Lebanon-Israel boundary dispute goes to UN, while Turkey boosts regional naval presence

On 5th September Lebanon filed a formal complaint with the UN over its maritime dispute with Israel, warning that the Israeli proposal for the border line “puts international peace and security at risk” and urging the UN “to take all necessary measures to avoid conflict."

The Foreign Ministry in Beirut has sent a letter to UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon rejecting the northern boundaries of Israel's claim, which was submitted to the UN in July. Some weeks earlier, the Lebanese parliament approved a draft law which demarcates the country's maritime borders, following a formal proposal to the UN last year.

Lebanon's case is that over 860 km2 of its exclusive economic zone, in which a state has 'sovereign rights' over marine resources, is infringed by the Israeli claim. The area in question contains significant quantities of oil and gas, and US-listed explorer Noble Energy has already begun developing large gas fields in the Israeli sector of the Mediterranean.

Lebanon's decision to file a formal complaint raises the stakes further, although by moving the ball into the UN's court it maycommit both parties to arbitration and reduce the risk of conflict. Pursuing the case through arbitration would also help to marginalise the Lebanese Shia militant group Hezbollah, which has threatened reprisals if Israel begins drilling in disputed waters.

There have been further signs of tension in the Levant over the past few days, however. On 4th September, Lebanon accused Israeli jets of violating its airspace: a common enough refrain over the past few years, but one which takes on additional significance when relations between the two sides, still technically at war, are so strained.

The collapse in the Turkey-Israel relationship is also adding to tensions in the Levant. On 2nd September the Israeli ambassador in Ankara was expelled after Israel again refused to apologise for the Gaza flotilla raid in May 2010, in which nine Turkish citizens were killed.

On 6th September Turkey's blunt-talking Prime Minister, Recep Tayyip Erdogan, announced that all remaining ties with Israel would be cut, and Turkish warships “will be seen more frequently” in the eastern Mediterranean. Erdogan has cast himself as the champion of the Arab world, and a greater naval presence could tempt Turkey into intervening in the Israel-Lebanon spat. Given the disputed nature of the region's maritime borders, the chances for accusations and miscalculations are likely to increase even further.

Sources: AFP, Daily Star, Reuters

Kurdish rebel groups agree to coordinate operations against Iran

On 3rd September Kurdish militant groups fighting in Turkey and Iran announced that they are coordinating their activities, following an upsurge in attacks by the Iranian and Turkish militaries.

The Kurdistan Worker's Party (PKK), which operates in south-eastern Turkey, and the Free Life Party of Kurdistan (PJAK), fighting in north-western Iran, will combine forces against the Iranian military in response to an onslaught against their safe havens along the borders with Iraq.

The PKK, of which the PJAK is a subsidiary, announced the move, stating that “the goal of Iran is eliminating the Kurdish people, and not the PJAK party, and these are the reasons that led us to take this decision”.

Iranian forces, spearheaded by the elite Revolutionary Guard, launched a major offensive against the PJAK in July. Reports indicate that dozens of rebels and Iranian soldiers have been killed in the fighting. Meanwhile Turkey began its own offensive after the PKK ambushed a number of military convoys in the volatile south-east.

Both operations have seen numerous cross-border attacks into northern Iraq. Turkish warplanes have bombed dozens of targets in the Qandil Mountains in Iraq, whilst Iran has sent ground forces over the border to destroy PJAK bases. The government of Iraq's autonomous Kurdish region has complained about both the military incursions and the continuing provocations by the PKK and PJAK, which have used the mountainous region as a base for many years.

On 9th August the PKK's leader Murat Karayilan told Kurdish media outlets that he was withdrawing PJAK forces from the Iranian border to PKK camps as a “unilateral measure to prevent any further attacks”. However in the same statement he announced that PKK forces would be based on the border instead, and did not wish to fight Iran but would do so if Iranian forces attacked PKK units.

The latest statement seems to amount to a declaration of war by the PKK against Iran. This suggests much greater practical coordination between the militant groups in the future, which in turn is likely to be met with increased cooperation by the Turkish and Iranian militaries. This raising of stakes will mean more cross-border operations and increased diplomatic tensions, both with the Kurdish authorities in northern Iraq and the central government in Baghdad.

