WhirledView

Molotov-Ribbentrop and Russian Selective Amnesia?

By Patricia H. Kushlis

 

“The Baltic Way was an uninterrupted 600 kilometre human chain uniting the Baltic capitals of Tallinn, Riga and Vilnius, in which two million indigenous people of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania, then still occupied by the Soviet Union, joined hands to demand freedom and independence. The Baltic Way was organised by the joint efforts of the three Baltic countries’ Popular Fronts on the 50th anniversary of the Nazi-Soviet pact of 23 August 1939, which served as a basis for the Soviet Union to occupy the Baltic countries in 1940. The aim of the Baltic Way (was) to draw the world’s attention to continuing Soviet occupation of the Baltic countries and (it) emphasised the non-violent nature of the Baltic nations’ struggle for freedom.”  - Inscription on an envelope issued by the Estonian postal service in 2009 to commemorate the 20th anniversary of the Baltic Way. 

Did Natalia Narochnitskaya, the historian who heads the Foundation for Historical Perspective, a Russian think tank in Moscow, really tell Financial Times columnist Charles Clover that ‘even throughout the whole cold war, no one questioned the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact’ but that “Now everything is being thrown open?”

That’s what he said she said in his September 9, 2009 column entitled “Putin’s Polish room reignites battle over war memories.”

The Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact a Non-Issue during the Cold War? Oh, really.

If that’s so, then I wonder where Narochnitskaya was when I was Press Attache at the American Embassy in Helsinki from 1988-1991 because I certainly heard Estonian and other Baltic independence leaders question the legality of the 1939 Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact during that waning period of the Cold War.  Furthermore, strong popular objections to the terms and results of the Pact caused the formation of the Baltic Way, an event that took place on August 23, 1989.  The Baltic Way linked the three Baltic peoples in a human chain that ran from Estonia through Lithuania via Latvia in a gesture of solidarity against the continuing Soviet occupation of the Baltics based on that illegal pact.   

Forget Twitter - Tea with Sylvester’s More Fun

By Patricia H. Kushlis

 

Meet Sylvester, the extroverted cockatiel who belongs to Nancy, a friend of mine who lives near Central California’s coast.  I’m not really sure whether Sylvester belongs to Nancy or Nancy belongs to Sylvester.  My guess is the ownership relationship is mutual.

 In any event, Sylvester lives in Nancy’s kitchen and spends most of his time perched on the top of his cage next to the windows with a well supplied tin of feed for handy nibbling right in front of his beak. The kitchen is where Sylvester and I met several months ago.

For the record, Sylvester is no spring chicken.  I understand he was born in the 1980s.  But don’t remind him of his age – actually, he’s probably not interested anyway.  But he is interested in human attention and conversation as long as he’s included, too.

If there’s one thing Sylvester does well is attract both – and he doesn’t confine himself to 140 character one-way tweets to do so either.

No 140 character tweets for him

He also varies the volume - the more he is ignored the louder he gets - and he has one trick in his repertoire that he made sure I saw. After appropriate prior noisy chatter to ensure audience attention, he grabbed onto a bar on top of his cage with his beak and then flipped his body over - somersault style into the entry of his cage’s open door below.  It’s really quite a remarkable sight – and just to make sure his now captive audience didn’t miss it – he repeated the same feat numerous times.

Now perhaps it was because I was in a resigned doing-the-laundry mood desperately needed after a several days on the road – Nancy had given me access to her washer and dryer and tea kettle that morning - or the weather was California Central Coast drizzle and the antics of a small yellowish, grayish, whitish colored bird with an elaborate feathery headdress turning tricks in a kitchen corner simply attracted my attention, I don’t know.

But Sylvester turned out to be a most unusual and athletic companion on an otherwise dreary foggy April day.  No he’s not a canary – he doesn’t sing – but he is a mimic.  In fact, he’s not just a mimic but a show-off.   And as you can see from his photo above, he’s also too small to be a parrot.

