December 1999

Conflicts in the world

December 1999, Part I;

– Introduction

– The Americas

– Europe, Russia and the new states

– The Middle East

February 2000, Part II;

­– Africa

­– The Indian subcontinent

­­– Asia, the Pacific-rim

Conflicts in the world, Part I

– Introduction

– The Americas

– Europe, Russia and the new states

– The Middle East

 

Introduction

On the eve to a new millennium the world has not become any safer or more peacefully. There are now more conficts and wars than in the previous decades during the superpower stand-off. The Cold War might have been unpleasant but at least it kept most conflicts in the world at bay. As no side could allow a failure or even a loss of face. This could have easily escalated into to something uncontrollable and absolutely destructive.

On all continents of the earth there are some or more conflicts or even wars going on. As a definition of conflict or war we would like to use the following description, war or conflict is happening if states or organised groups of people have differences with eachother which they choose to solve or end by the use of violence. This violence is that large and intensive that normal live is interrupted by it. War in our understanding is only an increased, stronger, form of conflict with more agression an more victims, military and civilian.

We intent to deliver an overview of all actual conflicts and the ones which might come into existence on the short term, e.g. in the coming 6 to 12 months, in the world.

The Americas

The North and South American continents have been relatively peacefull places, with a couple of exceptions. There are three countries which have some kind of internal problem, from low intensity to civil war level, and two countries who are at odds which eachother about the demarcations of their mutual border.

Venezuela vs. Guyana

Venezuela and Guyana have still a different interpretation of the demarcation of the border. This difference intensified as Venezuela deployed a number of troops to the region, allegedly to stop drugs smugglers, the Guyana government became excited as they did not trust the situation.

This long standing disagreement has never been that serious that an armed conflict would be just around the corner. Both countries are thereby unable to launch, continue and support such and operation. Militarily and especially economically they have to many problems to start an enterprise like a small scale war with a neighbour.

The border disagreement arises if one of the countries unexpectedly deploys forces to the region. But this does not happen that often. The conflict has been therefore very low level and seems to stay that way on the short to medium term. The conflict seems to diminish and disappear because the United Nations have send an intermediary to the region which has a fair chance to solve it.

Mexico

The problems in Mexico are of a different nature. The economic and social differences have been always very wide and they seem to increase in the southern part of the country. In this rural area farming has been the main source of income. As most of the land is owned by large landowners many of the people living over there have been forced to work for them or lease the land from that group. The large landowners have become more wealthy and the working people have become poorer.

The poverty of these people, and to a lesser extent the working class in the north, have been the reason of the existence of some groups which want to improve the situation of these people. If necessary with violence. The EPR, Ejercito Revolucionarias Popular, and the CND are national operating organisations who demand a change in he political system. The majority of their work is more or less normal political work but at times they use other means, like violence, to intimidate and persuade people of the rightousness of their claims.

The EPR and CND have been relatively calm in the past six months and paid more attention to political work. The elections which are to held in 2000 are the main reason for this. They do not want to give the ruling PRI party an excuse to tighten security, increase police activities, suppress the opposition or even cancel the elections which they are prone to loose.

The other main oppostion party outside the normal political infrastructure is the Zapatista Liberation Army. The Zapatistas are an indian based party concentrated at the province of Chiapas. They want to change the unfair distribution of property. The Zapatistas have been using military/guerilla tactics to enforce their policy. In the last one to two years the Zapatistas have been largely subdued and are now vitually prisoners in their own province.

All opposition movements in Mexico want to improve the situation of the poor, landless farmers and the Indians. Beside a political structure they are also using violence to force the Mexican government to change its policy. Because of the coming elections an artificial peace like environment has been created. The normal political parties and the opposition movements, EPR, CND and the Zapatistas, are anxiously awaiting the results and therefore called some kind of cease fire in the guerilla war they are waging.

The new government might be more willing to listen, cooperate and to change something about the bad socio-economic situation of the poor, landless farmers and Indians. If the wishes and demands of the opposition are not met, not even partially, the situation in Mexico will turn very nasty. Violence will increase as the political process proved to be unworkable / unsupportive for the worse off in the Mexican society. A desperate fight will be the consequence as the opposition will have nothing left to loose, in short civil war.

Colombia

The situation in Colombia is as worse as before. The country is essentially involved in a full scale civil war. The government has not been able nor will be able to control or stop the activities of the leftist guerillas of the FARC, Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionaries de Colombia, the ELN, the National Liberation Army, and the right wing para-militaries. Beside the violent political opposition, there are still a number of criminal organisations which financially support the above mentioned organisations in exchange for protection and occasional support services, read forced labor and transport services.

The leftist guerilla organisations of the FARC and ELN, control over 42.000 KM2 of the territory of Colombia. The right wing militias also control considerable parts of the country but this in cooperation with the large land owners who more or less support the militias. The right wing militias were in the first place created to protect the land owners, or associations of land owners, from attacks of the leftist guerillas.

The Colombian armed forces could until now, 1999, not defeat the guerilla forces. They are forced to protect to many vital installations and important people. So only a fraction of the forces are available to fight the guerilla. And the quality of the guerilla has been very good. The training of the guerilla, especially the FARC, has been better than that of the regular soldier of the army.

The promised U.S. financial and material support to combat the narco organisations would be helpfull as this would them a better chance to defeat the narco trade. Consequently the financial resources of the leftist guerillas and the right wing para militaries would be reduced. But the U.S. support will prove to be to little and to slow to make an impact on the short to medium term.

In the mean time the only option of the government is to talk, negotiate, with the leftist guerillas. They are however very adverse to negotiations as their positions are much better, stronger, then the government’s position. All attempts to talk have failed because of increasing and new demands of the leftist guerillas.

