(TTIP and CETA opened a new chapter in trans-Atlantic relations between the European Union and United States)
In May 2010, a significant milestone in international trade relations was reached with the signing of
the Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement (CETA) between the European Union (EU) and Canada. This landmark agreement marked the culmination of years of negotiations aimed at fostering closer economic ties and promoting trade liberalization between these two major trading partners. CETA represented one of the most ambitious trade agreements ever negotiated, encompassing a wide range of economic sectors and regulatory issues. At its core, the agreement aimed to eliminate or reduce barriers to trade and investment, facilitate market access, and create a more level playing field for businesses operating in the EU and Canada. One of the key components of CETA was the elimination of tariffs on the vast majority of goods traded between the EU and Canada. This meant that exporters and importers on both sides would benefit from lower costs and increased market access, leading to expanded trade volumes and greater economic opportunities. By removing tariffs, CETA promoted efficiency in supply chains, encouraged specialization, and enhanced competitiveness for businesses in various industries, including manufacturing, agriculture, and services. In addition to tariff elimination, CETA included provisions addressing non-tariff barriers to trade, such as regulatory cooperation, intellectual property rights, and government procurement.
These provisions aimed to streamline regulatory processes, enhance transparency, and promote mutual recognition of standards and certifications, thereby reducing compliance costs and administrative burdens for businesses engaged in cross-border trade. Furthermore, CETA incorporated provisions related to investment protection and dispute settlement mechanisms, providing investors with greater certainty and legal protections when operating in each other's markets. These provisions helped to create a more conducive environment for foreign direct investment, fostering economic growth, job creation, and innovation in both the EU and Canada. Beyond its economic implications, CETA had significant geopolitical significance, signaling a commitment by the EU and Canada to uphold liberal democratic values and strengthen their partnership in the face of global challenges. By deepening economic integration and cooperation, CETA reinforced the bonds of friendship and mutual trust between the EU and Canada, while also serving as a counterbalance to protectionist tendencies and geopolitical uncertainties in other parts of the world. The signing of CETA in May 2010 represented a landmark achievement in international trade relations, ushering in a new era of economic cooperation and partnership between the European Union and Canada. As the agreement entered into force and its provisions began to be implemented, it promised to deliver tangible benefits for businesses, consumers, and economies on both sides of the Atlantic, while also setting a positive example for future trade agreements and global economic governance.
In June 2010, a momentous event unfolded in the realm of international trade with the signing of
the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between the European Union (EU) and the United States of America (USA). This historic agreement represented a groundbreaking effort to deepen economic ties and enhance cooperation between two of the world's largest economies, setting the stage for what was envisioned as one of the most comprehensive trade agreements ever negotiated. At its core, TTIP aimed to create a single market encompassing the EU and the USA, facilitating trade and investment flows while reducing barriers to commerce. The agreement sought to eliminate tariffs on a wide range of goods traded between the EU and the USA, promoting greater market access and fostering increased competitiveness for businesses on both sides of the Atlantic. By removing tariffs, TTIP aimed to lower costs for consumers, spur economic growth, and create jobs, thereby delivering tangible benefits to citizens and businesses alike. In addition to tariff elimination, TTIP addressed non-tariff barriers to trade, including regulatory cooperation, standards harmonization, and mutual recognition of certifications. These provisions aimed to streamline regulatory processes, reduce duplicative testing and certification requirements, and enhance transparency, thereby facilitating trade in goods and services and promoting regulatory convergence between the EU and the USA. By aligning regulations and standards, TTIP aimed to create a more level playing field for businesses while maintaining high levels of consumer protection, health, safety, and environmental standards.