So if you find yourself in need of cheering up or are simply looking for distraction provided by an avian Woody Allen seek out Sylvester – or a relative.   Who needs Twitter?  Sylvester’s more fun.   

Photo of Sylvester by Patricia H. Kushlis, April 2009.

      

 

      

 

Scandal at Camp Sullivan: Just the Latest, Most Egregious of the State Department’s Rent-a-Guard Follies

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

If you missed the PBS Newshour coverage of the lewd, crude and disgusting behavior of Wakenhut subsidiary ArmorGroup personnel in Kabul, see it here, now.  Then read the letter prepared by POGO aka the Project on Government Oversight and sent to Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on September 1st.  Take a good look at the footnotes, too.

The State Department had known for a couple of years that all was not well with the guard situation in Kabul.  Nothing racy, perhaps.  Just continuous poor performace.  Nevertheless,  despite State’s many predictably wimpish warnings, followed by company officials’ predictably slimy and unfulfilled we’ll-do-better reassurances, the ArmorGroup North America (AGNA) contract was renewed through 2010.  With an option to extend until 2012!  (Just as so many Blackwater contracts have been, ever so quietly, renewed by State, albeit under various new names which are, effectively, aliases.)  

Right Action at Last?

Happily, the POGO letter and those action shots accomplished what State should have done two years ago.  The see-and-hear-no-evil behemoth is stirring.  Some guards and supervisors have been discharged, if only those who could be identified from the now notorious pix, the local management team has been replaced, and State's Inspector General is finally on the AGNA case.  Let’s hope the result isn't a repeat of the Abu Graib injustice: clueless underlings taking the fall for pernicious higher ups. POGO’s Recommendation Three should be taken seriously: 

State Department representatives either knew or should have known about this longstanding and dangerous situation regarding U.S. Embassy Kabul security.  The State Department’s repeated warnings to AGNA were of no consequence, and Department officials responsible for oversight of this contract themselves should be held accountable. [My itals.]

Urgent message to POGO and others on whom we evidently must rely to keep a sharp eye on the Augean stables of government contracting: keep your eyes (or nose) on this case.  Internal controls seem to be nothing more than window dressing once a contract’s been let.  But State is not the only offender.  Laissez-faire reigns in Iraq, too, where the Pentagon’s complacency over poor contract compliance has squandered far more tax payer money.

When, Really, Did They Know It?

Meanwhile, it’s hard for me to believe that titillating rumors of debauchery and wild parties at the AGNA compound known as Camp Sullivan wouldn’t have been circulating around the Embassy in Kabul.  Clearly, anything like out-in-the-open whistleblowing would have cost the squealer his or her job, but innuendo usually thrives in the kind of closed society that embassies anywhere tend to be.  The Embassies I’ve been attached to have been ever-buzzing gossip mills, especially when the tidbits were juicy.

What’s more, a good ambassador doesn’t hole up in the Front Office.  He doesn’t depend on the Deputy Chief of Mission to keep things together while he basks in unstressed glory. He wanders around, keeping his antennae up, boosting morale and sniffing for problems that haven’t yet been articulated.  Ditto a competent DCM.  How could Embassy management in Kabul have been so blind and deaf?  Were the occupants of the front office so august and remote that no mere mid-level or junior officer or local hire would cross the threshhold with a hunch, a suspicion, a concern?  Did they just not care?  All such happens much too often, in my experience.  Sadder yet, in Kabul it seems to have taken orgies of depravity to get anyone to focus on the real scandal.

