A preliminary draft of my master’s thesis


2859_242.jpg

Conflict in the Caspian: A Comparative Study of Ethnic Inclusion & Conflict in Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan 

Abstract

In this research my aim is to demonstrate a relationship between the extent of political development, indicated by the degree of ethnic inclusion, and the extent of ethnic conflict, defined in the upcoming sections, exhibited in these two oil-rich post-Soviet, predominantly Muslim, Caspian & Turkic states. Beyond their security relevance, Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan serve as prime examples of states with variance in ethnic conflict and institutional development, despite the presence of oil in both states, and a common history. I argue that more politically developed states are more likely to form institutions that protect, preserve and encourage ethnic inclusion. As a result, they exhibit less ethnic conflict. My independent variable is political development. The proxy for the extent of political development is the degree of ethnic exclusion or inclusion. My dependent variable is the degree of ethnic conflict or harmony. I employ both a comparative case study method for generalizability & regional context as well as a logit regression measuring this relationship through 150 cases of ethnic conflict. The research is organized into the following sections respectively: introduction of theory & key concepts therein; summary of shared histories of both cases, Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan; review of data results from logit regression; and finally a conclusion. The comparative case study supplemented by the EPR logit regression results support my hypothesis that there is a positive relationship between ethnic exclusion and ethnic conflict.

 

Introduction

This research is an attempt to answer the question of why ethnic conflict occurs is some states and not others. In order to properly address the question, I’ve chosen a multi-method approach, including a logit regression as well as a comparative case study. I’ve chosen two Caspian states, Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan, rich with oil. The Caspian Sea region, or Central Asia rather, has become of growing importance, particularly since the dissolution of the USSR, but even more so perhaps, following the rise in Islamic fundamentalism. This has resulted in coordination between western and Caspian states like Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan in security measures in attempt to prevent instability.

More importantly for this research, instability has also taken the form of ethnic conflict, such as in the Caucasus, but also in CA states like Tajikistan, Uzbekistan & Kirgizstan. Out of the CA states, only Kazakhstan has oil abundance, and is thus vulnerable to the resource curse argument. That is Kazakhstan has averted any major conflict or crises altogether through a rentier system (Franke et al 2009). To counter this argument, and in order demonstrate that a lack of ethnic conflict (ethnic harmony) is not caused by oil wealth but rather by institutional accommodation I compare Kazakhstan to Azerbaijan.

In this research my aim is to demonstrate a relationship between the extent of political development, indicated by the degree of ethnic inclusion, and the extent of ethnic conflict, defined in the upcoming sections, exhibited in these two oil-rich post-Soviet, predominantly Muslim, Caspian & Turkic states. Beyond their security relevance, Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan serve as prime examples of states with variance in ethnic conflict and institutional development, despite the presence of oil in both states. I argue that more politically developed states are more likely to form institutions that protect, preserve and encourage ethnic inclusion. As a result, they exhibit less ethnic conflict. My independent variable is political development. The proxy for the extent of political development is the degree of ethnic exclusion or inclusion. My dependent variable is the degree of ethnic conflict or harmony. The research is organized into the following sections respectively: introduction of theory & key concepts therein; summary of shared histories of both cases, Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan; review of data results from logit regression; and finally a conclusion.

Theory & Key Concepts

Before analyzing this relationship, it is important to define four major concepts in this research: Ethnicity, Ethnic Conflict, Ethnic Exclusion (discrimination) or Ethnic Inclusion.

Ethnicity is defined as “subjective experienced sense of commnality based on belief in a common ancestry and shared culture. Indicators of common ancestry and culture include common language, phenotypical features, and belonging to same faith (Wimmer, Cederman & Min 2009).

Ethnic conflict is described as mass violence between two communities that each belongs to a distinct cultural group with common heritage and other subjective commonalities. In order to be classified as an ethnic conflict, armed organizations must seek to achieve “ethnonationalist aims, motivations & interests and recruit fighters and forge alliances on the basis of ethnic affiliations” (Wimmer, Cederman & Min 2009). Ethnic conflicts are distinct in their “armed organization, recruitment and alliance structures. In other words, ethnic conflicts are typically fought over ethnonational self-determination, ethnic balance of power in government, ethnoregional autonomy, ethnic and racial discrimination, and language and other cultural rights” (Sambanis 2009).

In many cases, antagonist ethnic groups will not be able to agree on new constitutional arrangements or a peaceful separation. These kind of ethnic disputes consequently become violent, some escalate into all-out inter-ethnic war. This is the situation in Angola, Kashmir, Shi Lanka, Bosnia, and Caucasus. Some scholars explain reasons of ethnic conflicts with collapse of the authoritarian rule. As an example, the main reason why ethnic conflicts have sprung up in Eastern Europe, the former Soviet Union, and elsewhere, because the authoritarian rule has collapsed and made such conflicts possible. This is the conventional wisdom. This argument offers an inadequate explanation of the causes of ethnic conflicts. Scholars generally fail to explain why conflicts have broken out in some places, but not others, and why some ethnic conflicts are more violent than others (Ismayilov 2008). To elaborate further, ethnic conflicts can be defined as conflicts between ethnic groups within a multi-ethnic state, which have been going on some time, which may appear to be unsolvable to the parties caught up in them. An ethnic conflict is a dispute about important political, economic, cultural, or territorial issues between two or more ethnic communities (Brown 1993). The most distinct feature of ethnic conflict is the explicit targeting of a group on the basis of a shared culture (Weber 1978). It is a long lasting tension between two groups that wish to advance their interests (Ismayilov 2008). In non-ethnic conflict, members of the same ethnic group might be in conflict, whereas ethnic conflict is distinctly between two separate groups on the basis of their subjective cultural differences and the political implications therein. As the literature indicates, as with many abstract political concepts, there is little consensus on the definition of ethnicity. The use of ‘subjective’ is to indicate the ‘ambiguity’ of the definition. In Lebanon for example the political system is known as confessionalism, in which religion is deeply tied to ideology and ethnicity, thus making it difficult to really distinguish any ethnic group.

It is also important to define ethnic exclusion, or discrimination rather, so as to demonstrate how this exclusion is being gauged. Members of an ethnic group that are excluded from government or discriminated against are subject to intentional, targeted disenfranchisement. Discrimination entails limiting access to government positions to citizens who speak a certain language, exhibit phenotypical features or members of a particular faith. Discrimination can be informal too, that is – it can exist without legal enforcement, if a society actively prevents a particular ethnic group from mobilizing in that society (Tezcur & Gurses 2017). An example of ethnic exclusion or discrimination includes African-Americans until the civil rights movement. Some might argue that informal discrimination persists today (Wimmer, Cederman & Min 2009).

On the other hand, inclusion can be described as institutional accommodation, beyond nominal laws, intended to help raise social status and political representation levels of ethnic minorities. The Civil Rights Act of 1995 & Affirmative Action are two examples of such accommodations in the US (Porter 2003).

Inclusion is a key concept in this article, particularly because I focus on Kazakhstan’s unique institutional infrastructure, the APK, which reduces the risk of ethnic conflict. The theoretical basis of my argument on the positive relationship between ethnic inclusion and ethnic conflict draws from Remmer’s model of Natural Cultural Autonomy. Remmer’s model suggests that ethnic inclusion does reduce the chances of ethnic conflict, but that this inclusion must go beyond mere laws. In other words, institutions and policies must be in practice that wholly address and accommodate the needs of ethnic minorities based on their experiences in given states (Porter 2003).

Ethnic conflicts occur in a multi-ethnic state, have been going on some time, and appear to be difficult to resolve. An ethnic conflict is a disagreement about political, economic, cultural, or territorial issues between two or more ethnic communities (Brown 1993).

The most distinct feature of ethnic conflict is the explicit targeting of a group on the basis of a shared culture (Weber 1978). It is a long lasting tension between two groups that wish to advance their interests (Ismayilov 2008). In non-ethnic conflict, members of the same ethnic group might be in conflict, whereas ethnic conflict is distinctly between two separate groups on the basis of their subjective cultural differences and the political implications therein. As the literature indicates, as with many abstract political concepts, there is little consensus on the definition of ethnicity. The use of ‘subjective’ is to indicate the ‘ambiguity’ of the definition. In Lebanon for example the political system is known as confessionalism, in which religion is deeply tied to ideology and ethnicity, thus making it difficult to really distinguish any ethnic group.

The literature is vast on ethnic conflict, but there is almost no focus on the relationship between ethnic exclusion and ethnic conflict (Fearon 2003). Instead most researchers focus on secessionist movements or insurgencies, but not on mere violent clashes, pogroms, and massacres. Furthermore, the literature suggests that most ethnic conflict is the result of collapsing authoritarian regimes, but this does not account for the occurrence of ethnic conflict in one region, and not the other (Ismayilov 2008).