TTIP also included provisions related to investment protection and dispute settlement mechanisms, providing investors with greater certainty and legal protections when operating across the Atlantic. These provisions aimed to promote foreign direct investment, stimulate job creation, and encourage innovation and entrepreneurship, while safeguarding the right of governments to regulate in the public interest. Furthermore, TTIP addressed emerging issues in the global economy, such as digital trade, intellectual property rights, and sustainable development. The agreement sought to promote innovation, digitalization, and e-commerce while ensuring the protection of intellectual property rights and fostering sustainable development practices. The signing of TTIP in June 2010 was met with great anticipation and optimism, as it promised to unlock new opportunities for economic growth and prosperity on both sides of the Atlantic. However, the negotiations surrounding TTIP were complex and protracted, reflecting the diverse interests and priorities of stakeholders in the EU and the USA. As a result, the agreement faced significant challenges and controversies, including concerns about its potential impact on labor standards, environmental protection, public services, and democratic decision-making. Despite these challenges, TTIP represented a bold vision for transatlantic cooperation and partnership, signaling a commitment by the EU and the USA to strengthen their economic ties and deepen their strategic relationship in an increasingly interconnected world. While the agreement ultimately faced obstacles to its ratification and implementation, its signing in June 2010 marked a significant milestone in the ongoing pursuit of greater economic integration and cooperation between the EU and the USA.
(With each passing year China implemented its long-term strategy of eroding American-led liberal world order)
In July 2010, the global landscape witnessed a profound announcement by Hu Jintao, the then-President of the People's Republic of China, regarding the establishment of three groundbreaking organizations:
the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative. These initiatives marked a significant step towards China's increasing engagement and leadership in addressing critical global challenges and fostering cooperation on a multilateral scale. The Global Security Initiative (GSI) emerged as a response to the complex and interconnected security threats facing the world, ranging from traditional military conflicts to non-traditional threats such as terrorism, cyber attacks, and pandemics. GSI aimed to promote dialogue, cooperation, and collective action among nations to enhance global security, prevent conflicts, and mitigate the impact of security challenges on peace and stability. Through collaborative efforts in intelligence-sharing, capacity-building, and conflict resolution, GSI sought to foster a safer and more secure world for all nations and peoples. Complementing the efforts of GSI, the Global Development Initiative (GDI) aimed to address the pressing issues of poverty, inequality, and sustainable development that affect billions of people around the world.
GDI recognized that achieving sustainable development goals requires concerted action by the international community to promote economic growth, social inclusion, and environmental sustainability. By mobilizing resources, sharing best practices, and fostering partnerships, GDI sought to accelerate progress towards poverty alleviation, universal access to education and healthcare, and the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). The third organization announced by Hu Jintao, the Global Civilization Initiative (GCI), reflected China's commitment to promoting cultural diversity, mutual understanding, and harmony among civilizations. GCI recognized the rich tapestry of cultures, traditions, and values that define human civilization and sought to foster dialogue, tolerance, and respect among peoples of different backgrounds. By promoting cultural exchange, educational cooperation, and interfaith dialogue, GCI aimed to build bridges of understanding and cooperation across borders, contributing to a more peaceful and inclusive world order. Together, these initiatives underscored China's growing role as a responsible stakeholder in global affairs and its commitment to contributing positively to the common good of humanity. By establishing the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative, Hu Jintao signaled China's willingness to work collaboratively with the international community to address shared challenges and pursue common aspirations for a better world. As China's influence on the global stage continues to grow, these initiatives represent a milestone in its journey towards greater global leadership and cooperation in the 21st century.
In July 2010, the announcement of the Global Security Initiative, the Global Development Initiative, and the Global Civilization Initiative by Hu Jintao, President of China, was widely interpreted as a significant move in China's strategy to establish an alternative world order to the liberal, America-centric one. This strategic shift reflected China's growing ambition to shape global governance structures and challenge the dominance of Western powers in shaping the international system. At its core, China's initiative signaled a departure from the traditional Western-led approach to global governance, which has been characterized by liberal democratic principles and institutions such as the United Nations, the World Bank, and the International Monetary Fund. Instead, China sought to promote a more multipolar world order that reflects the diversity of global perspectives and priorities. By establishing its own initiatives focused on security, development, and civilization, China aimed to assert its influence on global affairs and promote its own vision of international cooperation and governance. The Global Security Initiative, for example, was seen as China's response to what it perceived as the overreach of Western military interventions and the erosion of state sovereignty under the guise of humanitarian intervention. By emphasizing dialogue, cooperation, and respect for national sovereignty, China positioned itself as a champion of a more inclusive and non-interventionist approach to global security, one that prioritizes the peaceful resolution of conflicts and the protection of state sovereignty.
