The politics of ‘document’ and document illiteracy of Kurdish politics PART II
- KurdishMedia.com - By Dr Kamal Mirawdeli
- 18/10/2008 00:00:00
Part 2: International document
The final criterion: the involvement of international actors and being backed up by international law and international guarantees is the most important factor than must be embedded into a political document to make it valid in terms of international law and effective in terms of international power politics. No political issue in today´s globalised world is an isolated local issue. If one appears to be so, it is only because it is deliberately marginalized to serve bigger global issues within the intricate structures and networks of global power relations and interests. Bilateral and multi-partite agreements and alliances isolated from international law, international institutions and dominant global power pivots are not worth the paper they are written on especially for non-state political entities like the Kurds. They could be just temporary deceptive opportunistic measures to buy time. Even in these temporary arrangements the political intention, diplomatic acumen and short-term and long-term power position and intention of the actors will play the decisive role in deciding what form a political document would take and eventually which side is being manipulated, manoeuvred, constrained, or deceived?
Example
Of course we can give hundreds of examples. Let us just mention the latest one. War broke out between Georgia and Russia over South Ossetia. Only a document could end this war: not good intentions, not promises and even not bilateral talks and secret agreements! There had to be a document and to be effective this document was to be transparent and international and this was a ceasefire agreement. How was this done? Could a bilateral agreement between a weak Georgia and a super-powerish Russia hold water?
• A six-point ceasefire pact was brokered by the French President Nicolas Sarkozy
• It was supported by the European Union
• It was agreed and signed by both Presidents of Georgia and Russia
• Security Council met to discuss the crisis.
• The Russian President "informed participants of the security council meeting that he had signed the six-point plan
• "Condoleezza Rice, the US secretary of state, went to Tbilisi to bolster Georgia against the Russians."
• "In Tbilisi, Rice was much more forthright, saying that the invasion had "profound implications for Russia ... This calls into question what role Russia really plans to play in international politics." "Our most urgent task today is the immediate and orderly withdrawal of Russian armed forces and the return of those forces to Russia," said Rice. She added: "This is no longer 1968. [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/georgia.russia2]
• "In Washington, George Bush demanded Moscow honour a commitment to get out of Georgia, declaring the country had chosen democracy and "we won't cast them aside". [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2008/aug/15/georgia.russia2]
• "Russia's President Dmitry Medvedev agreed on the deployment of at least 200 EU observers in Georgia by October 1 to monitor a ceasefire as Russian troops withdraw."
This example shows how international document supported by international conventions, international institutions and international action is the only way for settling political disputes and ensuring implementation and recognition. No doubt, power or the ability to use force remains an important factor in international politics. But the aim of politics is to watch, regulate and minimize or maximize the impact of force according to the competing strategies of the relevant players. In case of Georgia-Russia conflict the small South Ossetia did not become a victim. They benefited from the conflict not just because Russia supported them, but because since 1991 they have asserted their desire and right for independence and they have held internationally-monitored referenda to prove this. South Ossetia’s population is about only 100,000 people and from this, according to a 1989 census, no more than 65 per cent are Ossetians. (See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Ossetia). But the size has never been a reason to deprive an ethnic group of the right of self-determination. Legitimate political leadership with strong political will, exploiting opportunities, taking calculated risk and playing your cards right in the context of international politics and alliances remain effective factors in enabling and empowering small nations to achieve their right to nationhood.
Of course, a political document however internationalized is not finite. The document is after all written language - words, phrases, expressions and even punctuation-, and thus it will remain subject to interpretation and analysis. And, the more powerful sides happen to have stronger interpretations. But on the other hand, the internalization of a document aims to reduce the risks of conflicting interpretations and subjective or unilateral re-interpretations by the very fact of being international, that is by involving multiple sides as players or as witnesses. Also an international document has more chance to be written in a professional clear language and according to high legal standards that will minimize the risk of future misinterpretation or future emergence of inherent conflicting claims. It will also provide agreed mechanisms for arbitration and the resolution of any such differences. On the other hand, any side that challenges and violates an international document will not only challenge the other (usually weaker) side alone, but will challenge other international players and also the whole international community by violating accepted norms and conventions of international law. These factors are all in play in the current ceasefire agreement between Georgia and Russia. While Russia, as the stronger player vis-à-vis Georgia, will find it very difficult and dangerous to violate this international document, Georgia, on the other hand, and its powerful NATO backers, will find it very difficult and unacceptable to suppress the will of a national minority, however small they might be, to determine their future by their own will in their won land. As by doing so they will also violate international law and conventions and give justification to the other side to do the same and thus render the document dysfunctional and useless. Finally, an international document is important because it has permanence as a material object and thus will remain as historical evidence even if when it will lose its immediate and contextual political vibrancy and validity. However, there are other conditions and factors that affect the status, validity and durability of an international document:
1. Representation: Whether the negotiators are truly representative of the side or group they negotiate on whose behalf. The more representational legitimacy and clear delegated authority the negotiators have, the more legitimate their position will be and their eventual signatures carry more weight and credibility. In international agreement, usually delegates represent the governments or political forces that have clear authority to negotiate. As the final document will represent the formal view of the government of political force they negotiate on behalf, the process of negotiation usually involves clear channels and mechanism of consultation as much as necessary with higher authorities or relevant groups in order to make sure that the final agreement is the result of collective view of all the players. Sometimes there is a break in the process of negotiations two ensure enough time for consultations.