The emergence of ethnic nationalism, such as in Azerbaijan, makes ethnic conflict much more likely. The rise of ethnic nationalism in one group can be seen as threatening by others. But even Kazakhstan, and most other post-soviet states exhibited high rates of nationalism for the sake of nation building. The mere disintegration of the authoritarian, cross-national empire of the USSR left a vacuum of power and the need for new states to emerge and address collective political needs. Not all states exhibited the same degree of nationalism. There is a distinction between Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan in this regard. Neither country is democratic by any means, but Kazakhstan has clear institutional differences in terms of ethnic minority inclusion. So what is this difference? A degree of political development, or institutionalized representation and inclusion has the potential to help mitigate ethnic tension by allowing for the establishment of an inclusive means of governance to address the needs of all ethnic groups in the state. This inclusiveness goes beyond just mere protection of minorities but accommodates and addresses grievances (Porter 2003). Now that we understand these important concepts and their definitions, of ethnicity and ethnic conflict, and the various sources of dispute, and expression of grievances, we can apply this reasoning to the two cases. I’ll begin first with Kazakhstan followed by an assessment of its ethnic harmony and the presence of robust institutions that enable it, followed by a section on ethnic exclusion, discrimination & ethnic conflict.

Shared Histories

The history of the Caspian is rather unique, rich with a prevalence of tribalism, nomadism, and clan relations. This was further enriched by the arrival of Islam, and the legacy of imperial dominance by Russia & Iran. The USSR would eventually encompass the entire region. It’s eventual collapse lead to the modern independent Kazakh & Azerbaijani republics. The purpose of this segment is to demonstrate how these historical similarities, while sharing some resemblance, do not ensure a shared degree of political stability and ethnic harmony.

The history of the Caspian region as populated with nomadic, tribal people with clan-based hierarchies greatly reflects in the political structures of the states therein. Nomadism has played a huge role in the histories of both Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan. In modern times, this is expressed through informal social institutions such as nepotism and patronage. That these societies embrace informality arguably induces corruption. Neither Kazakhstan nor Azerbaijan experienced autonomy until after the dissolution of the USSR. Before the USSR, Kazakhstan was mainly under the auspices of Russia, and Azerbaijan was ruled by Iran.

Traditionally, the influx of ideas, religions and cultures came along what is now called the Silk Route, connecting the east and west through trade networks and other forms of cultural interaction. Prior to the introduction of Islam by Arab warriors into the region in the 8th century, the Caspian region exhibited a diverse religious demography, including the mystical Shamanism, Tengrianism & Buddhism (Edelbay 2011).

USSR & Independence

Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan’s integration into the USSR only reinforced the tradition of authoritarianism and the centralization of power. They have carried on even into the post-soviet era (Tokaev 2004).

The disintegration of the USSR produced a vacuum of power. This vacuum was either to be filled by extremists or a continued legacy of authoritarianism. Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan, like most Caspian states, chose the latter. Similar security measures to the USSR were adopted, continuing the legacy of Soviet-inspired police-state. The only difference was that Moscow had essentially less control over the region it once easily swallowed up.

Azerbaijan & Kazakhstan also share linguistic roots. Both languages are Turkic in origin. This renders them an even more ideal comparison. Perhaps most importantly of all commonalities – both states are among the top twenty-five oil-exporters in the world.

Ethnic Inclusion & Harmony in Kazakhstan

In Kazakhstan, this accommodation exists via the establishment and continued involvement and development of the People’s Assembly of Kazakhstan or APK.

Prominent ethnic groups include Uzbeks, Tatars, Uighurs, Chechens, Koreans, Turks, Azerbaijanis & Germans (Nyussupova 2011). It is important to note that the population of Russians is the second largest. Before independence, Kazakhstan’s own national ethnic group, the Kazakhs, comprised less than 40% of the total population. During this time Russian was more widely spoken. Following independence however, Kazakh was nationalized as the official language. Furthermore, quite recently, Kazakh’s became the official ethnic majority within their own national boundaries for the first time in their history (Karin 2002).

To highlight the significance of demography, the presence of Uzbeks in southern Kazakhstan provide insight into the assertion that modern Central Asia is an artificial creation traced back to the initial “cutting up” of the region by USSR leaders. It is likely that the environment and conditions created by these “partitions” created much of the imbalance and instability in the region today. Despite being Uzbek by ethnicity, Kazakh Uzbeks are loyal to the soil in which they have inhabited for centuries. That ethnic irredentism really highlights the role of the New Great Game in determining the overall demographic structure and dynamic of Kazakhstan, and Central Asia altogether (Oka 2009).

Relative to his Central Asian neighbors, President Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan has witnessed under his rule a relatively stable and harmonious interethnic relationship in his country. This is most likely attributed to Kazakhstan’s overall moderate approach to policy, which sees a balancing of foreign, domestic, and minority interests, contrary to Ilham Aliyev’s cult-like rule in Azerbaijan.

Nazarbayev rules with more pragmatism. Kazakhstan has witnessed no significant episodes of violent deteriorations of society.

More importantly perhaps, is how Nazarbayev’s vision of stability and harmony expressed itself domestically. Through the establishment of the People’s Assembly of Kazakhstan in 1995, ethnic minorities are represented in this legislative body, which is intended to protect, preserve and celebrate their rights as well as the ethnic pluralism, which defines Kazakhstan. The APK (Assembly of People of Kazakhstan) consists of 384 representatives of all ethnic groups in the state (Jones 2010). The APK elects nine members to the Majlis; Kazakhstan’s lower-chamber of Parliament. Finally, all laws passed by the legislature must meet a certain criteria ensuring ethnic harmony, a significant check on executive power protecting ethnic minorities.

Kazakhstan has successfully employed national efforts to promote cultural tolerance and cohesiveness through its making of the Assembly of Peoples of Kazakhstan. National efforts to promote cultural/ethnic tolerance include: insuring each ethnic group has a voice within the government through policies, organizations, assemblies etc., granting all minorities equal rights and representation within the country, not using ethnicity as a tool for political mobilization but instead creating a “national identity” for everyone to be apart of equally (one that does not have to do with ethnic background at all but rather being a citizen of the said country), creating equal opportunities in the business realm for all ethnic groups, instilling strict laws against ethnic discrimination even down to ethnic slurs, as well as promoting peace through cultural events, parades, and the alike. The APK exemplifies directly national efforts in promoting cultural/ethnic tolerance and cohesiveness.

It has become evident that Kazakhstan’s politicians are aware of the need for inter-ethnic accord, in order to maintain political stability. Institutionally, Kazakhstan’s laws prevented the formation of political parties along ethnic lines; instead, in 1995 – by order of executive decree, President Nursultan Nazarbayev established the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan in March 1995, a legislative and presidential consultative body, largely touted by Kazakh officials as a representation of the nation’s progressive policies.

Ultimately though, the APK has served mainly as a means for controlling ethnic minorities and securing a national Kazakh identity. This was underscored by the APK’s name-change, which was meant to signify its purpose as a unifying project. In other words, while the mission is to encourage harmony between ethnicities; the more underlying purpose is the stabilization of society under a unifying Kazakh identity.

The main objectives of the APK include the preservation of inter-ethnic harmony and political stability, developing new mechanisms for fostering healthy relations between various ethnicities and nationalities within the state; to promote spiritual and cultural enrichment; development and equality. Despite its ambiguity, and its close ties to the executive branch, considering it was the APK, which proposed extending Nazarbayev’s term, the APK enjoys a level of autonomy and influence on legislative matters, but a new decree centralizing the aim of the APK around Kazakhstani identity might raise some eyebrows (Jones 2010). The APK’s overarching goal is to essentially supervise ethnic groups and their leaders so as to make sure inter-ethnic harmony preserves Kazakhstan’s stability. The APK has been generally used to portray Kazakhstan’s image as an inter-ethnic paradise.

The Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan has generated many benefits for both Kazakh society as well as its political infrastructure. Since its creation over two decades ago, The APK has enabled minority ethnic groups the ability for representation, protection and preservation, a guarantee that does not exists not only in developing states, but in even some of the most developed states in the world experiencing minority and ethnic tensions today.