The government is in a difficult position as they are not able to defeat the armed opposition and the start of negotiations will become ever more difficult. The leftist guerillas consider the negotiations as a way to gain more territory or liberties and they see it as a weakness of the government. They see themselve on the winning side, so why give in something you will be able to take in the short to medium term. All pleas of the population will not change the policy of the leftist guerillas so close to their goal.

The conflict is likely to intensify in the future. The government received additional support from abroad, they are getting tired of the negotiations which lead to nothing and are increasingly trying to fight the guerilla and the narco-gangs which support the guerilla. The FARC and ELN have increased their operations against the government and the FARC has approached the outskirts of the capital Bogota in the traditional hit and run tactics. The guerilla will be in the short term more hurted by the apprehension of the narco financial supporters than by the operations of the armed forces against them.

The civil war will most likely continue in 2000. Colombia will remain a country is distress. The fighting will continue as no side is able to defeat the other side.

Peru

The situation in Peru has improved as the capabilties of the MRTA, Movimento Revolucionario Tupac Amaru, and especially the Sendero Luminoso, Shining Path, have been severely limited by the actions of the government. The MRTA has been virtually destroyed since the last spectacular action, the kidnapping, in the Japanese embassy. The MRTA as a city guerilla, never had that much support in the population and remained small in scale and effectivety. The government could thus relatively easy control and destroy the most active elements of the MRTA.

The Shining Path has also become the phantom of its former strength after nearly the whole leadership have been arrested and put in jail. The Shining Path still exists as a guerilla force but they are at the moment not able to control parts of the country and to strike at the armed forces as before.

The government and the security forces will continue with the crack down of the Shining Path and the MRTA. The Shining Path will therefore not be able to become as dangerous as before. The only option left wil be some occasional attacks against the armed forces, deep inside the jungle of the country. Peru will be safer as before and this trend is most likely to continue.

Europe, Russia and the new states

In this chapter we will evaluate the situation in Europe, from the Atlantic ocean to the Ural mountain range, and because of the close relations with Russia we will include the new Asian states, which formerly were part of the now defunct Soviet Union.

The situation in Europe, with two exceptions, can be divided into two parts. The quiet Northern-, Western- and Eastern Europe and the volatile South-eastern Europe. Where as the first group is free of any outside direct threats and internal violent oppostion with the exception of the United Kingdom and Spain. The second group, South-eastern Europe, is much more under threat from inter- and intra state conflict. The Balkan remains the most volatile area, with Turkey on a second place and Greece closing the line.

The territory of the former Soviet Union, excluding the Baltic states, Belorussia, the Ukraine and Moldova, is a much more complicated affair. A number of countries have inter- and intra state differences, some intra state problems and with the exception of one or two the left over is being hit by spill overs from their neighbours problems.

Europe

As mentioned above Northern-, Western- and Eastern Europe is virtually free from any conflicts with the exception of the United Kingdom, Spain and to be complete France. South-eastern Europe is the area with the problems which destabilises the area and could affect the other part of Europe by the refugees if a problem becomes hot.

The United Kingdom

The problem which could become violent again is the Northern Ireland case. Northern Ireland remains a potential hot spot as long as the two groups, the Catholic republican minded group and the Protestant UK/monarchy minded group, do not reach an agreement.

After years of violence, bombings, terror and suppression of the Irish Republican Army and associated groups, the Ulster Defence Force and associated groups and the Britsh forces, the Ulster Constabulary and the Britsh Army who acted very often one-sided, all parties agreed something had to change.

The IRA represented by the Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionist Party, with approval of the UDF, and the British government started negotiations to end the conflict. After an initial success, elections and the cessation of violence the peace process stalled over the disarmament demand of the UDF and the British government. If the peace process stalls to long dissatisfaction and reciprocal accusations and assaults will become more likely.

The parties involved in the peace process need progress as the hawks on each side, who never really agreed with the peace process, are pressing to return to the armed fight. They still believe they can win the conflict by the use of force, violence.

It therefore of the utmost importance that the negotiations will start again. There are signs that all concerning parties are prepared to compromise. Sinn Fein ministers will be allowed to join the government, an IRA member will join the disarmament commission, the disarmament will be postphoned to the beginning of 2000 and the Ulster Unionist Party accept that if disarmament fails the Sinn Fein ministers will have to leave the government.

It should however be considered that the demand of disarmament is shortsighted. A disarmament will only deliver an artificial feeling of security. Because if they disarm there can never be a certainty that all weapons are handed over. There are private illegal weapons and ofcourse the weapons of the Protestant militant groups. They can rearm very quickly. The hand over of weapons to the British armed forced is experienced as a surrender but there are no victors nor defeated. And the armament delivers the Catholic side an idea of equality versus the Protestants and the all mighty British security forces.

The disarmament question should be dealt with after the peace threaty have been fully implemented and the people can and will live and work together as normal people. A first step that the explosives will be handed over to the government, British army, should be enough as a confidence building measure.

A return to the armed conflict will be unlikely on the short term as both sides profit most from peace and the leaders are to carefull to destroy the progress that have been reached. But to avoid violence on the medium to long term the process/negotiations/cooperation have to start again. Otherwise things may look bleak.

Spain

The demand of the Bask people, or better the ETA, Euzkadi Ta Askatasuna, for independence remains as firm as before. The promising first contacts, the start to peacefull cooperation and the disgust of the Bask people of a number of attacks of the ETA have been turned around. The election in Bask country of a coalition of pro-Bask independence/autonomy parties and a resurgent Herri Batasuna, the political arm of ETA, politically, and ETA, militarily, are a clear sign that the armed struggle will continue.