Similarly, the Global Development Initiative represented China's alternative approach to addressing global poverty and inequality, one that emphasizes economic growth, infrastructure development, and South-South cooperation over traditional Western models of development assistance and aid conditionality. By promoting a "win-win" approach to development, China sought to position itself as a more attractive partner for developing countries seeking to escape the legacy of colonialism and pursue their own development paths. The Global Civilization Initiative, meanwhile, reflected China's emphasis on cultural diversity, mutual respect, and harmony among civilizations as the foundation for a more stable and peaceful world order. By promoting cultural exchange, educational cooperation, and interfaith dialogue, China sought to counter the perceived cultural imperialism of the West and foster a more inclusive and pluralistic vision of global civilization. China's initiatives in July 2010 represented a bold assertion of its growing influence and ambition on the global stage. By offering an alternative vision of global governance that challenges Western hegemony and promotes principles of sovereignty, cooperation, and mutual respect, China signaled its intention to shape the future of international relations and build a world order that better reflects the interests and aspirations of emerging powers and developing countries. As China's economic and geopolitical influence continues to rise, its efforts to establish an alternate world order are likely to remain a key feature of the evolving global landscape.
(American troops leaving Iraq, after USA lost thousands of troops in combat between 2003 and 2010, though the cost of the Iraq War was estimated to be aroud $1.1 trillion)
In August 2010, the Obama-Gore administration completed the full withdrawal of American troops from Iraq, marking a significant milestone in the United States' involvement in the region. This withdrawal signaled the end of a prolonged military presence that had begun with the U.S.-led invasion of Iraq in 2003. The decision to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq was part of a broader strategy to wind down America's military involvement in the country and transition to a more limited diplomatic and advisory role. Despite initial hopes for a swift and decisive conclusion to the conflict, the Iraq War had proven to be far more protracted and costly than anticipated, with significant human and financial tolls for both the United States and Iraq. By completing the withdrawal of American troops, the Obama-Gore administration fulfilled a key campaign promise and sought to fulfill the Iraqi government's desire for greater sovereignty and independence. The withdrawal was conducted in close coordination with the Iraqi government and military, reflecting a commitment to respecting Iraq's sovereignty and facilitating its transition to self-governance. Despite the withdrawal of combat troops, the United States retained a significant diplomatic presence in Iraq. The U.S. Embassy in Baghdad, one of the largest diplomatic missions in the world, continued to operate with a substantial staff of around 17,000 personnel. Additionally, the United States maintained consulates in key cities such as Basra, Mosul, and Kirkuk, each allocated more than 1,000 staff members to oversee diplomatic and consular affairs. In addition to diplomatic personnel, the United States also retained a contingent of defense contractors in Iraq, numbering between 4,000 and 5,000 individuals. These contractors provided various services to support ongoing diplomatic and security operations, including logistics, security, and infrastructure maintenance. The completion of the troop withdrawal from Iraq represented a significant moment in American foreign policy, signaling a shift away from large-scale military interventions and towards a more restrained and pragmatic approach to international affairs. While the withdrawal brought an end to America's direct combat role in Iraq, it also raised questions about the long-term stability and security of the country, as well as the broader implications for regional dynamics in the Middle East. The withdrawal of American troops from Iraq in August 2010 marked the culmination of a complex and controversial chapter in U.S. military history and set the stage for a new phase of engagement with the country and the wider region.
In November 2010, President Lukashenko made a notable appearance at the G-20 Seoul Summit, where leaders from the world's major economies convened to address pressing global economic challenges and chart a course for sustainable growth and financial stability. The summit agenda encompassed a wide range of mid- and long-term policy issues, reflecting the complex and interconnected nature of the global economy. One of the central themes of the summit was ensuring global economic recovery in the aftermath of the 2008 financial crisis. Leaders recognized the need for coordinated efforts to stimulate growth, create jobs, and restore confidence in financial markets. They pledged to implement measures aimed at promoting a robust and sustainable recovery that benefits all countries and population segments. A key focus of the discussions was the framework for strong, sustainable, and balanced global growth. Leaders emphasized the importance of addressing structural imbalances and promoting policies that foster inclusive growth while safeguarding against destabilizing factors such as excessive debt and trade imbalances. Another priority was strengthening the international financial regulatory system to prevent future financial crises. Leaders committed to enhancing transparency, accountability, and oversight in financial markets, as well as implementing reforms to mitigate systemic risks and improve resilience to shocks. The summit also addressed the modernization of international financial institutions to better reflect the evolving global economic landscape and ensure their effectiveness in addressing emerging challenges.