While many have criticized and simplified the APK has an extension of President Nazarbayev’s arm into political affairs, seeing as he is the official Chairman of the institution, these criticisms are premature and lack a clear objective understanding of the regional landscape and history. This isn’t to suggest that Kazakhstan is a democratic paradise, on the contrary. Kazakhstan exhibits significant shortcomings in press freedom, political opposition, and economic competition. Furthermore, its tremendous oil wealth, dubbed the resource curse, has often paralyzed the process of modernization. Still, the extent of ethnic inclusion, representation and national unity are unprecedentedly higher in Kazakhstan than any other Central Asian state (Oka 2004). As demonstrated in the research, ethnic conflict was rampant in Uzbekistan and Tajikistan. A lack of representation and guaranteed protection for minorities, as well as a robust mechanism for preserving ethnic traditions, was accompanied by violent episodes between ethnic groups. In Azerbaijan, ethnic minorities are suppressed and institutions like the APK in Kazakhstan are absent. There are no constitutional provisions that protect minorities like Uzbeks, Tajiks, Ukrainians, Russians, Germans, Kurds, Armenians, etc.

The mere fact that the APK has legislative authority, representation and leverage as well as the presence of explicit constitutional provisions that protect ethnic minorities both underscore the distinct degree of internal political development in Kazakhstan (Jones 2010) This cannot be easily dismissed as a product of its resource abundance relative to its neighbors, considering, even other post-Soviet states endowed with oil, like Azerbaijan, are substantially more discriminatory towards ethnic minorities. Oil itself has neither stifled nor promoted political development to coincide with economic development. Rather, it has existed as a mere backdrop feature, while ethnic minorities’ fates remain largely in the political landscape and culture of the host nation. That is why in Kazakhstan, cultural and religious tolerance together have resulted in a less contentious atmosphere, the necessary precondition for ethnic inclusion and institutional development in that regard.

The most important element of this research is the consideration of the regional implications as well as the theoretical implications. This research does not suggest that Kazakhstan is in any way an advanced democratic state, but rather, that it has made significant and commendable strides to protect its ethnic minorities which have in most other cases suffered tremendous discrimination, violence and destitution. Ethnic minorities in Kazakhstan contrarily, have access to social, political and economic capital to advance their ethnic groups in society, protecting their heritage’s past and future (Oka 2010).

Furthermore other research on the region vindicates these assertions as Kazakhstan has exhibited political stability and interethnic harmony since the dissolution of the USSR in 1991. This has not been the case for other Central Asian & Post-Soviet States, where ethnic conflict and exclusion are simultaneously prevalent. Even where there is abundant oil, or the lack there of – when there are ongoing wars, or the lack thereof – ethnic conflict exists wherever there is an absence of political institutions designed to accommodate and advance their needs.

Even in the US and in most European countries like Germany, Northern Ireland and Denmark, there are various institutions and accommodations designed to integrate minorities into society and politics. The EPR data indicates that in situations where such accommodations are made, ethnic conflict is less likely to occur. Contrarily, the absence of institutional provisions meant to protect and integrate ethnic minorities beyond mere cultural tolerance will result in conflict.

Equally said is the need for more improvement for political development and minority protection in Kazakhstan, given that most provisions are often nominal, at the discretion of the Chairman & President, Nazarbayev. Furthermore, the low level of democracy in Kazakhstan renders even the most genuine of efforts to accommodate minority groups as politicized interests. The APK itself is limited in that it can likely be abolished or ignored at the discretion of Nazarbayev given the two branches clash (Tussupova 2010). As with most cases in Kazakhstan, the executive branch tends to overpower the others. Kazakhstan boasts of a many ethnic minorities, but it appears that granting the APK only 9 seats in parliament or the Majlis, is disproportionate to their population. Such improvements could further legitimize the APK as an institution of minority protection and ethnic harmony. Furthermore, Kazakhstan must work to integrate ethnic minorities into all facets of Kazakh society, include the economy. Limits on free press and political opposition also stifle the representative potential of the APK (Jones 2010).

Still it is worth noting that its mere existence is a stride towards democracy. As demonstrated, in places around the world where ethnic groups are excluded and underrepresented, there is higher chance that conflict might spur (Jones 2010).

Ethnic Exclusion & Conflict in Azerbaijan

In stark contrast, on the other side of the Caspian Sea, is the case of Azerbaijan. There are four major cases of ethnic conflict in Azerbaijan, including tensions with Armenians, Kurds, Lezgins & Talysh. The situation with Armenia is likely the worst, and involves a ‘secessionist’ movement in Nagorno-Karabakh. Therefor the NK conflict can be seen as a product of three ambitions, ethnic power balance in Azerbaijani politics as well as self-determination & territorial secession. The history of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict can be traced to the dissolution of the USSR. The decentralization of power, and the vacuum of power left by the absence of an authoritarian central authority, led to the emergence of nationalist movements. In many cases, arbitrary boundaries and geographic heritages were even further confused. Following the establishment of post-soviet republics such as Azerbaijan and Kazakhstan, conflict ensued between Azerbaijan and its Armenian population. Nagorno-Karabakh is 80% Armenian in population, but remains within the boundaries of Azerbaijan. An utter suppression and discrimination of Armenian culture, language and freedom is part of policy in Azerbaijan. Various pogroms and massacres of Armenians prompted a mass exodus to Armenia and NK from the Azerbaijani mainland. This mass exodus numbers up to 350,000 Armenians (Country Report 2015). Prior to the onset of the conflict, which began in the 80s, inter-ethnic tensions were brewing. A series of pogroms, such as the Sumgait, Baku, Kirovabad or Maraga targeted Armenian minorities in Azerbaijan. In essence, “Armenophobia is institutionalized and engrained into Azerbaijani statehood & Karabakh is at the center of this “policy”.

Some of the approximately 20,000 to 30,000 citizens of Armenian descent living in the country reported discrimination in employment, housing, and the provision of social services. Ethnic Armenians often concealed their ethnicity by legally changing the ethnic designation in their passports. There were no reports of violence against Armenians during the year. Some groups reported sporadic incidents of discrimination, restrictions on their ability to teach in their native languages, and harassment by local authorities. These groups included Talysh in the south, Lezgins in the north, and Meskhetians and Kurds (Country Reports on Human Rights 2015).

Destruction of cemeteries so as to erase Armenian history and heritage, the targeting of religious infrastructure, denying entry, linguistic suppression are all policy practices of the Azerbaijani state, which explicitly target and discriminate against Armenians.

The Lezgins exhibit a different condition. They are now considered the most vocal minority claiming discrimination in Azerbaijan (Fayos 2014). They make up the second-largest group in Azerbaijan. Lezgins often disguise themselves as Azeris to avoid losing job opportunities or discrimination in education. As a result, current official statistics in Azerbaijan have arbitrarily reduced the population.

In 1989, another ethnic minority, the Talysh gained the right to register as a distinct ethnic group. The accurate number of Talysh in Azerbaijan may be much higher than census results, which is due to the suppression of their identity, language and culture, “leading to internalized self-repression”. Azerbaijan lacks any robust, comprehensive legislation regarding ethnic minorities. The presidential decree of 1992 is insufficient in this sense. It lacks a “national framework for minority rights protection” and limits the focus to arts and crafts. Azerbaijan also lacks legislation to tackle anti-discriminations issues (Fayos 2014).

Institutionally level there is no specific body to deal with minority issues, unlike the APK in Kazakhstan. Azerbaijan does have the “Office of the Ombudsman”, which aims to compensate for this void. The focus of the state is less on minority inclusion and more on preventing secessionist movements. Such is symbolic of the paranoia, which dictates the Azerbaijani regime, compared to Kazakhstan’s harmonious and unifying approach.

There are few institutions as mentioned before which aim to support ethnic minorities in Azerbaijan, but none of them, neither the Forum of Religious Communities of Azerbaijan nor the Coordination Council of the Cultural Centers of National Minorities are involved in policy-making . They serve merely as consultative bodies and nominal entities. This is in sharp contrast to the APK in Kazakhstan, which not only protects and preserves ethnic minority culture – it grants them representation in the national legislature and the ability to propose laws.

Furthermore indicative of Azerbaijan’s ethnic exclusion is the fact that it has still not ratified the European Charter for Regional and Minority Languages. The fact that Azerbaijan actively promotes the usage of the Azeri language underscores the need for some type of institutional protection for ethnic minority groups. Unlike Kazakhstan where the populace relatively respects laws and institutions, the “Law on State Language” in Azerbaijan, undermines any of the constitutional provisions, which guarantee minority ethnic groups linguistic rights. There is, however, a lack of national legislation for preserving and promoting the use of minority languages (Fayos 2014).

The downside of being accepted into greater Azerbaijani society is that minorities risk losing their languages. Indeed, while some minorities appear to be maintaining their level of linguistic other ethnic groups appear to be losing ground to linguistic assimilation; many members of the largest groups (e.g. the Talysh and the Lezgins) have expressed displeasure at this outcome, requesting greater government attention (Marquardt 2011).

Some researchers claim that Azerbaijani policy of appeasing minorities without giving them real rights is in fact comparable to Kazakhstan’s ‘multiculturalism’. I challenge this notion because in Kazakhstan ethnic minorities have legislative representatives that can actually vote on national policy (Marquardt 2011).