The Spanish government might have been to slow and carefull in the policies regarding the Bask province but they could most probably not avoid the resurrection of the ETA. The hard liners have been backed by a new generation of ETA supporters and are vividly and loudly proclaiming their goal, independence. The political activities have been supported by the creation of new arms depots and a new infra-structure in Spain and in France.

The ETA seems to be prepared again to use violence to support their fight against the Spanish government. Independence of the Bask province and even the creation of great Bask country seems to be the goal of the ETA. A restart of the armed conflict seems to be very likely as no side is prepared and able to compromise. All progress made in the last two years will be thrown away as the ETA cannot give up the independence demand and Spain cannot go any further than the already autonom status of the Bask province.

France

The problem of France seems to be small against the problems in Spain and the United Kingdom. The province of Corsica is still a trouble spot in France. There are three or four parties / organisations who demand independence or better something like it.

The parties are not very active and occasionally burn houses of people who are not native Corsicans or use it a holiday house. Sometimes, even rarer, they attack government property or people representing the French government. Their normal work is to collect taxes from Corsicans under the guise of paying for the independence fight and / or they collect money from the French government as a kind of pacifying gesture of the government. Corsica is the most subsidized province of France.

And this is the problem of Corsica, they want to be independent but they do not want to loose their preferential treatment. Corsica and especially the parties voting for independence are addicted to the financial support. The reason of existence sometimes seems to be financial motivated.

This struggle seems to be continueing in the coming years as long as France does not radically change its policy towards Corsica. Changing the subsidy regime towards the Corsicans will increase the attacks against government institutions. And if granting independence would be considered Corsica will most probably reject it, as economically Corsica is hardly able to do it on their own.

South-eastern Europe

The real problems of Europe are centred at an area which have been historically very difficult and violent. There are different religions and people in this area which each have at one one time ruled over the other. There are differences about the exact demarcation of the border, revanchism and a leader who considers conflict and/or war as an opportunity to stay in power. The area in question is the Balkan. And in particular the area of the former republic of Yugoslavia.

The other region with above normal tensions is the long lasting Greek-Turkish contradiction and the connected Cyprus question.

The Balkan

The Balkan has been for centuries the centre of conflict. In one of the last major conflicts it has been on the frontier between two opposing religions and world powers, the Austro-Hungarian empire versus the Ottoman empire. Or as it is sometimes called in Germany, Morgenland gegen Abendland.

The republic of Yugoslavia became the victim of the end of the Cold War. The differences between the peoples in Yugoslavia, the division of power and the inequality of economic development and wealth in the country, made the country fall apart. Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina and in 1999 Kosovo left the republic. With the exception of Slovenia all had to fight for their independence as large groups of Serbians in each of those areas resisted to, with support of the Yugoslav army, the dissolution of the country. Only after years of battle, mutual atrocities, dislocation/movement of ethnic groups and after long hesitation the decisive intervention of NATO forces some stability could be introduced.

As long as NATO remains on station in the area, in Bosnia and Kosovo, there will be no fighting between the different ethnic groups. Bosnia will remain however a divided country as each group has its own little territory. The situation is Bosnia has stabilised in sofar that a new conflict seems to be very unlikely on the short to medium term.

Kosovo will also finally experience a more stable environment. The NATO contingent will not allow any fighting. And Kosovo will be dominantly Kosovo-Albanian as the Serb minority fled the area, after the conflict, in fear of revenge of the Albanians.

The bad genius of the area is still in power. The president of little Yugoslavia, or better Serbia, Slobodan Milosevic, have used and will use the ethnic differences in the country to stay in power. With little attention to the demands of other ethnic groups who live and have lived in Yugoslavia he protected his position and the dominant position of the Serbians in former Yugoslavia. As soon as some one was undermining those positions he played the nationalistic Serbian card to suppress all opposition. There are now two areas left in little Yugoslavia, the northern Serbian province Vojvidina and the associated state in little Yugoslavia Montenegro, in which there are respectively a large group of Hungarians and a majority of Montenegrans

It seems to be very likely that Milosevic has a two track strategy for Montengro. He will on one side use the aversion of Montenegro towards his regime and on the other side he will want to destroy the opposition in Montenegro with the common goal to reinforce his position. E.g. Serbia and Milosevic cannot loose Montenegro as it is the only connection to the sea and the Serbians will most probably rally behind Milosevic if it seems as Montenegro will secede from little Yugoslavia.

It is therefore very likely that Serbia will act in the months of March, April or May of 2000 to bring back Montenegro under the direct control of Serbia. The number of Yugoslav army, VJ, troops in Montenegro have been increased after the defeat in Kosovo. Milosevic would like to bring in the politically more reliable and better armed and trained para military security forces of the MUP into Montenegro but this is forbidden by the constitution of Montenegro. So the VJ forces should in the mean time intimidate the president of Montenegro Milo Djunkanovic to accept full federal authority. If this fails or if Montenegro secedes it will give Milosevic an excuse to send in the MUP forces.

A to independent Montenegro is geo-strategic and political intolerable for Serbia and Milosevic.

Greece vs. Turkey

Since the creation of modern Turkey by Ataturk there have been difficulties about the exact demarcation of the sea border, especially in the Aegean sea, between Greece and Turkey. The relations are further undermined by the acquisitions of advanced armament by both countries, the policy on Cyprus and the suspicion of Turkey that Greece is supporting the PKK. These tensions are increased by a historical event when large number of Greek people were forced to leave western Turkey where they had lived until 1922-1923. The same is valid for the Turkish people who lived in the northern Greek province of Thrace. And the fact that the Greeks are orthodox and the Turks are muslims is also not a condition to improve the situation.