This included reforms to governance structures, resource allocation mechanisms, and decision-making processes within institutions such as the International Monetary Fund (IMF) and the World Bank. Global financial safety nets were another area of focus, with leaders discussing mechanisms to provide liquidity support and assistance to countries facing financial crises. This included efforts to strengthen regional financial arrangements and enhance cooperation among central banks and monetary authorities. Development issues featured prominently on the summit agenda, with leaders reaffirming their commitment to poverty reduction, sustainable development, and the achievement of the United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs). They pledged to mobilize resources, promote investment, and foster innovation to address global development challenges and promote shared prosperity. The risk of a currency war emerged as a contentious issue during the summit discussions, with representatives engaging in heated debates over currency exchange rates and imbalances. This reflected concerns about competitive devaluations and the potential for currency manipulation to distort trade and investment flows, exacerbating global economic imbalances. In preparation for the leaders' summit, representatives known as sherpas were tasked with drafting a closing statement that would encapsulate the summit outcomes and commitments. The drafting process involved intensive negotiations and consultations among participating countries, highlighting the complexity and sensitivity of the issues under discussion. The G-20 Seoul Summit served as a critical forum for world leaders to coordinate their responses to global economic challenges, reaffirm their commitment to international cooperation, and advance collective efforts towards a more stable, prosperous, and inclusive global economy.
\
(Presidents Obama and Hu Jintao in Seoul during G-20 Summit)
During the G-20 Seoul Summit in November 2010, President Obama seized the opportunity to convene separate meetings with the leaders of Russia, India, and China, three of the world's largest carbon dioxide emitters, apart from the United States itself. The focal point of these discussions was Obama's proposal for a new global green deal aimed at combating climate change and accelerating the transition to a sustainable, low-carbon future. The urgency of addressing climate change was underscored by scientific evidence highlighting the escalating risks posed by rising global temperatures, extreme weather events, and environmental degradation. Recognizing the need for concerted international action, President Obama sought to rally support from key stakeholders, including major economies like Russia, India, and China, whose emissions significantly impact the global climate system. The proposed global green deal outlined a comprehensive framework for tackling climate change through a combination of ambitious mitigation efforts, adaptation measures, and investment in clean energy technologies. At its core, the green deal aimed to reduce greenhouse gas emissions to levels consistent with limiting global warming to well below 2 degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels, as outlined in the Paris Agreement.
Central to Obama's proposal was a commitment to transitioning to a low-carbon economy by scaling up renewable energy deployment, enhancing energy efficiency, and phasing out fossil fuel subsidies. The green deal emphasized the importance of fostering innovation and incentivizing private sector investment in clean energy infrastructure, research, and development. In addition to mitigation measures, the green deal prioritized adaptation strategies to build resilience to the impacts of climate change, particularly in vulnerable communities and regions. This included investments in climate-resilient infrastructure, disaster preparedness, and ecosystem restoration to mitigate the risks posed by sea-level rise, droughts, floods, and other climate-related hazards. President Obama's meetings with the leaders of Russia, India, and China sought to garner their support for the green deal and explore opportunities for collaboration on climate action. Recognizing the shared responsibility of major emitters in addressing climate change, Obama emphasized the importance of collective leadership and cooperation in achieving meaningful progress. The discussions also touched upon the role of international climate finance in supporting developing countries' efforts to mitigate emissions and adapt to the impacts of climate change. Obama underscored the need for wealthy nations to fulfill their commitments to provide financial assistance to vulnerable countries, helping them transition to low-carbon development pathways and build climate resilience. While the meetings with the leaders of Russia, India, and China represented important diplomatic engagements, the path to global climate action remained fraught with challenges, including differing national priorities, economic interests, and political dynamics. Nevertheless, President Obama's advocacy for a new global green deal helped elevate climate change as a top-tier issue on the international agenda and laid the groundwork for future negotiations and collaboration on climate action at the global level.