To the Azerbaijani state, ethnic identity is associated with the events in Nagorno-Karabakh; the Talysh state which was briefly declared in 1993 and the Lezgins independence movement, which began in the early 1990s. Likewise, these groups are seen as easily manipulated by outside forces that wish to harm Azerbaijan’s territorial integrity. The Azeri government sees all ethnic identity movements as imperial schemes by Russia to instigate separatism, whether it is among the Legniz or the Armenians (Marquardt 2011).

Data

I use Ethnic Power Relations 3.0 to help demonstrate the relationship between ethnic exclusion and ethnic conflict. The dataset identifies 150 politically relevant ethnic groups and their access to state power between 1946-2010. The dataset includes 157 countries and 758 ethnic groups, and measures the degree of exclusion from government ranging from total representation to over discrimination.

Table 1 displays effects of changes in independent variables. By increasing the excluded population from 6% to 32% (Wimmer, Cederman, & Min 2009), it results in a 25% increase in the likelihood of ethnic conflict. Imperial rule between 1816 and independence increases the chance of armed conflict by 13% only. As a whole, the data demonstrates that changes in exclusion of ethnic groups produces the greatest increase in the risk of ethnic conflict.

The regression results in Table 2 & 3 (attached as PDFs due to size & clarity) indicate that variables such imperial past did not have an effect as statistically significant on ethnic conflict as the variable of ethnic exclusion. In other words, the USSR’s legacy of imperialism in the Caspian is not as statistically significant to overall ethnic conflict as one might expect. The same logic applies to oil. The data indicates that oil is nowhere near as significant as ethnic exclusion in its relationship to conflict.

Conclusion

The purpose of this research is to demonstrate that ethnic inclusion leads to ethnic harmony and less conflict. This is because institutional representation of ethnic minorities addresses their grievances. As exhibited in Kazakhstan, proper measures to address ethnic minority rights can mitigate the possibility of conflict altogether. In sharp contrast, Azerbaijan has restricted minority rights, which has coincided with inter-ethnic war with Armenia, pogroms targeting Armenians, desecration of cemeteries, linguistic discrimination, deportation of Kurds, and the suppression of Legniz & Talysh national movements. The presence of the Assembly of the People of Kazakhstan ensures harmony and representation between ethnic groups. Furthermore, it protects, promotes and encourages minority languages, enabling them to be taught in schools and used openly without discrimination. The APK in Kazakhstan serves as a model for other developing countries struggling with ethnic conflict. Better policies aimed at ethnic inclusion and accommodation will lead to more harmony. The research & data indicates that even powerful forces like the resource curse – that is, the abundance of oil, does not ensure a decrease in the risk of ethnic conflict.

Bibliography

Wimmer, Cederman, and Min. 2009. “Ethnic Politics & Armed Conflict. A Configurational Analysis of a New Global Dataset”. American Sociological Review. 74(2).

Sambanis, Nicholas. N.D. “What is an Ethnic War? Organization and Interests in Insurgencies.” Yale: Department of Political Science.

Fearon, James D., and David D. Laitin. 2003. “Ethnicity, insurgency, and civil war.” American Political Science Review. 97:1-16.

Brown, Michael 1993. Ethnic Conflict and International Security.

Weber, Max. 1978. Economy and society: An outline of interpretive sociology. University of California Press.

Ismayilov, Gursel G. 2008. “Ethnic Conflicts and Their Causes.” Khazar Journal of Humanities and Social Sciences 3.4: 50-63.

Porter, Kirsten. 2003. Macquarie Law Journal. The Realization of National Minority Rights. 51(3).

Jones, Nathan Paul. 2010. “Assembling a Civic Nation in Kazakhstan: the Nation-Building Role of the Assembly of the Peoples of Kazakhstan.” Caucasian Review of International Affairs 4.2. 159.

Oka, Natsuko. 2009. “Ethnicity and Elections Under Authoritarianism: The Case of Kazakhstan.”

Oka, Natsuko. 2004. “The ‘Triadic Nexus’ in Kazakhstan: A Comparative Study of Russians, Uighurs, and Koreans.” Slavic Studies. 51: 158.

Tussupova, Dinara. 2010. “Mass Media and Ethnic Relations in Kazakhstan.” Problems of Post-Communism 57.6. 32-45.

Karin, Erlan, and Andrei Chebotarev. 2002. “The Policy of Kazakhization in State and Government Institutions in Kazakhstan.”

Nyussupova, Gulnara, and Irina Rodionova. 2011. “Demographic situation and the level of human development of the Republic of Kazakhstan: Regional Aspects.” Bulletin of Geography. Socio-economic Series 16: 78-87.

Tokaev, Kassymzhomart. 2004. “Kazakhstan: from renouncing nuclear weapons to building democracy.” American Foreign Policy Interests. 26.2: 93-98.

Edelbay, Saniya. 2012. “Traditional Kazakh Culture and Islam.” International Journal of Business and Social Science 3:11.

Country Reports on Human Rights Practices. 2015. “Azerbaijan.”
United States Department of State. Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights & Labor.

Tezcür, Güneş Murat, and Mehmet Gurses. 2017. “Ethnic Exclusion and Mobilization: The Kurdish Conflict in Turkey.” Comparative Politics 49.2: 213-234.

Fayos. 2014. Minorities in the South Caucasus: New visibility amid old frustrations. European Parliament Policy Department. European Union.

Marquardt, Kyle L. 2011. “Framing language policy in post-Soviet Azerbaijan: political symbolism and interethnic harmony.” Central Asian Survey 30.2: 181-196.

Franke, Anja, Andrea Gawrich, & Gurban Alakbarov. 2009. “Kazakhstan & Azerbaijan as Post-Soviet Rentier States: Resource Incomes and Autocracy as a Double ‘Curse’ in Post-Soviet Regimes.” Europe-Asia Studies 61.1: 109-140.

Flirting with Fascism


It shouldn’t come as a surprise that white nationalism has triumphed in America.

Brexit, the decision for England to leave the UK, laid the trajectory of the Western world earlier this year.

The world is undergoing vast changes in response to economic decline and a rise in global terrorism, particularly from the Middle East.

It has been 15 years since 9-11.

The world is still in the post-911 era, in which economic insecurity and nationalism are rising together.

Nationalism is filling the void of capitalism’s recent setbacks. There was not a single democratic-liberal candidate on stage. Clinton is essentially center-right. The irony is that

The West, a fancy term which basically means Europe and America, is rejecting globalization and internationalism in favor of war-politics.

Instead of allowing trade and diplomacy to bring nations together as the Obama Administration has been at least attempting to do and successfully in some cases – the US appears to have chosen the trajectory of its mother country, England – right-wing nationalism.

The engine of the type of prosperity Americans yearn for is not one that can be offered by government.

Ironically the right which is typically skeptical of big government has awarded itself the biggest government it could imagine – only one that benefits proponents of war.

The left is painted as some conspiratorial elite meanwhile the right operates exactly as one.

Many in the world are convinced that a Trump presidency is somehow going to be pacifist but they’ve forgotten – they’ve forgotten that if it weren’t for the GOP – Trump’s party – the world would be a much different place today.

We might have never gone to war in the Middle East, spring-boarding the rise of ISIS and unprecedented waves in international terror.

I do believe that the illusion which has been sold to the American people will be exposed.

This is one giant lesson for humanity – that selective justice and moral relativism are dangerous devices to flirt with. Perhaps the West’s neglect for humanitarianism in the East has backfired.

Hopes for living out the democratic dream in the underdeveloped world were hijacked and undermined. The hint of liberalism which crept in through the Arab Spring was eclipsed by a cold, harsh Arab Winter.

In these next four years, the US is likely to engage in direct military confrontations – contrary to what Trump’s electorate believes they voted for. This is the basis of the GOP’s ideology. It is the engine of Anglo-Supremacy.

Remember – Trump has no ideology. He just a hateful politician who exploits convenience. If the social scapegoat happened to be Japanese – he’d go after them too – and devise some sick conspiratorial ideology to advance it. In fact, Trump is not as detached from his party as it seems. There is a reason why he chose the Republican and not the Democratic ticket to run on this election, given he was formerly a member of the latter as is now widely known.

The ideological battle in the GOP between nationalists and capitalists has given way to the former in the presidency.

Rubio vs. Trump embody this difference. Trump is a sympathetic to dictators. Rubio is antithetical to them – partly because he is of Cuban ancestry, haunted by Castro’s legacy at home. The Cuban Lobby is one of the most powerful in America, and Cubans of the Latin-American community tend to be in the right side of the political spectrum, unlike most other Latin-Americans, such as Puerto Ricans, Colombians and so forth.