Resist the Orgy Distraction

The worst disgrace in Kabul wasn’t the Animal House behavior, telecast around the world in living color, however much those clips have brought people to regard the United States with disgust, again. It was (and is) the  ideologically-motivated privatizing of government functions, the poorly-supervised “don’t ask, don’t tell” contracting process that put Embassy workers, as well as innocents in the vicinity, at risk twenty-four hours a day.  Here’s the crux of the problem from a key paragraph from the POGO report:

The use of private contractors for security in a combat zone [or anywhere, in fact!] poses several dilemmas.  One is the inherent tension between the effective performance of a mission and the financial interest of the contractor.  Cutting costs is good for the bottom line, but can put security [or credibility or any other else] at risk.

Amazingly, during testimony in the case of Sauer v. ArmorGroup North America, Incorporated, AGNA officials “acknowledged that AGNA had underbid the contract in order to secure it,” after which, as guard supervisors in turn testified, they were told to “make do,” so as to “ensure that a profit would be made on the contract” in order to “satisfy the shareholders.”  And what was done to “cut costs” and “maximize the profit margin”?  The guard roster shrank and shifts were lengthened, which meant that the remaining guards had to work longer hours.  Grueling work schedules got even worse (workdays of up to 14 ½ hours) when many guards, understandably unhappy with their working conditions, went on strike.    Unsurprisingly,  overwork and sleep deprivation led to resentment, sloppiness, accidents on the job, those strikes and horrendous turnover, all of which gave Embassy Kabul an ever-changing cadre of barely trained, inexperienced recruits unable to communicate with superiors in case of the very emergencies they’d been hired to handle.  In short, embassy  protection only in name.  It’s pretty clear why AGNA didn’t want its abused employees to talk to embassy people.  But how could the Embassy and the State Department have been so complacent, so enabling, when lives were at stake—and workers were being cruelly exploited?    

Keeping Georgia On Our Mind

By Asbed Kotchikian, Guest Contributor

Asbed Kotchikian is a lecturer at the Global Studies Department at Bentley University specializing in the politics of identity, foreign policy as well as political processes in the Middle East and the South Caucasus. He frequently travels to both regions (most recently in July 2009).

Two weeks ago, Tbilisi announced its withdrawal from the Commonwealth of Independent States (CIS) over a year after the war between Russia and Republic of Georgia. The CIS was created on December 8, 1991 following the collapse of the Soviet Union to “ease” the separation of the 13 republics (the Baltic countries refused to join) and provide Russia with a new vehicle to keep its cultural, economic political and military oversight over its former “colonies.”  In other words, the formation of the CIS retained 12 non-Russian republics in Russia’s sphere of influence.

Not so Recent Background

Georgia’s enrollment in the CIS was not a decision made under “normal” circumstances. Thus in 1994 (the year Georgia’s then President Eduard Shevardnadze signed the agreement with Russia that brought Georgia into the CIS), the followers of the ousted Georgian president Zviad Gamsakhurdia were gaining ground in a civil war that had threatened to throw Georgia into an abyss of failed statehood. Not long after the signing of the CIS treaty, the Georgian army began to gain ground against the Zviadist rebels. Soon thereafter, Russian “peacekeepers” landed in western Georgia to help quell the rebellion and consolidate Shevardnadze’s authority.

Georgia’s entry into the CIS came with tremendous hesitation and mistrust. From the Georgian perspective, the CIS was nothing more than a new version of the Russian attempt to colonize the “near abroad” (the term that many Russians used to designate the former Soviet and now independent republics). However, in the face of imminent collapse of the country into a disorganized and dysfunctional entity, accepting Russian protection became the only way out for the continuation of Georgia as a viable state. This “alliance” – which from the Georgian standpoint - was not based on free choice, was an important reason for the subsequent tension between the two countries, since it provided Russia with a mechanism and the tools to limit Georgia’s attempts to conduct a foreign policy distinct from that of Moscow.

Russia also retained a heavy military presence in Georgia (under the guise of CIS peace-keeping forces) acting as a buffer between Georgia forces on the one hand and separatist Abkhaz and South Ossetians on the other. In 1994, then Russian Defense Minister Pavel Grachev stated that “the Russian military presence in Georgia was vital to ensure a stabilization of the situation, to protect the rights of Russian speakers, and to help Georgia establish its own armed forces.”