Sources: AFP, Today's Zaman, Hurriyet, PRESS TV

China, Philippines positive on defusing South China Sea tensions

China and the Philippines are closer to settling a long-running dispute over their maritime boundary, after a state visit by Philippine President Beningno Aquino to Beijing which began on 31st August. During the visit Aquino, who this summer has been bullish towards China, struck a conciliatory note. Calling for greater economic links between the two states, he announced that “the Philippines is indeed open for business”.

The Philippine President is accompanied by 300 business leaders in an attempt to boost bilateral economic relations, anticipating an increase to $60 billion in five years, up from $27.7 billion in 2010. 

However the main focus of the visit is on the contested border in the South China Sea, where the Philippines – like many other Southeast Asian states – are at loggerheads with Beijing over maritime boundaries and the ownership of the isolated Spratly Islands. Disputes over the islands, or rather the extensive oil and gas reserves believed to lie beneath them, are a potential flashpoint for conflict.

Aquino and his Chinese counterpart Hu Jintao released a joint statement on 1st September, in which they “agreed not to let the maritime disputes affect the broader picture of friendship and cooperation” and “reiterated their commitment to addressing the disputes through peaceful dialogue”. Although this is standard diplomatic boilerplate, Aquino did reveal some signs of progress the previous evening. 

Speaking to reporters after meeting Hu, Aquino revealed that China is now calling for a legally binding code of conduct for all nations operating in the South China Sea. This would go beyond the non-binding 'guidelines' which regional states had agreed on at a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in July. Aquino was buoyed by the news, calling the Chinese proposal “very significant”. Hu also contributed to the positive atmosphere, calling for the South China Sea to develop into “a sea of friendship, peace and cooperation”. 

A legally binding code of conduct would be difficult to draw up, if the wrangling over the July guidelines is any guide. Disagreements between the ASEAN nations ensured that the proposals were ambiguous and vague. Other regional states will be watching carefully to see if China's proposed code of conduct would favour Beijing or be designed to exclude the US, which has backed the smaller states, from regional affairs. Given China's assertive stance in the South China Sea, it is unlikely to make any concessions. 

In any case, a code of conduct would be extremely difficult to enforce. Most regional states have strayed from the spirit if not the letter of the 'Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea', agreed in 2002. It would be surprising if a legally binding code of conduct would seem sacrosanct when other legal tools, such as international arbitration, have yet to prevent regional disputes and confrontations.

Sources: AFP, Reuters, Bloomberg, Xinhua

Sudan refers Kordofan border clashes to UN Security Council

Following intensive clashes in the border region between Sudan and newly-independent South Sudan, the Khartoum government has filed a complaint with the UN Security Council accusing its neighbour of fomenting instability.

The clashes in South Kordofan began in June, a month before the formal declaration of South Sudanese independence, but have flared up recently, with the Sudanese government accused of indiscriminate aerial bombing of civilian areas. Around 200,000 are believed to have fled their homes. An unexpected government ceasefire announced on 23^rd August does not appear to have ended the fighting.

Sudanese government forces are seeking to neutralise armed rebels from the Nuba ethnic group. Although now located north of the border, many of the Nuba sided with the Sudan People's Liberation Movement/Army during the southern group's twenty-year war against Khartoum. Non-Arab like most of South Sudan's population, the Nuba community also complained of discrimination and oppression by the Arab-dominated government in Khartoum. 

Sudan now views the pro-southerners which are left within its territory as a potential fifth column for the new government in Juba. In its complaint to the UN, the Sudanese government has accused South Sudan of arming and instructing the rebels in the Nuba Mountains. A Sudanese government spokesman said on 30^th August that Khartoum has “documented proof” that the insurrection is being orchestrated by Juba. 

The complaint also cited numerous alleged border violations by South Sudan, including the deployment of military forces in the disputed, oil-rich area of Abyei (which borders South Kordofan) in violation of the 2005 peace deal, and failing to withdraw forces from a disputed border strip. Juba has denied all the accusations.