The world is reeling from the election results and everyone is venting their frustrations and angers but nobody has really offered an accurate portrayal of what to expect.

Ultimately, the party that brought Trump to power is the Republican base. These guys are conservative, and no matter what Trump’s rhetoric might have suggested, or what his own followers might want, the establishment of the conservative base which brought him to power is the one that dictates the future, similar to one the Democratic establishment which lays the agenda for their candidate. Donald Trump was portrayed as somebody who is maniacal, crazy, and a “masterful” politician. In reality, he was exploiting his privilege, inheritances, and political affiliations. The GOP knew that a Hillary-led America was their demise. What people do not seem to realize is the following – the specter of racism which is deeply embedded in American culture afflicts the world at large, and this can be true of nearly every political phenomenon which affects Americans. The US and the international arena are inextricably linked.

The Russians played a part but the real reason for Trump’s win was the fascist racist subculture which largely dictates US policy in domestic and foreign spheres.

The Russians have taken for granted Obama’s flexibility and compromise. Like the Americans, they feel they’ve encouraged the rise of a greater asset for stability – but what they underestimate, as they have their foes in their recent past, is Trump’s loyalty to his own party platform, whom without, he wouldn’t know what to do. This guy is a figurehead – not a policymaker.

I predict Trump will be a disaster for both his nation, his allies and his foes – because he will act on the ideological positions of his party which will run counter to the reconciliatory efforts of Obama which eased global tensions, such as with Iran. He’s completely reduced US presence in Iraq. The exception was Libya. The Syrian Crisis can be blamed mainly on Gulf & Turkey.

Trump will attempt to sabotage the Iran Nuclear Deal, inflame radicalism and terror & damage the global economy. His noninterventionism will prove to be a lie as the GOP convinces him to militarily confront Islamists more directly. He will embolden his Gulf allies, while supporting dictators like Assad, thereby creating a more dire situation of instability and violence – contrary to his empty promises of unconventional approaches to foreign policy. He will stand more strongly with Israel, and undermine Palestinian human rights therein – contrary to expectations that his competitor, Clinton would do worse. This doesn’t mention the domestic ills he will cause – and the backlash that will come with it. His empty promises will have proved to hijack the insecurities of Americans. They’ve created a new messiah for themselves. And almost every single accusation of deviousness levied by them, is in fact practiced by them in the fullest. The lazy, unambitious, privileged, complacent, unskilled, bitter, overweight, gluttonous, self-loathing, racist, dependent, nepotistic and unmerited class of Americans have shown their hypocrisy. They’ve shown that deep down they hate America; and wish to see it suffer as they do for their lack of conscience and humility. They echo radicals in their hatred of liberal freedoms which they are ungrateful for.

Let us hope we can overcome. Whether that means enduring, impeaching, organizing or mobilizing.

Trump will make a mockery of the Russians for believing he was better for them than Clinton. The GOP cannot decide between nationalism and capitalism – and the Middle East is a dire example of that where the US is caught between helping their Gulf allies fund ISIS & al Qaeda against Assad while simultaneously protecting Assad against ISIS. This double-dealing is symbolic of a long-lasting tradition called the Great Game, originally waged between England and Russia. Now the New Great Game is fought between USA & Russia, over regions like Middle East and Central Asia.

Americans have amnesia. They’ve forgotten that the GOP is responsible for bringing us to the point we are at in our history. They’ve forgotten the Bush years. The WMD lies. The millions of dead Iraqis. They’ve forgotten the War on Terror. They’ve forgotten Obama’s inheritances. The media emblazoned Trump’s message everywhere and Americans naturally ate it up.

Americans caved in. They could not contain their miseries. Meanwhile, the rest of the world has been reeling from American onslaught for decades.

The point of this article is to demonstrate how the Republican Party has – once again – fooled Americans. You’ve all been duped into a new promise, instead of treading along the trajectory of realism and reconciliation as we were with Obama. All your conspiratorial messianic megalomaniacal invocations against Obama were actually embodied by your new GOP leader – Donald J. Hitler. If Clinton was a hawk – Trump will prove to be a bald eagle clutching a fasces.

These next 4 to 8 years will be tough – but they will NOT be what people expect.

I can assure you that by 2020, the world will be a much different place, and America will finally realize that, as leader of the world, still, one cannot practice democracy while expecting other nations to devolve into utter chaos, conflict and injustice. America cannot begin to be selective about justice at home or abroad. Only then can fascism be put to rest wholly.

Trump’s election is a disgrace to America. It is a disgrace to the world and should be protested in every form. Whether we succeed or not in indicting him for ANYTHING he does we make it clear that this man is not liked, not representative, nor reflective of America as a whole.

Trump endangers minorities, African-Americans, Hispanic-Americans, immigrants, Muslims, women & LGBT.

Trump’s positions will reflect his own selfishness and that of those around him. He will even sidestep his own so-called beliefs and compromise them as long as it benefits the GOP’s vision of a racist and imperial America.

All those who sympathize with him, particularly those from Arab or Armenian communities which I come from, will be made a mockery of when he displays exactly how he is going to undermine your community entirely.

America will have elected a false messiah; and earned a devil instead.

My worry is our ambivalence towards Clinton has put a much worse fascist in office.

Trump is motivated by a complete lack of moral restraint. That is why I am puzzled by those who chose not to stand with Clinton, or who chose to devote their cause to a third party candidate, because of the clear racism and fascism harbored by Trump and his followers. But this is a part of the GOP fabric. The irony is that the GOP is both incompetent and bitter that even their own selfishness is without any achievement. How pathetic.

From an Armenian perspective it does not make sense to stand with Trump or the GOP for two reasons:

Trump will side with Turkish fascism, racism (anti-Armenian, Kurd sentiment) & imperialism (involvement in Iraq & Syria). Somehow this will be reconciled with Trump’s promise to contain ISIS and ‘radical Islam’. They’ve pinned Hillary as a corroborator because of her “apparent shortcomings” but Trump’s double-dealings will prove to be actually devilish – beyond illusory YOUTUBE conspiracy theories.

His team has already expressed an urgent need for closer ties with Turkey – despite democratic shortcomings and rampant ethnocentrism.

He will side with Azerbaijani-occupation.

He has already stood with Israeli-apartheid & occupation.

As an Arab, there is no reasoning in siding with Trump either; or enabling him indirectly even. He hates Arabs; and Muslims. Trump will worsen the security conditions in the ME which will run counter to what ME governments think will b better US FP. He has already opened wounds by what he represents – the darkest shade of the American nationalist fabric.

He will follow no consistent course of moralism – but rather a path of ambiguous yet vigorous authoritarianism. And he will violate every promise made of being noninterventionist justified as security initiatives as usual.

Trump will renege every promise he’s made of being anti-establishment, non-interventionism and radical change. Instead he will drift the US along the course it was on before Obama – the one of Bush jr. You think otherwise because he’s claimed to be against this or that? Have you paid attention to his flip-flopping?

Just remember – what the Russians expected out of their deal with Hitler was eventually overturned and they were backstabbed. It was convenient for the Germans at the time to lure Russia; just as Trump might have duped them into thinking he’s playing their game.

Pay closer attention.

The Democrats don’t need some cosmic change. We do want more minority representation but what defeated the left is fear. Just as fear defeated common sense when Bush beat Gore – who like Clinton won the popular vote.

So much for being anti-establishment.

We might have a chance to impeach Trump (for future or past unknown offenses; Treason w/ the Russians?) or force him to resign – if we have the willpower and legal capacity. Or we might have to endure and defeat him in the coming elections. It all depends on how things unfold and how far he goes along the spectrum of his maniacal, politically inexperienced imagination. If Trump deports people by the masses; passes laws that destroy the US economy; incites greater terrorism; expresses more authoritarianism; challenges US civil liberties; insults minorities  – I foresee mass protests and unrest. Till then, we endure.

A message to the younger generation is to remain more vigorous, organized and effective – and be universally cognizant of moral injustices around the world. This will empower us on the domestic and international level. Most importantly however it is time to exhibit some more confidence, similar to that of the FDRs, JFKs and even Obama. Let us harbor our humility and modesty; while exploiting our cunning. This is politics – not philosophy class – after all. Harden your skin, folks!

Nazism, anti-semitism, racism & all forms of conspiratorial genocide denial are ILLEGAL in Germany and many parts of Europe. America hasn’t caught on because it benefits from the Anglo-American, White Supremacist Authoritarian Insecurity Complex. As Edward Said might call it, Orientalism or post-Colonialism. The violation of the Hatch Act by James Comey should have disqualified Trump – and his close ties with Comey and his associates, as well as those with Russia, should be grounds for disqualification. This isn’t necessarily to prevent a Republican victory, but rather, a Donald Trump victory. A Marco Rubio presidency, though controversial, would not elicit backlash because Rubio has never expressed Nazi ideals. Watch as Trump backtracks completely on all his anti-establishment policies and watch as he solidifies the American corporate grip on politics. Finally, you’ll see an unprecedented escalation is US militarism. All contrary to his empty promises, but consistent with his, and his party’s own neofascist foundation.