The tensions between the countries are real and sometimes it gets worser as one of both sides is executing a claim they think to have. Like the occupation of some rocks in the Aegean or the threat to close, or better control, the Aegean as it is something of a Greek lake. At those moments they seem to be on the brink to war. But international intervention, pressure, and the sense that war will not solve the problem have until now de-escalated the tensions between the two.

A war will be therefore unlikely between Greece and Turkey. To much is at stake. But the situation remains dangerous even as Greece supported Turkey after the recent earthquakes. There are to much tensions and both think vital interests are at stake in the Aegean.

Cyprus

The situation on Cyprus is a reflection of the Greek-Turkish conflict. Cyprus is inhabited by a majority of Greeks and a minority of Turks. As the Turkish people were threated unfair by the Greek dominated government and institutions and when the Greeks, or better some religious and political representatives of the Greek community, wanted to unify Cyprus with Greece proper Turkey interfered and occupied about one-third of the island.

Cyprus have since been divided into a Greek- and Turkish part. The Turkish part builded an own state but it has been recognized only by Turkey. The division between the two parts is and have been nearly absolute. Contacts between the two is very difficult and every action of one of the two sides is met by distrust.

Greek and Turkey both do not want the Cyprus question to escalate and control both sides not to endanger the status quo. As no side wants to enter in a war in cause of Cyprus. If a conflict might arise on Cyprus it will nearly immediately spread out to Greece and Turkey proper. The consequences of a conflict are simply to large. But both sides try to maximise their position and this might increase the already tensed situation.

Turkey

Beside the external tensions of Turkey with Greece and on Cyprus, Turkey is also facing an internal threat. The integrity of the Turkish state is being questioned by a large minority living in the eastern part of Turkey. The Kurdish people demand more liberties, autonomy and some even independence.

A number of the Kurdish people organised themselve in the PKK, Partiya Karkaren Kurdistan. A militant organisation with a political wing, the ERNK, National Front for the Liberation of Kurdistan, and a military wing the ARGK, Kurdish National Liberation Army, with the goal to create a socialist independent Kurdish state. Under the leadership of Abdullah Ocalan, Apo, the PKK became a very well organised and ruthless organisation which with limited resources was able to make live very difficult for the Turkish security forces.

After the capture and trial of Ocalan the PKK has become more willing to compromise with the Turkish government, which in turn are not very eager, even unwilling, to negotiate with the PKK. As a gesture of his power and goodwill Ocalan has ordered PKK guerilla forces to leave Turkey or even to surrender to the government. Ocalan seems to be willing to do everything to pacify the Turkish government. To persuade the government to start negotiations about the Kurdish case with Ocalan as a negotiation partner.

The PKK commanders in the field were in the beginning willing to obey the orders from the PKK’s president Council, e.g. Ocalan. But the first splits have surfaced in the PKK. Cemil Bayik and a field commander, Haydar Alperslan, refused to participate any further in the socalled peace policy of Ocalan. Those two demanded the continuation of the fight against the Turkish government. If more field commanders and people from the leadership of the PKK refuse to cooperate, implement a peace policy, the unity of the PKK could be destroyed.

The fight for a Kurdish homeland in the South-east of Turkey is very likely to continue. Instead of fighting one organisation, the PKK, Turkish security forces will face more organisations as the unity of the PKK is just a matter of time before it falls apart. At first the new organisations will be weaker but after some time, 6 to 18 months, those organisations will have been restructured, new and more men, better armed, more and diversified support. In short instead of one snake, the PKK, many new agressive venomous vipers will have to be confronted.

Turkey is further confronted, as many islamic nations, with an another threat. The radical fundamentalistic elements in the society who want to change the secular system in Turkey into an Islamic republic with the Sharia as book of law are becoming more popular. Those people organised themselve in several organisations like the Islamic Brotherhood, the Jihad, Hizbollah and the Islamic Great Eastern Riders Front. All these organisations vary in size and methods. Some are more violent others are focussed on social work to improve the conditions of the people. But all have the same goal and receive support especially from the worser off in the society and from certain university students.

The fundamentalistic organisations wil not be able to make a large impact on the society. They will not receive enough support and with terrorism, bomb assaults and the like, they are just a nuisance. The security forces are still able to control them on the short to medium term. The moderate form of fundamentalism could count, on the other hand, to get support from around 20 % of the population. They could become more dangerous but they are still to small, considered as unreliable as a partner and more importantly unwilling to use violence.

Russia and the new states

The dissolution of the Soviet Union has created a large number of new states in the Caucasus and in the Asian part of the former Soviet Union. Nearly all new states happen to be muslim states but they insist that they are not muslim fundamentalistic nations. Politics and religion are separated, more or less.

A large number of these new states are experiencing problems with other states of with violent opposition parties who want to enforce changes in the country.

Even Russia itself is having problems with one of the many peoples, the Chechnyans, which are formally part of Russia. Further, Russia is involved in the majority of the conflicts in the new states. At least as an adviser and / or supplier.

Russia

The situation in Russia has not experienced any improvement in 1999. At best one can talk of some kind of stabilisation of the economy. But socially there has been a slight deterioration and politically things have become worser.