2. Validation: However, in international negotiations, even if a negotiating delegate is fully authorised and an agreement is reached and a document is signed, in most cases the document/agreement can only be fully valid if it is approved by the parliament of the country affected by the agreement. Sometimes even when the government officials of a country sign a document, it still cannot become legally valid unless it is also approved by the parliament or a legitimate representative body of that country.
3. Process: Political agreement, especially one involving various international players, is not an easy task. It usually involves a long process taking months or years of negotiation and the context or changing circumstances at any time during the process - especially in terms of power relations and equations, gaining or losing alliances, new political developments and forces, military changes on the ground as well as the endurance, patience, determination, representation and personal skills of the negotiators- will all affect the process and its final outcomes. Sometimes this long process is necessary and even vital to get all the possible documents, evidences and details about the issues under discussion in order to ensure informed discussion and solutions based on maximum historical evidence and political knowledge. Sometimes the urgency of the situation and/or the danger of uncontrollable escalation entail swift action and shorter process usually by third parties affected by or having influence and representative authority. This was the case with the recent Georgia/Russia conflict when France, on behalf of the EU, intervened with its ceasefire plan followed by the US diplomatic action and political pressure representing NATO.
4. Historical background and political philosophy: Human beings are born to geography and history. Human history is the history of continuous periods of struggle which often change the face and names of geography. Any political struggle is not isolated of its historical background and geographical and hence geopolitical context. The process of negotiating a political agreement is affected by historical precedent, historical mode of power relations and the national strategy and political philosophy of the players. Most of the current international conflicts such as the one surfacing again between Russia and the West, between Islam and the West, within Islamic countries between religion and nationalism, between the Shia and the Sunnis, between Arab and Iranian Islam, etc have deep roots going back to the first emergence of the ideas of the same/the other or in the other words the idea of nationalism and national identity in the Greek Hellenistic culture in reaction to nationalism of the Medias and the power of the Persians in the ancient world. In the time of 'cold war' ideology or political philosophy was a major political factor in international agreements and relations. Despite the impact of globalisation, East/West tensions and nationalist ideology remain important factors in 21st century politics. Negotiators are often directed by their national philosophy and hence their national strategy and aims.
5. Military gains on the ground: in conflict-resolution agreement this factor deserves to be considered and assessed separately. Negotiating a settlement is a give and take business. But the situation on the ground in case of military conflicts can have a decisive role in forcing one side or the other to give in or make major concessions. Major political settlements come after military defeats such as the World War 1 and World War II 'peace' treaties, Iraq's submission after the 1st Gulf War, the defeat of the Serbs and end of Yugoslavia, the collapse of the Soviet Union, etc. Negotiation, political agreement and international political document are ways to turn the military gains or strength on the ground to political gains. Unless these gains are documented and internationally recognised they remain ineffective, temporary and reversible. However, as I have said before: power, whether political power or military force, combined with international alliances, remains an important factor in the final en-action of a document. Military gains and military force or control on the ground even if they are illegitimate are still important factors in settlement of a territorial or a political dispute. The international law recognises authority of occupation and its responsibility. Soon after the invasion of Iraq, US was designated as an occupying authority. Israel id recognised as an occupying country in relation to Arab land in West Bank and Golan heights. However, despite several UN resolutions, Israel is not prepared to give up the land it occupied with blood and sacrifice in a defensive war without gaining important international documents, that is Arab recognition of the Israeli state and signing peace agreement with it. In other words, it is a normal legal exercise to try to translate military gains on the ground to political and national gains enshrined in internationally-recognised political documents/agreements.
Military power can impose a status quo that makes some agreements hollow and useless unless as a historical document. Some international documents/agreements are replaced and annulled by new ones replacing them.
6. Signatures: What signatures the final document carries is very important. Signatures represent consent and agreement. The lack of signing by any relevant group leaves the document imbalanced, incomplete and potentially dysfunctional. On the other hand, the existence of signature means the existence of the political force it represents as an equal negotiating partner. Of course, for a document to be international and valid, the signatures of the negotiating parties in a bilateral agreement or multilateral agreements need to be witnessed at least by one third party.