The problem good people have is they misunderstand both politics and spirituality. They’ve got this extreme inclination, one that is imbalanced. The ordinary American seems caught between his materialistic desires and philosophical pretentiousness, without any middle ground. Politics is approached as some revenge game, not with any sense of practicality and moral imperative – the two contradictory ideological foundations of American politics. President Obama, Reagan, Bush Sr., Carter, JFK, FDR, Teddy, were among these types.

But really guys? Enough with the privileged talk about third party candidates. Suspend your egos for just one moment. You guys fear some conspiratorial presidency under Clinton only to usher in an actually conspiratorial presidency under Trump as a solution or an alternative? What hypocrisy! And all this post-election banter about “listening to rural white America”. The same guys who have been telling us for years not to look at government as our savior have now idolized worshipped and ushered in their fascist messiah. Most of these guys are envious, unemployed, insecure, lazy, racist, sexist, selfish citizens who do not contribute to society economically or socially or politically yet blame immigrants for their own miseries, as opposed to their own egos and incompetencies. The irony – the privileged complaining about oppression. The fascists demanding government interference. The irony. The libertarians and the anarchists all who rallied behind a neoconservative symbol of tyranny. The Arab-Americans who sympathized with Trump – I hope Trump moves the embassy to Jerusalem in Israel so that you may be shamed for your support for him. The Armenians who doubted Hillary – you will feel shame for not recognizing your own selfishness in the face of a blatant racist.

America will regret this decision. I find solace in the fact that Clinton won the popular vote. It furthermore underscores the establishment’s endorsement and enabling of Trump – from corporations, to hedge-funds, to mass-media – this is Trump’s syndicate which propelled him to the presidency.

Trump has exploited controversy capitalism. What this means is he uses his position to get more attention through controversy instead of through genuine accord. Unlike previous presidents – especially those on the left – he lacks the educational, moral and character capacity and knowledge about policy to draw genuine support so he depends on appeals to the lower bases of human nature – such as attachment, idolatry & scapegoating.

The mob rule mentality and controversy capitalism have overtaken America.

A history of property laws based on preventing non-white ethnic groups from equal opportunity in the political and economic spheres thereby rendering them weak in representative power. Even Armenians were not allowed Racism has taken a new form in modern America.

Now that Trump has announced his cabinet choices –

How can America not see this is blatant racism? In Europe – Germany for example – Nazism is literally illegal. Do we have to wait till gas chambers until we realize we’re “headed in the wrong direction?”

I am an Armenian. I know this all too well. I have etched images and movies in my mind – like figments of my imagination running through my blood and my genes – perhaps self-constructed – but nnetheless vivid and real – that recall of the horror and tragedy of the Armenian Genocide – I hear women’s and children’s screams.

And Putin’s Russian has already expressed doubts about what Trump is promising he will do as a means of cooperating in Syria with the Russian army.

Remember – at first before WWII both the Russians (then the USSR) and the British appeased Hitler – partly out of skepticism, but also because they kind of identified with him. They could “use” him. Of course it got out of hand, as most might predict, and led to one of the worst tragedies in human history.

Hitler backstabbed the Russians – invaded them. Then he made the British regretful of their appeasement – by almost sacking London.

What is repulsive is that what Trump is doing is not illegal. The right has nothing left to offer which is coherent to the American people and in fact the right is responsible for our economic turmoil as well as our militaristic endeavors. Without the right, there would be no Middle Eastern debacle – at least to the intensity it has reached.

Trump has exploited miserable white men in need of a political messiah.

What happened to self-dependence and working hard – values the right championed? Perhaps they weren’t able to achieve these themselves. And yet, they wish to disenfranchise minorities from the opportunity to compete – what insecurity!

And so I guess we are flirting with fascism after all.

Time will tell, but pay close attention. Trump will falter.

How Will We Recover? Thoughts On Election 2016


Campaign 2016 Debate.jpg

The question of whether or not Bernie Sanders was the best candidate has a frank answer – of course he was.

In my last article I explained why he isn’t necessarily the most “presidential” of the nominees.

The president’s aptitude is measured by a number of things. These include both superficial and essential judgements.

In today’s election, superficiality has overwhelmed the political environment. In fact, this has damaged American democracy – at least in the short run.

There are several issues which I think the United States government has to address while other issues can be pushed down the list of priorities. Today we have voters turned into sudden political experts, demanding Hillary Clinton be jailed based on some partisan witch hunt to blame her entirely for Benghazi. Where were these gallant and honorable voters during the Bush years? Selective justice, indeed.

Bernie was conscientious of Palestine; Black Lives Matter; Immigration; Socio-Economics; and so forth. These are the pressing issues of our time.

What he was not prepared for was realpolitik, particularly in foreign relations. The so-called “revolution” Bernie wished to usher, appears to have been pushed through the wrong mechanism – politics. Sure, politics changes things – but real change comes from the people, especially in democracies. Just look back at our history. It was always the US government responding to people’s movements – not empty political promises.

When it comes to foreign policy – both Clinton & Trump – the party nominees – are terrible.

Bernie was prepared to show more restraint in the Middle East (where necessary) and bridge gaps between nations whom we have historically vilified, perhaps a continuation, and even, intensification of Obama’s reconciliatory foreign policy approach. Obama’s approach however was not entirely reconciliatory – as evidenced by Libya. But his withdrawal of forces in Iraq and his restraint in Syria has also cast him in better light than his interventionist predecessor.

Bernie would have also likely been less hawkish than Hillary with Russia. I do believe personally that Hillary “flexes US muscles” towards Putin simply to incite US nationalism and gain the patriotic vote – which is dangerous. But it is much less dangerous than Trump’s approach – exploiting conspiracy theories about Russia and portraying himself as a Putin-apologist. But remember – Trump is playing his own game. Remember what Hitler did to the Soviets? But Putin isn’t a soviet – per se. He is not foolish either. In fact Putin likely doesn’t care for either candidate. He would have equally preferred Bernie Sanders – the whole world would have. Putin still likely prefers Hillary too – contrary to her and Trump’s rhetoric. Things are dichotomous people – it isn’t just this or that explanation. Politics is a deep twisted game for a reason…

Oddly enough Bernie was betrayed by his own party.

Both parties have hawkish foreign policies whether or not their rhetoric is contradictory – Hillary exhibits “some” liberalism here, with the Iran Nuclear Deal serving as an example – as well as the recent Wiki Leaks revelations, which show Clinton’s desire to distance the US from Saudi & Qatari debacles in the ME, mainly their direct support for ISIS.

Both parties are reluctant for comprehensive minority-right reform and socio-economic reform, while it is certainly more characteristic of the GOP.

While Bernie may not be the JFK we are looking for – he certainly embodied the principles of JFK. Hillary – not so much. But her centrist appeal makes her a much more presidential candidate than her maniacal counterpart. About this there is no question.

The GOP betrayed itself too – by allowing Trump to destroy it. I am no GOPer but it should have definitely been Jeb Bush and Marco Rubio up there debating Clinton and Bernie as her running mate. Instead we have this s*** show. Pardon my french.

The West – led by America – is experiencing an identity crisis. It is caught between improving its own democracy on one hand and containing its imperial ambitions on the other. Meanwhile, the East retaliates with every move.

When will the world have the right leadership that can understand these complexities, and make them plain and known to the public, which appears vastly misled, misinformed, and galvanized in the wrong direction?

Hopefully sooner than later, because I don’t think I can handle this election any longer. The extraordinary shamelessness which has been displayed by the right has undoubtedly tarnished the US’ image at home and abroad.

How will we recover?

Surely, Clinton’s political trajectory is incomparably more promising for America’s future. You are free to disagree, but if that puts a fascist in the White House – don’t come complaining in 2020.

Who Really is ‘Presidential’? Thoughts Ahead of Tonight’s Debate – #Election2016


Trump__Clinton-2.jpg

Bernie Sanders was not presidential [sadly to say – despite many of his ideals being great – if not the best compared to his counterparts].

That is something the American people are struggling to grasp – especially the youth.

What is – ‘presidential’?

Donald Trump – is not presidential. But for reasons different than Bernie. Bernie is, well, simply put, without any character, really. Despite all the slogans and witty catch phrases, Bernie is just another product of social trends. He isn’t Justin Trudeau. He isn’t Obama. He just doesn’t have any flair. Americans like intellect – but they equally value humor; athleticism; suaveness – or “swagger” in today’s terminology. None of these are characteristic of Sanders.