The external political position of Russia has improved somewhat as the Russian influence in the former Soviet Asian republics has been stabilised and more importantly is wished by the governments and people to establish stability and support against the muslim fundamentalistic organisations in the most southern Asian republics. The fundamentalists and the overspill of Uzbek guerilla fighters into Kyrgyzstan and the remaining pressure to all countries bordering Afghanistan as fundamentalists, weapons and illegal substances continue to flow into the bordering states and to the other territories of the former Soviet Union will remain a threat to the stability of the whole region. This threat will be accompanied by occasional low intensity conflict, guerilla raids but not strong enough to change the goverment.

The internal situation is much more complicated. Russia has problems in many regions as the central government is neglecting the rural provinces and republics in the country. They only want to use, exploit, the resources but are unable to deliver something in return. The majority of the regions learned to act on their own and are becoming ever more unwilling to execute orders from Moscow. Essentially they have become semi-autonomous regions.

The problems in the Caucasus are much more dangerous as they undermine directly and agressively the integrity of Russia. The area is threatened by muslim-fundamentalists who want to create one large muslim republic out of the Caucasus republics which now are part of Russia.

The radical muslims in the Caucasus receive some support from small organisations which have identical goals, the improvement and the enlargement of the position, power, influence and territory of the muslim peoples. Organisations like the Islamic Army try to undermine the Russian society and enforce their case by bomb attacks, e.g. terror. This will continue on the short term as those small organisations are difficult to identify but their actions will not support their goal. On the contrary it will undermine the muslim case as it unifies the Russian people and increases the willingness to destroy them.

The geographical center of the conflict is Chechnya but the ideological center, were the idea originated, is the Middle East. The idea for one muslim nation on the Caucasus comes from the Wahibi organisation. The Wahibi organisation is a muslim fundamentalistic organisation with strong links to nearly all terrorist muslim organisations, including Osama bin Laden, and protects and supports an islamification of areas with a muslim population. The Wahibi organisation is leaded by Emir Al Chattab whose real name is allegedly Habib Abd al-Rahman

The rebellious Chenchnyan republic, which achieved semi-independence status after the Russian forces were forced to leave the republic, overplayed their hand by trying to spread muslim fundamentalism into the whole region.

The Chechnyan warlord Sjamil Basajev, with ideological support from the Wahibi organisation, invaded Dagestan allegedly to protect his muslim brothers who were threatened by the Dagistani government. The forces of Basajev could be ejected out of Dagestan after some hard fighting with Russian forces with support of Dagestani militia forces. To return at another place in Dagestan some weeks later and to be thrown out again.

Dagestan is not Chechnya, the population is much larger and more diversified than the population of Chechnya. The Dagistanis do not want to become independent and prefer the present situation.

The Dagestani adventure could proof to be a vital mistake as it awakened and stimulated Russia’s feelings of revenge after the defeat in Chechnya. The defeat, Dagestan and the fact that Chechnya has been very irritating because of the illegal activities of Chechnyan criminal organisations, oil theft, kidnappings, arms and drugs business, prostitution, created a situation were the Russian government with support of the people decided to act and end the activities of the Chechnyans in the area.

The invasion of Chechnya has been succesfull as Russia did not make the same mistakes as the last time. They used better trained and paid soldiers, US $ 1.000 a month instead of US $ 40, better tactics and strategy. They isolated Chechnya, softened up enemy positions before moving in ground forces and remained in the low-lands of Chechnya, at least until they removed all possible opposition from there. Entering the mountainous part of Chechnya is more dangerous but with good forces, adequate artillery and air support, if the area is sealed off and if the Russians are willing to accept a higher number of casualties then in the first phase of the conflict then it is possible to defeat the Chechnyan warlords with their guerilla forces.

The conflict in Chechnya will continue in the next millennium. The Chechnyans will rely on their fighting power and willingness and on the favorable geographic circumstances in the mountains. This will harden their resistance but if they lack support and the Russian forces methodically reduce their freedom of movement and their numbers they will be not able to win. Within 18 to 24 months the Russian forces would be able to defeat the Chechyan warlords.

Kazakhstan

The most wealthy and most stable of the new countries in the Asian part of the former Soviet Union is experiencing few problems. The only problem might be the large group of Russian settlers in the north and north-western part of the country. There are rumours which claim that certain people, groups, prepare a coup to secede the Russian dominated part from Kazakhstan.

These rumours will be partly true as the original Kazakh population are receiving better positions and faster promotions so their is some dissatisfaction emerging with the Russian population. And partly untrue as the Kazakh government is to afraid of such a development that they imagine to much to it. It is therefore very unlikely that there will be some kind of armed Russian opposition against the Kazakh government on the short term.

Tajikistan

After years of fighting several muslim fundamentalist organisations there have been reached some kind of cooperation agreement between the government and the largest and now more moderate, the United Tajik Opposition, and a number of smaller muslim parties like the Islamic Revival Party and the Democratic Party. Tajikistan will be more islam minded in the future and less inclined to support the neighbouring secular governments in their struggle against the fundamentalistic muslims.

The main threat to stability in Tajikistan may be removed but there are at least still two minor threats around. The consequences of a spill over from the conflict in Afghanistan and the activities of former premier Abdulmalik Abdulladzhanov and former colonel Makhmud Khudoiberdyev.

The spill over from Afghanistan will be on the short term mainly the refugees and the arms and drugs trade. On the long term, especially if the Taliban in Afghanistan is succesfull, small groups of fighters of the northern alliance might pass the border and use Tajikistan as a base. Then things will look different and more threatening.

Abdulladzhanov and Khudoiberdyev are probably hiding in the countryside or in Uzbekistan as they allegedly received support from there. They remain a latent threat and are active in the Khojent region. The number of fighters under their command is not very large but if Tajikistan hides or even supports muslim fundamentalistic elements, the people around Jumaboy Khodjiyev, better known as Juma Namangani, out of Uzbekistan, the support for Abdulladhanov and Khudoiberdyev could increase dramatically. Remember Uzbekistan is the largest military power in the region.