Behind the “August war”

On August 7, 2008, Tbilisi embarked on a large scale military operation to retake the breakaway and unrecognized republic of South Ossetia.

Public Diplomacy: A Profession within a Profession

Public Diplomacy Today

Part 2

By Patricia H. Kushlis and Patricia Lee Sharpe

Smile.  Chat.  Seek friends.  Some people think that’s all there is to public diplomacy.  So why can’t ordinary Americans do the job, on the cheap, especially those already working abroad in business, academic or humanitarian capacities?  Amiable, savvy tourists could represent us, too, couldn’t they?

No, they can’t.  None of them can.

The Citizen Diplomat Fallacy

Conflict of interest is one problem.  Businessmen go abroad to make money.  Though corporations may, from time to time, back a ballet tour or sponsor a conference, the event is usually selected to enhance the corporate image or to soften up or highlight some official with the power to grant concessions or contracts at home or abroad.   Academics and humanitarians also have allegiances and values that trump what they often see as crass or transient national interest.  This is not to say that PD specialists should not celebrate humanitarians as fine examples of American voluntarism.  They should.  But their skills and commitments are different.

Academics do make impressive speakers for PD programs, not only because of their subject matter expertise, but also because their outspokenness, in healthy doses, serves to exemplify the American commitment to free speech and free-wheeling politics.  But few academics could happily, or in good conscience, devote themselves to the day-in day-out business of supporting U.S. policies without regard to their own deeply held partisan or philosophical inclinations. As for tourists, students and/or each decade’s version of the swashbuckling adventurer, they represent only themselves, which is fine.  Goodness knows, when the authors travel, as private citizens now, we feel no need to mount a defense of policies we don’t agree with, although we sometimes, out of habit, slip into PD mode.

So—sorry!  Only presently-serving Foreign Service Officers have the skills, information, experience, mandate and—this is very important—the sworn responsibility to represent current official policy, with no competing professional imperative.  Official policy, pure and never so simple, which is why public diplomacy isn’t for amateurs. 

However, it is also true that not all Foreign Service Officers are cut out to be public diplomats.

Diplomatic Bedrock

Obviously any FSO needs an excellent education; many FSOs these days have more than one degree, and previous experience in a host of professions or occupations doesn’t hurt.  All diplomats, to be really useful, should be able to operate in one or more foreign languages and cultures, on entry into the service or by means of in-service training, and the Foreign Service should use and reward such competencies, making sure that officers arrive well prepared at post.  Naturally all FSO candidates should know a good bit about foreign affairs and foreign policy, and they should also demonstrate a reasonably sophisticated understanding of their own country—history, geography, politics, economics, high and popular culture, etc., etc.  Add top notch writing and analytical skills.  Add curiosity.  Add idealism and loyalty to country.  And don’t forget excellent health, since most officers don’t spend more than a few years in the likes of Paris, London or Tokyo, if that.  Mostly, without complaint, they represent us in Bamako, Baghdad, Bishkek.

Wow!  Do such paragons exist?  They do—and why not, in a population of some 300 million.  They can be found and recruited, too.  That’s why the Foreign Service exam has a well-earned reputation for difficulty.

But wait!  We’re not finished.

In addition to demonstrating the background qualifications sketched out above, successful FSO candidates will discover that each diplomatic speciality has its own tricks of the trade, some teachable to recruits, some that must be acquired by progressive experiences in the field under well-seasoned mentors.  Public diplomacy alone draws on a vast reservoir of skills and tools, including media relations and placement, information technology, exchanges administration, speech-writing and public speaking, cultural center direction, seminar and conference organization, polling and public opinion feedback, liaison with local notables—a list that is not exhaustive.  Nor does a laundry list even begin to suggest how tools, methods and skills are combined, some working progressively over time, some ideal for quick reaction situations, to support longstanding policy needs or to respond to sudden diplomatic crises.  Given such an array of tools, all of which must be at hand in order to meet predictable (and, inevitably, unpredictable) demands in almost infinite variety, there’s no substitute for growing into PD competence under the guidance of senior public diplomacy officers.