The same could be said of Donald Trump but for different reasons. He is too uneducated, vulgar, impolite, erratic & irresponsible for such leadership – if not to hold any post. He can barely manage his own funds – or his father’s, rather.

That isn’t to say that Hillary Clinton is ‘presidential’.

Back in ’08, I hadn’t heard of a guy named Barack Obama, but as the campaign progressed, I realized – I had just witnessed the rise of an extraordinary individual. This man is beyond brilliant – something that few people truly appreciate. I can say that the world appreciates Obama more than America – which is quite telling. That isn’t necessarily true – a lot of Americans love our current president. But the ‘other side’ is equally if not more bent on voicing their hatred – to put it ‘mildly’.

Ahead of tonight’s momentous occasion, the first live debate between Clinton & Trump – I share the following sentiment. People often expect too much. This is a sign of…a lack of experience maybe. But other forces play a role too. The world is suffering and yet, the average American struggles to understand the nooks and crannies of his or her own political system and culture.

As an Armenian-Syrian immigrant living in America – I must say that my perspective should be heeded. There are many causes which are directly connected to me that have yet to be addressed or have been horribly managed, by the US wholly but also precisely by US president Barack Obama, whom I continue to support. Why? Because I am not a perfectionist in the political sense – and expect some compromise – not always – but in times of necessity and urgency. There is much change, and much work to be done in the stride towards justice – but it is just that – a stride – a path. We cannot be held back by radical expectations which in themselves seek to paralyze our sense of progress. That being said it is clear to me there is only one candidate worthy of a vote in this election and that reasoning is from contrived a moral and practical logic – that candidate is Hillary Clinton.

So while she isn’t necessarily the perfect candidate – relative to America’s choices – she is definitely presidential.

The US president is a person of immense wisdom and discipline; responsibility and sacrifice; public service and family value. Which of the two candidates possesses these qualities? And if you have to think twice – think again.

What gets me is that Americans want to change parts of their system that are less relevant to domestic and global wellbeing while ignoring the more pressing issues. And then when a tragedy or crisis occurs, Americans are left wondering how or why. Instead of a Wall Street revolution there should be a minority rights and immigration reform revolution. Instead of a focus on spreading democracy abroad we should be seeking to reduce our arbitrary and partial political influence overseas. Issues like these are costing us – but instead Americans wish to focus on ideological ambiguities and polarized politics.

That is why the candidates have dwindled down to the current options available – one representing the so-called establishment while the other represents the ugliest part of the establishment disguised as anti-establishment.

It is undoubtable that America and the world must implement comprehensive political reform – but this is likely an impossible feat under the auspices of a hypothetical President Trump. On the contrary, Hillary, like Obama (but perhaps to a lesser degree since she is more hawkish) – will pave the road for future generations to at least further the cause of progressivism in its purest form.

Perhaps future generations will reflect a more balanced perspective on US politics – representing minorities; women; LGBTQ; etc. But this cannot be associated with any particular ideological strand or populist trend as it has been in this election. American individualism and personal responsibility, contrary to the ‘8th grader youtube conspiracy video viewer mentality’ – is not preserved or protected by the far left or right – but rather, by a careful, tolerant moderate centrist. So when I say that Hillary Clinton is in fact presidential – that is precisely why. She isn’t just the echo of our grievances – but also of our reason.

The American Nightmare 2016: Are We Going to Hit the Snooze Button?


la-na-trump-rallies-20160312.jpg

Donald Trump is not fit to run the United States of America – or anything in this cosmic dimension.

And this idiot and all of his followers will continue to reveal how ignorant they are about politics.

I do not believe the Russians are colluding with Donald Trump because the Russians have class believe it or not.

The problem here is American media and our cultural naivety which comes from our youth.

We are a young country.

But to be frank politics is much older than America.

Think Aristotle.

American politics have become hollywood. Yes, the Democrats MUST defeat Republicans.

But please believe that both Democrats and Republicans have a tendency towards denial and mischief in domestic and international politics.

Hillary MUST win.

America IS the greatest nation in the world. But that doesn’t mean we don’t have lessons to learn ourselves.

Time to look in the mirror.

Democracy is not perfect. In some parts of the world it probably won’t work. In itself it can become dangerous too. Democracy has enabled America, as well as other countries to do terrible things and inflict great harm on the world. That isn’t to chastise it completely – but one thing is for sure, America has exploited its own democracy by denying rights to its own historically, and to others internationally in today’s world.

Accusations by Trump that Putin is involved is theatrical at best. This man like most Americans are running on unrefined fuel. Nouveau-riche politics if you will.

American politicians and their constituents are naive – I can’t tell if it is genuine ignorance or exploitative mischief. The Disneyland narrative must come to an end though. Americans need to wake up from this ideal liberal la-la land and grasp the complexity of international politics and cultural distinctions.

People are calling Trump a Soviet infiltrator.

The Soviet Union does not exist any more.

The Soviet Union was a radical communist anti-right wing commune of states – their biggest enemy was Hitler, after the West. Why would they stand with Trump? By allying itself with Trump would Russia sabotage American interests? But why then is Russia cooperating with America in Syria?

What makes this murky is the US’ inconsistent role. It has an identity crisis – choosing between being the greatest nation in the world; and being a meddling nation that exploits others. This became a phenomenon largely after Britain convinced the US to become the world’s policeman during and after WWII. If the US can learn to cooperate with others peace and security can ensue. But by the looks of it, left and right-wing naivety is threatening this possibility.

Donald Trump is a national – international – security threat. The media and the global neoconservative agenda led by ultra-right-wing across various countries are together colluding to pin nations against each other.

Populism is threatening democracy which suggests that popular sovereignty isn’t the only variable for democracy – there are many. And one of these becomes threatened, it appears none of them will be possible. Look at Turkey for example – Erdogan, a democratically elected leader, began trampling on democratic rights, and thus the military, which historically overthrows leaders who drift to far in either direction on the political spectrum, stepped in though without success – also unprecedented.

In America is has never happened that such a coup has taken place. Unless you consider JFK’s assassination a coup – but that might be a conspiratorial stretch. He was certainly drifting from the American political norm though. Let’s hope that a coup isn’t necessary to stop Donald Trump and that Hillary can do it democratically – even though the DNC themselves indulged some undemocratic methods by alienating Bernie Sanders from achieving the nomination which he evidently deserved.

Let’s hope Hillary wins. More importantly, let’s hope the United States as a whole can pivot from its half-century long trend of foreign interventionism; replace it with respect for sovereignty; a rejection of populism and neoliberalism/neoconservatism or simply put – neo-imperialism; recognition of cultural distinctions; and a promotion of cooperative political, economic and social relations.

This might have to see the UN become the global spectator; with the US leading the free world; and cooperating with other global and regional powers to ensure prosperity, stability and peace.

Hillary is more likely to take us in this direction even if it means a slow, dragging process. It is better than no process at all, via the GOP’s alternative.

What is responsible for American prosperity and individual liberty is not ONLY popular-rule – in fact it was the opposite – the elitist mentality of the founding fathers who understood that individual rights are often compromised not only by absolute rulers but equally by mob-rule – or mass-mindedness. Furthermore, the American capitalist, market-economy could not have flourished without a robust, intricately woven state-system that works with the economy without compromising its fluidity. If you read Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations, the so-called biblical canon of Western capitalism, towards the end he suggests that unfettered capitalism cannot exist. This sort of anarchical individualism threatens individualism altogether. Furthermore, it threatens the international community of states; and historical cultures which seek to be preserved.

It is time for the American neoliberal nightmare to come to an end, so that the real, American Dream – the kind that speaks of the Gatsbys, the JFKs, the Sean Carters & the Michael Jacksons can roam free once again.

Will we wake up from the American nightmare – or will we hit the snooze button on the alarm and fall back into our deeply dormant abyss?

Turkey – Clarity Amidst Confusion


erdogan-turkey-coup.JPG

It is really hard to get a grip of what is really happening in Turkey.

Media outlets are misleading as usual.

Political interests are at stake and biases are rampant.

It appears Erdogan has retaken power, resisted the coup, and is now in the process of an apparent legal prosecution against all involved.

This is where things are getting murky.

Erdogan hasn’t played the most loyal role as president, often shifting back and forth between extreme left and right politics. This inconsistency is symbolic of Turkey’s state of volatility and instability in the past two decades.

There is much that modern media consumers do not know about international politics. Turkey has endured nearly five coup d’etats in its history. This is the 6th.

What people don’t understand is that democracy can be bought, financially or ideologically, or both. That does not mean that democracy is bad, but that it can be easily infiltrated and exploited to destabilize and cause disorder.