This new international element to the long-simmering rebellion increases risks for the wider border situation between Sudan and South Sudan. South Kordofan is adjacent to Abyei, a focal point of north-south tensions because of its oil wealth. 

An uptick in fighting between the Sudanese army and the rebels, or cross-border raids, could raise the prospect of the southern Sudanese military – at this point still a cobbled-together force of former rebels – becoming involved.

Sources: BBC, Reuters, Sudan Tribune

Philippines stands to increase continental shelf through Benham Rise claim

The Philippines may gain 13 million hectares of territory should the UN approve its government's claim of the Benham Rise, reports the Philippine Daily Inquirer. The Benham Rise is situated off the eastern coast of the Philippines and may be recognised, under the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), as a part of its continental shelf in 2012. The Philippines is the only claimant to the Rise, a situation which represents a contrast to that off its western coast where title to the Spratly Islands remains disputed.

Given the seemingly straightforward nature of the claim, the government of the Philippines is keen to incorporate the Rise which, with its huge methane deposits, has the potential to make the Philippines a natural gas exporter. Should, under UNCLOS, Benham be determined to be a part of Philippines territory then there would be a legal basis for the government to negotiate exploration rights with private companies.

The Philippines claim was submitted to the UN under UNCLOS in 2009, and the Environment Secretary of the Philippines, Ramon Jesus Paje, has said that the UN intends to approve the claim in 2012.

Paje has said that the Philippines has only recently categorically defined the Benham Rise as attached to the continental shelf which, under UNCLOS, is the seabed and subsoil that extend beyond its 12 nautical mile territorial sea. Nevertheless, there is anticipation in the Philippines that the eventual incorporation of the Benham Rise will mark an important step towards energy self-sufficiency.

Continuing tension along the Israel-Lebanon borders

Lebanon has filed a complaint against Israel at the UN after a border incident on Monday (1 August) which involved an exchange of fire. An Israeli Defence Force (IDF) patrol is alleged to have entered Lebanese territory at Wazzani. Reports vary, but the extent of the incursion is put at a matter of metres (between 15 and 70).

Reports also vary as to the supposed sequence of events. Some sources claim that the presence of IDF soldiers on Lebanese territory prompted Lebanese forces to fire at them; others counter that Israeli forces were not on Lebanese territory but that they did return the fire of the Lebanese forces.

Neither side sustained any casualties during the incident. In its complaint Lebanon argues that the the Israeli incursion represented a violation of its sovereignty, a breach of international law and the Charter of the United Nations. Moreover, Lebanon argues that the incursion breached UN Security Council resolution 1701 which ended the month-long war of 2006 end extended the United Nations Interim Force in Lebanon (UNIFIL) mandate.

Israel made its own complaint to the UN, on Tuesday (2 August), about shots fired (by a Lebanese soldier at an IDF patrol) from across the border. Ron Prosor, the Israeli ambassador to the UN has argued that incidents such as this potentially threaten the ceasefire that currently holds between the two states; another similar event has allegedly taken place in the last two weeks.

This notwithstanding, the low-level conflict that characterises the formal ceasefire between Israel and Lebanon has been interpreted in news sources as indicative of comparative calm along the land border. The focus in recent weeks has been on the maritime border between the two states, and a disputed area of approximately 850 square kilometres which, potentially, is rich in oil and gas deposits.

Neither side is willing to modify its stance, the Lebanese claiming a maritime boundary that runs several kilometres to the south of the line approved by the Israeli cabinet on 10 July. International parties are pushing for a negotiated settlement to the dispute, but as the states are technically at war they will not negotiate. Compounding the problem is Lebanon's non-recognition of Israel. It has therefore proposed that the UN resolve the matter. The UN, for its part, says it cannot because UNIFIL holds no mandate to deal with maritime boundaries. Therefore, perhaps the most satisfactory course of action is for both parties to permit a mediation process to begin—face-to-face negotiations are, at best, unlikely and probably impossible—while the states explore for oil and gas outside of the disputed area. It has been argued that the continued uncertainty over the maritime boundaries will cause international investors to stay away from the Levantine Basin but, arguably, this is not clear cut. Energy companies are, for example, involved in exploration and exploitation activities in a number of disputed areas including the disputed waters off Morocco and Western Sahara.