Uzbekistan

The authoritarian government in Uzbekistan has been under pressure by activities of muslim fundamentalists led by Jumaboy Khodjiyev, better known as Juma Namangani. Namangani is a 35 year old militant muslim who fought alongside the Taliban in Afghanistan and the UTO in Tajikistan.

After a crack down of the fundamentalists the government could eliminate the most dangerous elements out of the society. Namangani with about 1.500 followers could getaway and sought initially refuge in Tajikistan. The Tajikistan government, which includes the fundamentalistic party the UTO, does not disapprove the fundamentalistic muslim movement and their goals in Uzbekistan but is not able to openly support Namangani. They covertly supported them and allowed them to move into Kyrgyzstan where they kidnapped some foreigners to improve their war chest. Where after they moved into the Fergana valley which is geographically strategic situated, close to Uzbekistan and very rugged and inhospitable, and the population is conservative so friendly and most likely supportive.

Out of the Fergana valley in Kyrgyzstan Namangani plans to launch a guerilla war into Uzbekistan to overthrow the government. With bomb attacks on important people and places and the incursions out of the Fergana valley into Uzbekistan Namangani hopes to get popular support and weaken the government to eventually replace it with an islamic republic.

Uzbekistan will continue to suffer from a low intensity conflict as long as Namangani and its kind are able to receive support from abroad or are allowed to operate from foreign bases. With or without approval of the neighbouring country.

Kyrgyzstan

Kyrgyzstan became a victim of the spill over about the conflict in Uzbekistan. After the crack down on islamic fundamentalists in Uzbekistan a large number of islamic fundamentalist fighters fled to Tajikistan and there after to Kyrgyzstan into the Fergana valley which perfectly fits for the launch of a guerilla campaign into Uzbekistan. An additional benefit is that the Kyrgyz government is not able to do much against it as they lack the capabilities and resources to eject them.

The promised and partly delivered support from Russia, Kazakhstan and Uzbekistan is absolutely necessary to improve the capabilities of the Kyrgyz armed forces. The support should enable them to eject the rebel forces of Namangani out of the Fergana valley.

Kyrgyzstan will face some hard fighting on the short to medium term to eliminate the foreign forces on their soil and to keep them out. Especially as only a combined action of Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan will really destroy the muslim fundamentalists organisations in the region. And this will be very unlikely considering the position of Tajikistan.

Armenia

The Caucasus remains an area of tensions. Not only the Russian part of the Caucasus is volatile but the other countries in the region are experiencing the same kind of tensions.

The Armenian conflict with Azerbaidjan about the Armenian enclave Nagorno-Karabach has ended in Armenia controlling the area, a cease fire is in place, Azerbaidjan wants to regain control, both are however economically unfit to extent a war on the short to medium term, the future oil revenues will improve the Azeri negotiation position but the oil pipelines will cross Armenian territory or will be very close. Essentially the situation is in a status quo, on the short term no country is in the position to make any improvements. The war between the two antagonists, or the end of the conflict, will take some time if it cannot be solved at the negotiation table.

The main pressures for Armenia will be the internal problems about the bad performing economy, social dissatisfaction, the uncertainty about the Nagorno-Karabach question and the willingness to use violence to change the government policy.

As long as the Nagorno-Karabach conflict was hot all attention was channeled towards the conflict but now the former fighters want to see a reward or improvement which they do not get. This will fuel more agression. Violence will continue in Armenia as long as there is no solution to the economical problems. The socalled patriots will continue to attack the government for their, in the patriots understanding, bad performance.

The Middle East

The Middle East will remain a powder keg, but the fuze has been taken out and the matches are in the cupboard. There has been a relaxation in the relations between the opposing states in the Middle East. Not all the problems are eliminated, far from it. As the majority of the nations continue to improve their war fighting capabilities, there is a low intensity conflict going on in Lebanon, Iraq is still the same bad man of the region and old animosities are still prevalent. But there is change in thinking which becomes best clear in the fact that the will to start a war has diminished dramatically. This development can be considered as very positive in a region were it has been normal to start conflicts, use violence, for the smallest of things.

Lebanon

Lebanon is a country under foreign control. Israel is controlling, with support of the South Lebanese Army, the security strip. Syria is controlling the Bekaa valley and indirectly the Lebanese government. And finally Iran has indirectly a controlling stake in South-western Lebanon as they advise, train and supply the Hizbullah.

The Lebanese government naturally disapproves the occupation of the security strip by Israel. But they do not take any action to retake the security strip and they also do not promise to guarantee that, if the Israelis withdraw, it will be safe and peacefull in the border region, e.g. no missile attacks on Israel and no commando raids on Israel. They simply are not able to do one of both things. Militarily Lebanon is a midget compared to Israel and the power of the Lebanese government is limited to the cooperation of the Hizbullah, Syria and the many clan leaders to make and execute policy.

So in short the Lebanese government is demanding the unconditional withdrawal of Israel. A demand which will be very difficult, if not impossible for Israel to fulfill. The security demand of Israel would forbid such a policy. It would leave northern Israel at the mercy of unfriendly organisations like the Hizbullah, Hamas and the radical Palestinian organisations who disapprove the peace process or for that matter the existence of the Israeli state. But there could be a small ray of hope for Israel. Technology, occasional military action and negotiations could minimize the security risk to an acceptable level.