End Runs That Seldom Work

The PD specialist’s job isn’t made easier by the curious lack of PD literacy that’s often found among US ambassadors and chiefs and deputy chiefs of mission abroad.  Some are gems, well prepared for leadership at a given post.  They have the experience and rank to maintain fruitful contact with the host country’s highest echelons of power and influence.  They know how and when to use all their resources, including public diplomacy, to achieve US foreign policy goals.   Too many others, unfortunately, need 24/7 oversight when it comes to public relations. Political appointees tend to be the most problematic from this point of view, although a happy few arrive already tempered by experience with the country or region.

And yet, year after year, whether the White House is occupied by a Republican or a Democrat, about 30 percent of American ambassadorships are distributed as political plums or political payoffs.   Rewarded for their campaign fund-raising abilities, not for their knowledge of US foreign policy, not for their knowledge of the country they’ll be serving in, not for their proven ability to head an operation as complex as an American Embassy, these political ambassadors often need enormous amounts of professional care and feeding.  Worse, instead of showing gratitude for the backup that prevents embarrassment all around, these politicals too often expect from the professionals at post the bowing and scraping that political appointees, in general, just assume belongs to the exalted position of ambassador.  Political appointees with deep pockets are considered to have the ear of the President.  In reality, they may or may not - but what’s the use if they lack diplomatic sense or the appropriate skills?

Similar drawbacks render the recurrent call for expanding the intake of lateral entry specialists to fill Foreign Service positions (or, as it’s often put, to shake up the moribund State Department) a counterproductive proposition.  Diplomatic success in a complex, ever-changing world won’t be improved by bringing in hordes of people who’ve succeed in other fields of endeavor, however well-honed their skill sets may be for non-diplomatic purposes.

Ironically, special mid-level recruitment is also unnecessary.  The Foreign Service entrance exam is, in fact, biased toward giving higher marks to mid-career professionals in their thirties and forties.  Recent college graduates don’t do nearly as well.

As for those who continue to argue that a transformative fantasy cadre brought in from the outside at the mid level will spurn the salary attached to normal intake rungs on the diplomatic career ladder, perhaps we have gone some way toward demonstrating that any new recruit has much to learn before he or she reaches professional competence in the Foreign Service. What’s more, the impact of queue-crashing, mid-level entries on post morale is unlikely to be positive—and whatever the sweeteners, the uncommitted too often don’t like the life once it’s theirs.

Clichés notwithstanding, diplomacy in our world is no tea party.  Read the ever-lengthening roster of those who’ve given their lives in the line of duty.  Their names are engraved on the marble walls of the State Department’s Diplomatic Entrance.  The list grows longer every year.

Many Talents, Many Temperaments

Meanwhile, as with all professions, diplomacy’s sub-specialties call for different skills and different temperaments.  Some FSOs excel at consular work.  Others are terrific administrators with an uncanny ability to make the embassy machine work efficiently—and happily.  Others are superb at gathering, analyzing and reporting on a country’s political events and/or economic trends while colleagues down the hall in USAID deeply understand the whole gamut of responsibilities involved in overseeing US aid for developmental and humanitarian purposes.

Public diplomacy is also a genuine specialty.  It’s for those who are comfortable with the relatively unscripted give and take of public debate or live press conferences; for those who revel in performing on a tightrope stretched between cultures; for those who can adapt, translate, rephrase and improvise as the climate of opinion mutates; for those who can get is right without relying on tired (and unconvincing) boilerplate; for those who can smoothly handle an in-your-face challenge; for those who—at the drop of a hat—can make the media side of a visit by the President, the Vice President, the Secretary of State or a Senatorial delegation into a triumph for the US—and, needless to say, for the VIPs involved.