There are many narratives.

Which one is actually feasible and most likely?

Remember that America is the world’s sole superpower, and that it dictates most of what happens internationally. This coup might have been instigated by the US as a result of Erdogan’s policies particularly towards Syria. Anytime a leader of a non-western country becomes influential, he is a perceived threat to the US, even if he has for the most part fallen in line with their demands. Remember Saddam Hussein was initially an American ally against radicalism. But why would America see Erdogan as a threat if he has been, for the most part, enabling the NATO agenda of supplying the Syrian insurgency?

There is a vast difference between rhetoric and reality.

America is playing the game of destabilization once again, but did Erdogan’s team just resist? The irony is that just weeks ago Erdogan had reversed foreign policy and initiated a rapprochement with Russia and Israel, a huge statement to the international community.

When Erdogan first became president he was hailed as the new face of Islamic dignity. At least, that was my interpretation.

He defied Israel with the Gaza flotilla. He embarrassed Simon Perez live on television in the name of Palestinian rights. He bolstered Turkey as a democratic, modern, Islamic nation. He further secured Turkey’s potential integration into the E.U.

What went wrong?

The Syrian conflict created a disaster. A refugee crisis, increased security threat, ideological fundamentalism & terrorism. Providing weaponry to the insurgency and mobility intensified the ripple effects.

Meanwhile, Erdogan was becoming increasingly authoritarian domestically, contrary to his democratic foundations. Aside from the right-wing populist rhetoric, Erdogan began initiating limits on women’s rights & press freedom, two bedrocks of democracy, but perhaps more importantly, two bedrocks of Turkish cultural history.

Naivety cannot be afforded in politics, and perhaps Erdogan was naive to Western interests. Neither democracy nor stability are the West’s priorities, but rather control.

That is why it must be understood that democracy or not, no country can be truly free or stable without respecting its sovereignty.

At this point, we may never know the actual perpetrators, and we will be confused by political rhetoric and unsubstantial media coverage.

What we can know is that even democracies have the potential to violate rights.

There are several possible outcomes depending on who is responsible. I believe Erdogan’s Turkey possesses the power to make serious challenges to Western assertiveness in the region. So far he has expressed willingness to cooperate, up until the recent rapprochement with Russia and Israel.

The most crucial variable in this “coup d’etat attempt” is the “Syrian Crisis”.

Turkey is headed in the opposite direction of NATO.

I think this Turkish crisis gives us the perfect opportunity to address a commonly oversimplified term: “democracy”.

We tend to view things as “democratic or not”, when in reality, democracy is a measure itself, of the ability of a nation to uphold certain principles. Since those principles are hotly debated, it becomes difficult to categorize things as “democratic or not”.

This Turkish crisis is symbolic of the fact that there is a real tension over the definition of “democracy”. Oversimplified understandings will highlight obvious components of democracy like free speech, free elections, term limits – but what about social liberalism, like the freedom of social expression, or, on the other hand, political stability and human security. From this perspective, if we look at the world’s countries, we must gauge the overall relationship between leader and people. This relationship shows how “democratic” a country is. It cannot be understood as solely popular support, because in some cases, more than not, populism leads to immoral decisions, domestically and internationally, like “Brexit” in the UK or the rise of Donald Trump in the US. We cannot accept

Some kings are good. Some are bad.

Some elected officials are good. Some are bad.

The problem is that, elections were largely seen as a check on absolute power.

But what if a democrat becomes an autocrat through authoritarian policies and populist appeals?

What is this begins to compromise democratic ideals themselves? Do executive term limits themselves guarantee democracy, or are other components, like free speech, equally important?

If we analyze the world from this angle, we begin to see that, in some cases, the democracy has let to good results; in other bad ones. But to expect that any one country in the world is more democratic than another, we have to analyze it comparatively from all the variables, not just one. Furthermore we cannot measure good or bad based on a twisted conception of democracy or on a prejudiced or predisposed political opinion.

It was likely that Turkey’s attempted coup was a “check” on Erdogan. If he drifts towards a less expansive, and security-driven policy initiative

Could that have been the spark?

All these inconsistencies further blurs the picture.

Why were police officers arresting military personnel? Aren’t the latter more powerful?

If Fethullah, the supposed engineer of the coup according to Erdogan, is in America, how could he have ushered the coup if the US administration stood on the side of Erdogan?

Was this coup staged by the government to bolster fledgling support for Erdogan?

Seeing as how Erdogan is now appealing to post-Syrian Crisis enemies, like Russia for reconciliation, it might be that this coup was a Western backed attempt at a regime-change. Seeing that Turkey’s military has never successfully failed in ushering a coup, this narrative makes sense.

For the sake of democracy this is not good, as dissidents face an increasing and brutal crackdown. Turkey has not been consistent, and this crisis is a product of that position. It has essential played the position of the “rope” in a long tug-o-war between East and West. For the past few centuries, the West tugged harder. Now it seems, they’ve let loose on their grip, and Turkey appears destined towards an alignment with the East.

What does this mean for America and Europe’s interests in the Middle East, Israel and Saudi (the Gulf entirely)?

Another question that comes to mind – where do the millions of democracy advocates who stood with Erdogan stand now, considering his rapprochement with Russia? Many Erdogan supporters supported his stance against President Assad in Syria.

This is where things get murkier.

Erdogan was initially reconciliatory with Assad. Why the sudden shift, particularly given the “Kurdish threat” and rising instability? Erdogan sent a message of defiance to Israel with his Gaza flotilla charade, but then quickly announced reconciliation. How does this make him look? Who really is Erdogan serving – Turkey or himself?

Another possibility is that Erdogan has awoken from his pro-American slumber of naivety. Once again, the Muslim world fell prey to American double-dealing and mischief. If this is the likely scenario, expect the unexpected – an Erdogan-led drift away from democracy in Turkey.

What are the most important elements of democracy? Popular opinion or social equality? If popular opinion advocates for racism, like in Nazi Germany, should the state reject it? These questions are even being asked in America, where right-wing populism also threatens democratic rule – somehow democratically. Are there flaws in the democratic system which are inherent or can they be fixed through greater laws limiting financial influence, media coverage and xenophobic propaganda?

Populism is threatening democracy which suggests that popular sovereignty isn’t the only variable for democracy – there are many. And one of these becomes threatened, it appears none of them will be possible. Erdogan, a democratically elected leader, began trampling on democratic rights, and thus the military, which historically overthrows leaders who drift to far in either direction on the political spectrum, stepped in though without success – also unprecedented.

Whether or not popular rule triumphs in Turkey is less worrying than the potential compromise of Turkey’s traditional culture of tolerance, diversity and secularism. This is being threatened by the extreme right-wing populist appeals of ruling party. In this regard, Erdogan is bad for Turkey. Will he rollback these efforts too as part of his readjustment initiative? It doesn’t appear that Erdogan’s reconciliatory tone towards Russia or even Israel is genuine, since it has been inconsistent. There is reason to believe that such behavior is an act of desperation – a sign of his impending failure.

In order for global stability, peace and prosperity to ensue, the following must happen – led by the only world superpower – the US:

America as a whole must pivot from its half-century long trend of foreign interventionism; replace it with respect for sovereignty; a rejection of populism and neoliberalism/neoconservatism or simply put – neo-imperialism; recognition of cultural distinctions; and a promotion of cooperative political, economic and social relations.

This might have to see the UN become the global spectator; with the US leading the free world; and cooperating with other global and regional powers to ensure prosperity, stability and peace.

Shultzgate


o-DEBBIE-WASSERMAN-SCHULTZ-facebook.jpg

Perhaps this is wishful thinking but, there should be a protest against the Democratic nomination as a result of the recent revelations regarding DWS’ e-mail.

Otherwise we may be giving Trump a really weak contender, which doesn’t change the fact that Hillary is the better candidate. But with this revelation, I wonder why she is in fact, the candidate. That curiosity might be exploited by Trump to feed his cynical, apocalyptic narrative about the US government.

Bernie was the ideal progressive candidate, but if Hillary does remain the candidate, which is the likely scenario, she is undoubtedly preferred to her fascist opponent, despite her own bourgeoisie detachment from society.

But the DNC nomination should be boycotted given this leak.

Bernie should still have a chance.

That’s when reality sinks in – so-called “realpolitik”.

What is apparent is that the American political culture continues to delegitimize itself, which is weakening public trust in government and thus reducing civic involvement.

This gap is being filled by wingnuts.

Let’s just hope we can defeat the maniac on the right. We’ll deal with our leftist problems after. Priorities, no?

In the wise but perhaps blunt words of fellow patriotic Americans Nipsey Hussle & YG: FDP!