The conflict, activities, in Lebanon have been and are mainly between Israel with support of the South Lebanese Army, SLA, and the Hizbullah with Iran and Syria sitting in the back ground and looking what is happening. Israel had created the security strip and the SLA as some kind of militia army, mercenaries, to guard the security strip against incursions from terrorists. At first the SLA was an effective force but as the Lebanese poltical situation became more clearer and only one opposing force remained, the Hizbullah, the effectiveness of the SLA began to wane. The Israeli Defence Force had to take over more positions and patrols to limit the movement of the Hizbullah.

In this second part the Hizbullah with generous support of Iran could turn around the situation. At first the terrorist were hunted but now the IDF and the SLA are more or less forced into strengthened positions with now and then patrols into the surrounding area. Only with a lot of air support and occasional larger operations of the IDF they can continue to control the security strip. The weakness of nearly all occupying forces is the attrition of low intensity fighting with road side bombs and ambushes. This undermines the capabilities and the morale of the IDF and the SLA.

The small withdrawal of the IDF/SLA from some postions, Jezzine, will not be viewed as a friendly gesture but as a weakness. It will encourage the Hizbullah to continue the fight as Israel get ever more tired of the occupation of the security strip.

A total withdrawal will become ever more attractive for Israel as the costs in material and human lives gets higher. And they will increasingly be able to protect their border with occasional operations of the IDF into Lebanon, massive air-ground operations and the improved defence systems like the Nautilus laser system and the Arrow II missile system to counter incursions and missile attacks. An additional advantage would be that Syria would loose a bargaining chip in the negotiations over the Golan heights. A total solution as wished by Syria would then be unnecessary.

Israel vs Syria

Beside the above described problems in the security zone in Lebanon Israel has another external problem with a territory which they occupied during the 1967 six day war. This strategically and as a water source very important area, the Golan heights, is located at an area which can overlook northern Israel to the sea and upon Damascus in Syria. Until 1967 the Golan heights were part of Syria and since then they wanted to recover the territory from Israel. By war in 1973 and since then by pressure on Israel. They have used physical pressure by a very large military force in the triangle Damascus-Lebanon-Jordan, by around 30.000 men in the Bekaa valley in Lebanon and the virtual control of the whole of Lebanon. And more psychological pressure like the threat of force and terror and by diplomacy.

The end of the Cold WAr and the second Gulf war gave Syria another opportunity to regain the Golan heights. The end of the conflict, occupation, could be reached by negotiations. Several rounds were held without any direct results. As no side really was willing to make a commitment or sacrifice. Their own interests were that important that a compromise was not attainable. As Syria wanted to regain full souvereign control, Israel demanded demilitarisation of the Golan heights, withdrawal of Syrian forces from the border area and the right to keep some vantage points to control the activities on the Golan and its surroundings. And ofcourse the right to control the water distribution of the region. Both demands are difficult if not impossible to reconcile.

The Israeli-Syrian problems will continue to play an important role in the Middle East. None of opponents is however willing to go to war as Syia is at the moment ill-prepared to go to war. The Syrian military capabilities are severely limited by a lack of spare parts, the wrong kind of training, counter-insurgency instead of offensive operations, and an internal power struggle about who to succeed the terminally ill president Hafez al-Assad.

Israel also will want to avoid war as it is very expensive and it would bring no additional benefits for the security of the Jewish state. Militarily Israel is fully capable to defeat Syria, or any other country in the region, but financially and politically it cannot afford a war.

Israel

Of course Israel has many other enemies in the Arab and/or islamic world as the majority of those countries and people have some problems with the existence of the state of Israel and their occupation of Arab land and holy places. None of these enemies is however capable to defeat nor create medium to large damage to Israel. An Iranian or Iraqi nuclear-biological-chemical missile threat is still some years away and even if they would possess such kind of weapons within 8 to 10 years, using them is a total different ball game.

Israel’s main problem is internal. The Palestinian question has to be solved to the satisfaction of both sides before stability will return to both entities. The large numbers of Palestinians in the Gaza strip and the West Bank need to have some kind of state and economical future if you want to refrain them from joining fundamentalistic organisations like the Jihad or Hamas. If the question of Jeruzalem and the exodus Palestinians can be equally fair dealt with peace will be long lasting in the Middle East. The best way to eliminate enemies is by taking away their agony.

It will be impossible to satisfy all so a number of small radical organisations will continue to fight Israel. They belong to the group of enemies which hate Israel but who do not have the capabilities to create large damage to the existence of Israel as a nation. Their method will be terror attacks, bombs, preferably in Israel. This will have a large psychological impact on the Israeli society but not on the nation itself. If Israel overreacts and punishes all Palestinians, e.g. the new Palestinanian entity, state, militarily or economically the consequences of those actions could be more damaging to Israel.

The Palestinian Authority

The hopefully new nation in the Middle East will be the new Palestinian state on the Gaza strip and the West Bank. With international support and economic cooperation with Israel this new nation could become economically viable.

This new Palestinian state will however be under pressure from internal fighting about power, positions and wealth. Especially if the current leader Yassir Arafat has to be replaced. And from muslim fundamentalistis elements like the Hamas.

The internal differences and fighting will lead to more suppression and the weakening of the new state. This will undermine the political and economical stability and future of the new country. On the short term this will increase the security of Israel but the chaos will strengthen the postion of the Hamas.

The Hamas has been able to create a large and strong network of institutions and followers in this area. They might wish to expand their influence in the new state’s political hierarchy and eventually instigate tensions between Israel and the new Palestinian state. They will never be able to become a real threat to Israel as the new state simply lacks the resources to do so. And the strength of the Hamas is and was social support to the people and insurgengy, popular resistance read violent demonstrations, against an occupying force.