But all Foreign Service specialties share one quality: it takes training, commitment, perseverance and years of experience on the job to master the job. 

In case you missed it:  Public Diplomacy Today, Part 1

 

Ode to PB&J for Labor Day

By Patricia Lee Sharpe

Well, not an ode exactly, since I’m not dishing out poetry.  But this is, for sure, a tribute to the Great American Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich.  Ta da!

Tomorrow is Labor Day, the official finale of the summer out-of-doors season.  It’s traditional to go for a picnic that allows us to lament the passing of time while appearing to have a sunny, full-of-smiles good time.  Depending on where you live, I bet you are planning a trip to the mountains or the beach or a lake or a park.  No?  Well, a lot of us are.  So we will compete with other picnickers for the least splintery table with the most shade, over which we’ll fling something or another to serve as a tablecloth.  Or maybe we’ll settle onto some remoter patch of sand or grass or any other surface that’s fairly level and can be sat on, comfortably, sort of, all things natural considered.

Some of us are going to unpack a vast array of gustatory delights from hampers and coolers.   I will not.  I get restless, impatient, antsy, just sitting around, so I like to hike or walk or trudge or plod, depending on the terrain, my mood and that old fitness thing.  Eventually hikers get hungry.  They need food, which gravity will have lured to the bottom of the day pack, under the rain gear and wallet and first aid requisites and tissues for you know what—and so the rooting around begins.

The Gorp Gobble

A car picnic quite naturally invites excess.  But I’m absolutely astounded by what my fellow trekkers/hikers load themselves down with in the way of food on the trail.  First of all, they gobble gorp or bite off chaws of energy bars with every other step, lest they be unable to perform as relentlessly as some fuzzy, pink, long-eared, drum-beating, Madison Ave. creature that keeps going and going and going. Picture it.  These extremely well-nourished Americans are traversing a mere ten miles (or much less) of far from life-threatening terrain and they’re afraid they’ll collapse.  Happily they aren’t faced with a real world death march.  Corregidor?  The Navaho or the Cherokee Long Marches during our Manifest Destiny phase? 

But hey!  Any excuse to satisfy the munchies.  As with energy bars: high profit, industrial-chemical-estate-launched assaults on taste buds and intelligence. Or gorp—love the word, not so the mix.  Nuts: mmm-mmm good and good for you.  Raisins: nutritious and tolerable, eating-wise, to my mind.  Chocolate chips: more! more!  But when micro-bits of one tasty tidbit sluff off onto the others?  Not entirely serendipitous. 

Le Picnique

So what do these people who are hardly under-nourished pull out of their day packs when we settle ourselves on some pelvis-cradling rocks for lunch?  This: gourmet take-out with snap-top plastic containers.  Curried chicken salad.  Tabbouli with hummus and pita.  Salade niçoise or russe —or equally complicated delicacies from home and not mere leftovers either.  All in containers that’ll have to be schlepped out—along with the requisite dirty spoons and knives, whether plastic or civilized. 

Now I like an elegant picnic once in a while, but on the trail give me good old PB&J.  First of all, the makings are always available so I don’t have to think ahead, make lists, shop.  Second, I’m always amazed, once I’ve taken that first bite, to discover once again that the Great American Peanut Butter and Jelly Sandwich is worth bragging about.  Third, it’s indestructible on a hot day.  Fourth, it’s easy to handle.  Just wrap it in waxed paper, pop it into a baggie and throw it into the pack.  Fifth, there's almost nothing to pack out.  Finally, it’s real food.  It gives me protein, non-artery-clogging oils, salt to replace what I’m sweating out.  What's more, I’m supplied with plenty of energy and I’m stuffed enough to keep the afternoon hungries away.  