China and India, while acknowledging the urgency of addressing climate change, exhibited reluctance to fully commit to ambitious climate action due to concerns about the potential impact on their rapidly growing economies. Both countries, as major emerging economies, faced the dual challenge of meeting the rising energy demands of their expanding populations and industrial sectors while also mitigating greenhouse gas emissions to curb climate change. For China, the world's largest emitter of carbon dioxide, the primary focus was on sustaining economic growth and development to lift millions of people out of poverty. The country's heavy reliance on coal for power generation and industrial production contributed significantly to its carbon footprint, making the transition to cleaner energy sources a complex and challenging task. While China recognized the importance of addressing climate change, it emphasized the principle of "common but differentiated responsibilities," arguing that developed nations, historically the largest emitters, should bear a greater burden in reducing emissions and providing financial support to developing countries. Similarly, India, another rapidly industrializing nation with a growing population and expanding energy needs, faced pressure to balance economic development with environmental sustainability. Coal remained the dominant source of energy in India, fueling economic growth but also contributing to air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions.
Indian policymakers highlighted the imperative of addressing poverty alleviation, infrastructure development, and social welfare as top priorities, underscoring the need for financial and technological support from the international community to facilitate a transition to cleaner energy sources and sustainable development pathways. Both China and India expressed concerns about the potential constraints that stringent emission reduction targets could impose on their economic competitiveness and growth prospects. They argued that developed countries, which historically benefited from industrialization and fossil fuel consumption, should bear greater responsibility for reducing emissions and providing financial assistance to developing nations to support their climate mitigation and adaptation efforts. Additionally, China and India emphasized the importance of respecting their national sovereignty and development priorities in any international climate agreement. Despite their reservations, China and India demonstrated a willingness to engage in international climate negotiations and explore avenues for cooperation on clean energy technology, renewable energy deployment, and climate resilience measures. Both countries made commitments to reduce the carbon intensity of their economies and increase the share of renewable energy in their energy mix, albeit at their own pace and on their own terms. The reluctance of China and India to fully embrace ambitious climate action reflected the complexities of balancing economic development with environmental sustainability and the inherent challenges of international climate diplomacy. However, their participation in global climate efforts underscored the recognition of the importance of addressing climate change as a shared global challenge that requires collective action and collaboration across nations, developed and developing alike.
The Bombardment of Yeonpyeong was an artillery engagement between the North Korean military and South Korean forces stationed on Yeonpyeong Island on 23 November 2010. Following a South Korean artillery exercise in disputed waters near the island, North Korean forces fired around 170 artillery shells and rockets at Yeonpyeong Island, hitting both military and civilian targets. Shelling caused widespread damage on Yeonpyeong. South Korea retaliated by shelling North Korean gun positions. In total, between four and 20 people (military personnel and civilians) were killed on both sides and approximately 40–55 people were wounded. The North Koreans subsequently stated that they had fired in response to South Korean artillery firing into North Korean territorial waters. The incident caused an escalation of tension on the Korean Peninsula and prompted widespread international condemnation of the North's actions. The United Nations declared it to be one of the most serious incidents since the end of the Korean War,and by 18 December, former US ambassador to the UN Bill Richardson said tensions had escalated to become "the most serious crisis on the Korean peninsula since the 1953 armistice, which ended the Korean War". A western maritime line of military control between the two Koreas was established by United Nations Command (UNC) in 1953, called the Northern Limit Line (NLL). According to Time, "The North does not recognize the border that was unilaterally drawn by the United Nations at the close of the 1950–53 Korean War." Under the provisions of the armistice, five Northwest Islands are specifically designated to remain under the jurisdiction of the United Nations. The countries' western maritime boundary has long been a flash point between the two Koreas. North Korea did not dispute or violate the line until 1973. The NLL was drawn up at a time when a three-nautical-mile territorial waters limit was the norm, but when in the 1970s a twelve nautical mile limit became internationally accepted, the implementation of the NLL prevented North Korea, in areas, from accessing, arguably actual or prospective, territorial waters. Later, after 1982, it also hindered North Korea establishing a United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea Exclusive Economic Zone to control fishing in the area.