Indeed, both parties are free to explore areas of the Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZ) that are undisputed. However, Lebanon, which perhaps has the stronger case in international law, has not yet begun any exploration of its own. Hezbollah plays an important role in the new Lebanese cabinet; its leader, Hassan Nazrallah, has warned Israel—which has carried out exploratory work—to stay away from Lebanon's offshore resources.

Sources: Channel News Asia, Daily Star (Lebanon), Haaretz, The Jerusalem Post

International reaction to violence on the Kosovo-Serbia border

After last week's clashes in northern Kosovo which left a Kosovan policeman dead and NATO/KFOR peacekeepers under fire, additional peacekeeping forces were sent to the region on Tuesday (2 August) to relieve those that had been involved since the start of the crisis. NATO has stressed that this does not represent a reaction to the escalation of the crisis which began when Kosovan police attempted to take over two border crossings, and ethnic Serbs subsequently attacked a border post on 28 July.

In addition, Kosovo has imposed a de facto trade embargo on Serbia. The timing, if not the nature, of this development is surprising for it has been three years since the Serbian government in Belgrade banned imports from Kosovo as a consequence of Pristina's unilateral declaration of independence.

The Belgrade government and the Serb minority in northern Kosovo have never recognised the independent government of Kosovo. On 31 July a declaration of the Serbian government criticised the actions of the authorities in Pristina. Since then, Belgrade has been sure to signal its commitment to the peaceful resolution of the present crisis through dialogue; President Tadic has stated that, in light of the recent history of the Balkans, that the preservation of regional stability is the priority.

Nonetheless, elements of the minority Serb population in northern Kosovo have perceived a provocation to violence in the activities of the Kosovan government. 60,000 Serbs live in the north; among this population there is little acceptance of the region's control by Pristina. Accordingly, the authorities there exercise little effective control in the north of the territory that is defined by their Republic's Constitution. With this, and an associated measure of pragmatism in mind, the international players that have recognised Kosovo's independence over the last three years have encouraged it to pursue an incremental strategy in this respect.

Nonetheless, recognising the more conciliatory and cooperative stance adopted by the present Belgrade government towards the international community, external actors have signalled their general disapproval of the Pristina's actions. The EU High Representative on foreign affairs, Catherine Ashton, indicated the EU's disapproval, and the US State Department criticised Pristina for not coordinating its actions with the international community. At the UN, the Secretary-General called for restraint and dialogue between Belgrade and Pristina facilitated by the EU. China—the only power to abstain at the formulation of Security Council resolution 1244 (1999), which mandated the international presence in Serbia/Kosovo, and one which was highly critical of the NATO action in 1999—expressed its regret over the Pristina administration's activities which it blamed for the increasing tensions.

Internationally, then, there seems to exist the recognition that the present crisis has been brought on by the provocation of the Pristina government led by Hashim Thaci. This, however, will not affect the international community's line on Kosovo. The UN General Assembly and the International Court of Justice (ICJ) have emphasised the inviolability of Kosovo's territorial integrity since its independence, and this will continue to guide practice.

In 2010, in its advisory opinion, the ICJ stated that Pristina's declaration of independence in 2008 did not violate international law; eighty states including, crucially, most EU members have recognised the Republic of Kosovo. Pristina's challenge to the status quo has been heavily criticised by the international actors but, nonetheless, there is little that the Serbian government can do to avoid its present bind. Having extradited the war criminals, Mladic and Hazdic, to the Hague Tribunal, President Tadic has sought to bring Serbia's EU accession closer. But with the main international players recognising the personality and territorial disposition of Kosovo, the status of the Serb enclave—and the issue of territorial cession and the unsavoury precedent that it could set for other parts of the Balkans—will have to be addressed. The resolution of territorial disputes is a longstanding condition of EU membership and the recent provocation by Pristina will cause a headache in Belgrade, where the government appears convinced of a need to move away from its own past and towards the EU.

Sources: Al Jazeera, BBC, Dallas Morning News, Spiegel, United Nations