Homage to Senator Edward Moore Kennedy (1932-2009)

By Patricia H. Kushlis

Ted Kennedy was buried on Saturday August 22, at Arlington National Cemetery next to his two older brothers John and Bobby in a simple grave tended by an eternal flame. The youngest son in Joseph Kennedy’s large clan, his funeral, a co-mingling of family, friends, politics, religion, sport, music, laughter, prayers, eulogies and tears was broadcast live from Boston’s Roman Catholic Basilica Our Lady of Perpetual Hope located in Roxbury, one of the city’s poorest neighborhoods. His struggle with brain cancer had lasted 15 months.

His struggle on behalf of the poor and the forgotten had lasted nearly half a century.

This Kennedy never became president or attorney general. His achievements took place in the U.S. Senate which he entered at age 30, 47 years ago. He grew to become its Lion: the mane of white hair flying and the roar coming from down the corridor. This is where he made the difference. He became one of this country’s single most effective legislators – ever. He knew what he wanted. He learned how to get things done in that cacophonous body because he understood people, power, persuasion and the art of the possible. He realized the need to cut deals, to settle for less rather than nothing but to keep pushing forward and to stand true to his principles, to look for legal loopholes to turn principles into reality, to cross party lines and befriend Republican colleagues in ways increasingly difficult to achieve. He also knew how to use the Senate floor as a bully pulpit to lobby for policies and programs in which he believed.

An unabashed Liberal

Kennedy’s legislative accomplishments were legion. In President Obama’s words, “a man whose name graces nearly one thousand laws, and who penned more than three hundred himself.” Some of these laws were controversial – from federal government supported health care for the elderly to immigration reform which has changed the ethnic mix of this country. Yet how many older Americans would willingly give up Medicare and how many of their children would want them to? And is this country really poorer by welcoming immigrants and refugees from continents other than Europe? Doesn’t the US draw its strength from receiving the “tired and the poor” not by keeping them out?

But Kennedy also championed – as he wrote the Pope in a private letter a month before his death – to open the doors of economic opportunity, to fight discrimination and expand access to health care and education, as well as to oppose the death penalty and end war. His work was far from complete when he died. His presence and perseverance are already missed – but others will step in and press on.

Soul of the Democratic Party

The Irish are known for their oratorical skills and ability to connect with people – all people. They are natural politicians. It’s no wonder then that the family dinner table was often a debating society. It is also as a place where campaign strategies and tactics are discussed and dissected and tasks and responsibilities divvied up among the clan.

Arctic Sea: An Enigma Wrapped in A Mystery

By Jyrki Iivonen Guest Contributor

Dr. Jyrki Iivonen is Docent of Political Science, University of Helsinki, Finland.

During the night between 25 and 26 July, 2009, a curious incident took place in the Baltic Sea - in the sound between the Swedish islands of Oland and Gotland. It first became public four days later, when on July 30, news spread that a vessel called the Arctic Sea had been hijacked. A group of six men, disguised as policemen, had boarded the ship in the darkness of the night and kept the crew as hostages for twelve hours. They destroyed the communications instruments on board but finally took nothing, it was said. According to the Swedish police, the vessel was owned by a Finnish shipping company (although its owners are of Russian backgrounds), sailing under the Maltese flag and with a Russian crew. The ship was carrying timber from Finland to Algeria. The case was investigated by the Swedish police because the presumed crime took place within Swedish territorial waters.

(Click on Map of Sweden to enlarge, Perry-Castaneda Map Collection, University of Texas).

So far so clear.

But everything that has happened since July 30 has made it obvious that the whole case is, to quote Winston Churchill’s famous description of the Soviet Union, “an enigma wrapped in a mystery.” What happened on the Arctic Sea has really become an enigma. With every new answer three new questions are raised.