7. Psychological factor: I put this separately as a factor because of it is importance although it may not be realised at the time. Those who negotiate are human beings with different background, culture, political traditions, and political ideology and of course level of experience, expertise and knowledge and communication and negotiation skills. All this affects the conduct of negotiations and who will be able to manipulate and outmanoeuvre whom. For dictatorial leaders or those representing illegitimate dictatorial non-representative political forces or backward cultures with no tradition of democratic accountability and political participation of their people, psychology plays a big role and Western powers have a lot of historical experience and psychological strategies to play with and inflate the egos of unaccountable dictators to achieve their own aims. In democratic systems, leaders are not isolated authorities but are part of the system and its various democratic structures, procedures and mechanisms of accountability, consultation, participation and transparency.
8. Central negotiating authority and united front or voice: the more one side is united and effective in terms of representation and decision-making ability, the more powerful and legitimate position it will have in the process of negotiation. Lack of central authority, unity and guidance will lead to confusion and contradictions and lack of political will, legitimacy, credibility and effectiveness.
9. Time factor: Things happen in time and are defined by time. Our life and our history are measured by years, months, weeks and minutes. It is often said: ‘a week is a long time in politics’. But this is for people who understand politics and appreciate time factor. Any human activity is a triangle project of aim, resources and time. Time itself is a resource, a defining factor that can be used or squandered. However, it does its action whether by design or default. For those who do not appreciate it, time factor is just a function of fate. The political process is also time-sensitive. A single unexpected event can change its course. It is not an endless game: you either achieve a result by a certain time or not; otherwise time, life, does not wait. It has its own careless or cruel logic. Strategic planning must have time factor at its heart, otherwise no strategic aims can be achieved.
10. Review, monitor and evaluate again and again using SWOT analysis: Any political process is defined and affected by its context, its conditions of possibility and its function of existence in relation to power equations and relations. Therefore, pre-planned and monitored regular periodic reviews of the process, outcome, implementation and perspective are essential. SWOT is an analytical tool which is useful and effective if it is correctly and purposefully used. SWOT refers to strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. At any point of any aim-seeking process whether political, economic, social, technical, etc, or, in other words, in the process of devising and implementing any project, it is useful and vital to use SWOT-analysis to identify strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats. Some of the questions that arise naturally from this analysis are:
11.1. Strengths: What are our strengths now? Are these strengths sustainable? What are the sources of our strengths? Can they be protected, consolidated and increased? What is the best way to utilize these strengths now? In six months? In one or two years? Which strengths are original and long-term? Which are result of specific contexts and conditions and need to be used within certain period of time so that they will not become dysfunctional through inaction or elapse? What are the best and more efficient strategies to use our strengths for long-term gains embodied in international documents?
What are our military strengths? On the ground, strategically, logistically, geoploitically? In terms of human and material resources? What are our moral and political strengths? What are our historical and cultural strengths?
11.2. Weaknesses What are our main weaknesses? Are they inherent or accidental weaknesses? Are they internal or externally-produced or a dialectical combination of both? How can we eliminate our weaknesses in short and medium term and in long-term? Are they historical-cultural weaknesses, economic weaknesses, leadership weaknesses, planning weaknesses, technical weaknesses? What are the best strategies to tackle and eliminate each type of weakness? How can our enemies, adversaries and competitors use or abuse our weaknesses? How can we avoid and resist this? , etc.
11.3. Opportunities: What are the best opportunities we have now? How strategic, important and decisive are they? Are they time-limited opportunities that need to be utilized within a certain time frame? Can one opportunity lead to another? What are the best and more efficient strategies to use our opportunities and change them to long-term gains embodied in international documents?
11.4. Threats: What are the main threats to our aims and objectives? Where and from do these threats come? How can we eliminate or at least neutralize these threats? How can we face them in the short term and long term? etc.
11.5. Scope These questions must be applied to every aspect of power that may affect the process of achieving the desired outcomes: leadership, military power, political power and process, skills and technical and professional capacity, economic and financial power, leadership, organisation; internal, regional and international relations, relationship between people and power, administration and service-delivery plans and activities, etc.
11.6. Methodology: Different methods of brainstorming, surveys, direct discussions, research, in-depth analyses , focus group meetings, consultation meetings, opinion polls, referenda, etc should be used to identify SWOT and plan accordingly embedding strict periodic reviews in every aspect of planning and implementation.
11. Political leadership, will and determination: This remains the decisive factor. Human will may not create history, but can mark it or even change its course. Without determined, informed, intellectual political leadership with clear vision, mission, values , strategy and clear timed and planned aims and objectives, no real healthy political process can take place and political negotiations will fail to achieve the desired internationally-recognised political document.
- KurdishMedia.com - By Dr Kamal Mirawdeli
- 18/10/2008 00:00:00