The future of the new Palestinian state will depend on the ability of Arafat to built stable state institutions to stimulate economic growth and give the Palestininas an opportunity to make a living. If the current policy of suppression, corruption and nepotism will continue it will be very likely that the country will experience fighting between the main factions within the government with the Hamas picking up the spoils. Which also will bring no peace nor progress.

Iran

The islamic republic of Iran is experiencing some internal problems as there are some changes in the society. The population has become divided as one part is more positive about the policy of the conservatives, hardliners, under the leadership of ayatollah Ali Khamanei and the other part is favoring the more moderate policies of the more liberal, in an islamic fashion, president Muhammad Khatami.

The division has created tensions as the conservatives are trying to limit the influence of the moderate part of the society by closing news papers and proscecuting and sentencing to jail of followers of Khatami. This has led to several demonstrations which ended in confrontations with the security forces of the country.

This process is likely to continue. The conservatives are likely to able to control the liberals on the short term as they are controlling the majority of the important institutions like the ministries, police, justice and judiciary. And even if the chief executive is not a conservative nearly everybody else in the departments will be conservative.

The economic difficulties in Iran will make the problems of the conservatives larger and at the end uncontrollable as dissatisfaction will mobilize large parts of the population against them. So demonstrations and suppresion will be very likely on the medium to long term.

The external problems of Iran are less dangerous. There is a dispute with the United Arab Emirates, U.A.E., about the posession of some islands in the Persian Gulf, Abu Musa and the Greater and Lesser Tunbs islets. Some of them, Abu Musa and some islets of the Greater Tunbs, are occupied and fortified by Iran. But this is more directed in defense of the large U.S. presence in the Gulf than against the U.A.E. A conflict about the islands is unlikely as both do not consider it as a premier national interest and prefer a diplomatic solution.

The differences with Afghanistan are of a different character. The difference in the religious interpretation of the islam, e.g. the fact that the Taliban is Sunni and Iran Shia and the success of the Taliban in Afghanistan is posing a threat to Iran. The Afghan threat is not physical but more psychological. The Taliban ideology could spread to other islamic countries, including Iran, and undermine the position of the Iranian religious leadership. But the Iranian support for the Northern Alliance in Afghanistan could divert the total success of the Taliban and essentially remove the immediate threat from the position of Iran.

Iraq

Iraq will remain the main threat to the stability in the Gulf region. Even if Iraq is experiencing internal difficulties with the Kurdish people in the north, organised into the KDP and PUK, and the marsh Arabs in the south. The Kurds and the marsh Arabs, which are Shia and pose the majority of the people in the country, will not be able to destroy the government of Saddam Hussein. Even if the opposition would cooperate it will prove to be very difficult, if not impossible, to eject Saddam out of power. The system of security services, the republican guard and the ruthless suppression of everything with only the suspicion of opposition is the explanation of the survival of Saddam Hussein.

Without the support of some higher commanders of the republican guard, air force an security services any coup or insurrection will be fruitless. And even those commanders will need to be very careful and secretive. It will be very difficult to find the necessary number of important identical spirits wiling to risk their lives.

The strength of the regime became clear as Iraq resisted the world community in the second Gulf war, the UN embargo, the consecutive air riads on Iraqi targets as they did not obey the UN security council resolutions and in general the limiting of Iraqi souvereign right.

Even the UN installed no-fly zones in the north, north of the 36 parallel, and south, south of the 33 parallel, of the country could not stop the ambitions of Saddam Hussein. He had to wait for the right moment, right weather, only had a one or two night time-span and could mainly use infantry and some armoured formations before he could eliminate the US sponsored northern security zone and as he supported the KDP in removing the PUK from some important positions. The UN was equally uncapable to protect the Kurdish and marsh Arab peoples in Iraq from the activities of the Iraqi Republican Guard when they destroyed their resistance.

Saddam Hussein will remain in power as there are no competitors available which could replace him. It is very difficult to survive such an idea, not to speak of an attempt. Iraq with its current power system will be the same on the short to medium term, as will its problem.

The Iraq problem is the possible threat it may become if it is out of control. If the embargo and the no-fly zones are enforced the options of Iraq are limited. But if it can do what it would like to do it will develop itself into a major regional power with large conventional armed forces with medium to long range NBC capabilities. Especially this last factor is feared by the U.S.A. and especially Israel.

Iraq would like to play a dominant role in the region and the world. It would demand respect and even some kind of retribution for the efforts in the first Gulf war and for the damages Iraq had in cause of the Kuwait affair. The occupation of Kuwait was in the eyes of Baghdad a legitimate action as Kuwait owed much to Iraq and Kuwait is and was in the end some kind of renegade province. But this is another story.

In the short term Iraq will not pose a large threat to the region. Its military and especially economical capabilties have been much degraded by the war and the embargo. Iraq will remain able to act against its direct neighbours with small scale operations and terror. But as said before, as long as the UN, read US armed forces, are in the vicinity its options are limited.

Addendum

What need to be mentioned is the real future possibility of war about water. In this water scarce region a decrease in water availability because of drought or diversions with more demand at the same could be the cause for some big conflicts in the future. A large number of countries in the Middle East, Israel, Jordan, Syria and Irak, are very vulnerable to the water shortage.

Every diversion could be a casus belli. Israel as a large user and in command of the sources on the Golan heights and the West Bank could have problems with Syria and Jordan. Turkey who commands the major rivers into Syria and Iraq could have problems with both if it continues it diversions of water into irrigating projects in Turkey.

At the moment the water problem has not received the highest attention but this can change at a very short time span. Within two to thee years this situation can be changed. By then water will be a major cause for war.