The sequence of events is relatively clear. When the news came out on July 30 that the vessel was lost, mainly because – so it was again argued – the communication instruments had been destroyed by the hijackers and the crew had continued towards Algeria as originally planned. No wonder then that after a few days, the police expressed suspicions that the hijackers were still on board. One entire week elapsed without any sign of the vessel. Spanish authorities revealed that the Arctic Sea definitely had not passed through Gibraltar.

On 9 August it was said that Russian authorities – and especially the secret police FSB – had started to search for the vessel. According to the Russian Ministry of Defense, two submarines had been ordered to search for the vessel in the Atlantic area. There was now an assumption that instead of sailing to Algeria, the vessel had continued to the South, along the West Coast of Africa.

On 14 August, the Defense Minister of Cape Verde said that the vessel had been detected almost 500 miles north of the island and that the French Ministry of Defense would also know about the sighting. On the next day it was revealed by the Finnish police that the hijackers had demanded ransom from the shipping company, an announcement, however, that was not confirmed by the company.

Two days later, on August 17, Russian vessels found the Arctic Sea in the Atlantic, 300 miles from Cape Verde. Most of the crew members were transferred to a Russian naval vessel. It was also revealed that the media had been deliberately misled during the search operation, to protect the crew and to convince the hijackers that the authorities did not, in fact, know the whereabouts of the vessel. When the vessel had been detected and recaptured, the Russian ambassador to NATO, Dmitri Rogozin, told the media that the incident proved that Russia was quickly able to defend its interests and protect its citizens everywhere in the world and is also capable of cooperating with all major actors. (Photo of the Arctic Sea above right)

On August 18, Russian Defense Minister Anatoli Serdjukov announced that Russia had arrested eight persons suspected of the hijacking. Four of the men are Estonians, two Estonian-Russians and two Latvians. Estonia and Latvia immediately sent a note to Russia asking for more information about those arrested. Both the crew and those arrested were sent to Moscow for further interrogation. (Click on Map of Cape Verde to enlarge, Perry-Castaneda Map Collection, University of Texas)

Only ten days later the crew members were able to return home to Arkhangelsk. They are strictly forbidden to comment on the events to the media. The hijackers remain in Moscow and will - in due time - be taken to court.

This is what we know right now about the incident. But a large number of questions are still unanswered.

First, what was the vessel’s cargo? Timber is not so valuable that several countries would track the vessel along the Atlantic. There have been rumours and speculation – but only rumours and speculation – about whether there was something else on board, too. Weapons, nuclear materiel and drugs have been mentioned. It has also been suggested that the vessel was floating deeper in the water than if it had just carried timber and that, therefore, there must have been something else on board besides the timber.

Second, why was Russia so interested in the vessel? It is true that the crew was Russian and Russia has declared its intention to protect its citizens everywhere in the world. But legally the vessel was owned by a Finnish company and it was sailing under the Maltese flag. The hijacking took place in Swedish territorial waters, the cargo was on its way to Algeria and the vessel was found near Cap Verde. The hijackers were Estonians and Latvians. Several countries were involved but Russians assumed the right to try the hijackers.

Third, what was the role in the cooperation between intelligence agencies of different countries? Very little is known of this as well and the information that has been given out has often been contradictory. France has been active, as well as NATO as an organization. Did they cooperate with the Russian government and if yes, how?

Fourth, who are the hijackers and what were their motives? Although their nationalities are known, very little is known of their motives. They have themselves argued that they are actually environmentalists and that they were hijacked by the crew. But if they are only environmentalists, why did they arrange an operation against a vessel carrying Finnish timber and why did they disguise themselves as policemen?

As can be seen, numerous questions remain unanswered.

Finland’s Prime Minister Matti Vanhanen discussed the issue with his Russian colleague Vladimir Putin in Gdansk, Poland, on 1 September. Putin promised there that in the future the other countries concerned will be better informed about the developments of the case. But until then, very little is known of what really happened on the Arctic Sea during the two and half weeks when it was lost.