between people produced a powerless, passive society that was purely an object of regime control and manipulation.” (Fitzpatrick: 2007, pg 80).

             

A major point to the substantiation of the totalitarian’s debate is the use of ideology by the communist party and its leaders; as an effective tool in mobilising, modernising and controlling the people of the Soviet Union. As outlined in Friedrich & Brzezinski first distinctions of a totalitarian system, “Official ideology, consisting of an official body of doctrine covering all vital aspects of man’s existence/ characteristically focused/toward a perfect final state of mankind.” (Friedrich & Brzezinski: 1965, pg 9) the role that ideology played in the initial development and continuation of the Soviet Union cannot be ignored and supports the totalitarians argument fully. “The Soviet dictatorship/ rests upon this belief in the instrumental nature of ideas and ideology” (Friedrich & Brzezinski: 1965, pg 73) As a result the  Soviet people were willing to fully accept anything that was phrased through the correct form within the ideology. The evolution in Soviet ideology often reflects what is happening within the USSR at that present time, for example during the time of collectivisation as part of a revolution within Soviet culture, and exhibits how ideology changed Soviet language and life. “Military metaphors invaded the language. The papers began to talk of ‘industrial fronts’/ and ‘traitors’/ the party projected its embattled and militaristic mood on the whole of Soviet society.” (Christian: 1997, pg 299) Control of the ideology of the state allowed for the government to utilise its power in a subversive way, it also strengthened the positions of the party elite and its leaders. By imposing censorships in line with party policy and ideology, the leadership where able stamp down dissidents within the system, “Trade unions lost their independence. Non-Marxists lost positions of influence/ censorship ended the broad-ranging debates.” (Christian: 1997, pg 298)

Essay extract: If there was evidence that Iran had developed Nuclear Weapons, what should the US do?

I wrote the majority of this in November 2011. PLease comment.

     In answer to what should the US should do if it was confirmed that Iran had developed nuclear weapons; the US should ‘seize and restrict’ Iran’s nuclear, programme, weapons, and production facilities. This can be completed ether through diplomatic or more likely, militaristic means. Graham Allison provides a suitable course of analysis in his Rational Actor Model, by explaining “international events by recounting the aims and calculations of nations or governments” (Allison: 1971) will help justify such a strong course of action from the US. This essay will create three possible scenarios that may develop as a result of Iranian nuclear armament.

•   Scenario one: Iran will use its new nuclear capabilities to increase its regional power in the Middle East, whilst also deterring possible Israeli aggression.   
•  Scenario two: Iran will use its WMD programme to strengthen its strategic role in the straits of Hormuz.  
•  Scenario three: Iran will use its connection to terrorist networks to deploy its nuclear weapons in a series of proxy attacks against Iranian enemies.

        Each scenario will be assessed through their consequential value and payoff to Iran’s overall strategy. By analysing the potential consequences and alternatives this essay will reach a choice by selection the scenario which best supports/represents the states goals and objectives of the Iranian government. Certain questions must be answered in each scenario; what the Iranian government’s objectives are, how Tehran will fulfil its operational criteria, and what the consequences are? By following the Rational Actor Model this essay will reach a hypothesis in each scenario, and then select the scenario that is most plausible. The hypothesis of each scenario will be made by a series of assumptions, “Assumes that what must be explained is an action, i.e., behaviour that reflects purpose or intention/ assumes that the actor is a national government./ assumes that the action is chosen as a calculated solution to a strategic problem / each, explanation consists of showing what goal the government was pursuing when it acted and how the action was a reasonable choice, given the nations objective” (Allison: 1971)

The threat that an Iran with nuclear capabilities poses to both the US and the world is substantial. The Rational Actor Model supports that a dominant threat comes from the Iranian political leaders/government, the two main players in the political matrix are President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and to a lesser extent, Grand Ayatollah Sayyed Ruhollah Musavi Khomeini. The roles and personalities of these individuals are important in the analysis of the scenarios. For example President Ahmadinejad is prone to wild, extravagant claims and political manoeuvres, suggesting that once armed with nuclear weapons he will be more prone to deploying them as a tactical weapon.

Questions that need to be answered are, why has Tehran wanted to gain nuclear status and what does President Ahmadinejad wish to achieve by gaining nuclear weapons? It could be argued that Iran seeks to gain international recognition for its dubious regime, the WMD’s (weapons of mass destruction) acting as a status symbol.  However Alan Collins points out that “WMD provide a way to offset their inferiority in conventional armaments compared to stronger regional rivals or the United States.” (Collins: 2007) Therefore it is appropriate to assume that Iran feels threatened by the United States and actively seeks nuclear armament as a way of checking US influence in the Persian Gulf.

It is also suitable to suggest that an Iran in procession of indigenously made WMD’s would utilise them, this premise is particularly important, as all three scenarios rely on the assertion that Iran will utilise its nuclear capabilities strategically. This conclusion has been made through analysis of the economic situation that Iran finds itself in and the allocation of its partial resources to fund its defence policies. The Iranian defence budget has been under a huge amount of internal and international constraint, “stemming from the poor state of its economy and the embargo on military sales to it by all of the Western States.” (Sokolky: 2004) Therefore by analysing what Iran has spent its stringent budget on, we can evaluate what the government in Tehran value as a tactical imperative.

 Iran has allocated its limited resources in two major areas, firstly in air and sea denial, demonstrated through the purchase of “CSS-2 Silkworm and CSS-3 Seersucker surface-launched anti-ship missiles/ MIG-29 fighter, Su-24 attack aircraft.” (Sokolky: 2004) These purchases will support the hypothesis demonstrated in scenario two, that Iran seeks to gain greater control of the Straits of Hormuz, using its nuclear capabilities to deter western interference, whilst utilising its anti air and sea capabilities to deny the flow of commerce, in particular oil; thus gaining control of Western economies that widely depend on the flow of commodities through this region. Secondly, Iran has made huge steps in its WMD projects, most notably in the deployment and weaponization of nuclear materials, the launch and testing of Iran’s medium (Shahab-3) and intermediate range (Shahab-4) missiles , demonstrates that Iran has the capabilities to strike regionally and even beyond the Middle East. This conclusion will support the hypothesis of scenario one, that Iran seeks to increase its regional power, by using its nuclear capabilities to deter possible Israeli aggression, whilst also placing strategic leverage on possible regional allies “there can be no capacity for the use of force that does not evoke some response from those who hope it might be used on their behalf, or from those who fear it might be used against them.” (Luttwak: 2003) As it has been previously stated, Iran has limited access to strategic resources outside of its indigenous capabilities; therefore it is appropriate to assume that because Iran has placed so much of its constrained military budget into the acquisition of anti air/sea technology and in its WMD project we can assume that the use of both are written in Iranian strategy. This legitimises the credibility of all three scenarios, including scenario three which may at first appear extreme; is supported by looking at the previous actions of the Iranian government and Tehran’s links to Islamic terrorist networks.