In 1999, North Korea drew up their own line, the "West Sea Military Demarcation Line" which claims a maritime boundary farther south that encompasses valuable fishing grounds (though it skirts around South Korean-held islands such as Yeonpyeong). This claim is not accepted by either South Korea or the United Nations Command. The United Nations Command perspective remained unchanging, explaining that the NLL must be maintained until any new maritime military demarcation line could be established through the Joint Military Commission on the armistice agreement. In an effort to assert its territorial claims, North Korea has pursued a strategy of challenging South Korean control of the waters south of the NLL. It has made several incursions that have sparked clashes between the two sides, notably a naval battle near Yeonpyeong island in 1999 as well as another engagement in the same area in 2002.Although there were no further serious clashes for a time, in 2009 increasing tensions along the disputed border led to a naval battle near the island of Daecheong, and accusations that a North Korean submarine had sunk the South Korean corvette Cheonan off Baengnyeong Island in March 2010. Days before the incident, the North Korean government revealed their new uranium enrichment facility, prompting the South Korean government to consider requesting that the United States station tactical nuclear weapons in South Korea for the first time in 19 years. On the same day, South Korea and the United States began the annual Hoguk exercise, a large-scale military drill involving the South Korean and US militaries. The 2010 exercise involved 70,000 troops from all four branches of the South Korean military, equipped with 600 tracked vehicles, 90 helicopters, 50 warships, and 500 aircraft. The United States contributed its 31st Marine Expeditionary Unit and the Seventh Air Force to the land and sea elements of the exercise. It had originally been intended that the United States Navy and Marine Corps would participate in a joint amphibious exercise in the Yellow (Western) Sea, west of South Korea. However, the US pulled out of the joint exercise citing "scheduling conflicts", though South Korean observers suggested that the real reason was the opposition of China, which regards a large portion of the Yellow Sea as its own territory. The North Korean government regards the exercises as preparation for a combined arms attack on the North.
On the morning of 23 November 2010, North Korea reportedly "wired a complaint [to the South] ... asking whether (the [Hoguk] exercise) was an attack against the North." It warned that it would not tolerate firing in what it regarded as its territorial waters. South Korean forces went ahead with a live-fire exercise in waters off Baengnyeong Island and Yeonpyeong Island within South Korean-held territory. According to a South Korean military official, shells fired as part of the exercise were directed at waters in the south, away from North Korea. A Marine colonel on the island indicated the shells had been fired towards the southwest. South Korean Minister of National Defense, Kim Tae-young, said the firing was not part of the Hoguk exercise, but was a separate routine monthly drill carried out 4–5 km away from the NLL, contrary to previous media reports. The usual firing range is 40 kilometres (22 nmi) by 20 kilometres (11 nmi) in size and runs parallel to the NLL to the south-west of Yeonpyeong Island,[33] and is largely within North Korea's 12 nautical miles (22 km) territorial waters claimed in 1955. At 14:34 local time, North Korean coastal artillery batteries on Mudo, and a recently redeployed 122-mm MRL at Kaemori, in North Korea's South Hwanghae Province, opened fire on the island of Yeonpyeong. The bombardment took place in two waves, from 14:34 to 14:55 and again from 15:10 to 15:41. Many of the shells landed on a military camp, but others hit the island's principal settlement, destroying numerous homes and shops, and starting fires. About 108 shells were fired total, according to a North Korean defector who had served in an artillery battery. Three of the six K9 Thunder 155mm guns stationed on Yeonpyong returned fire, while two were damaged and one blocked by a dud shell. South Korean artillery fired 80 shells in total. Initially, the South Koreans targeted barracks and command structures on Mudo, but began firing at the MRL at Kaemori about thirteen minutes later, due to the AN/TPQ-37 counter-battery radar not properly functioning, which meant the guns initially targeted general locations, such as the barracks.
South Korean KF-16 and F-15K jets were also scrambled to the area, though they did not engage North Korean targets, as the North Korean artillery did not start a third barrage. South Korean counterstrikes ended at 16:42. It was the first artillery battle to take place between North and South Korea since the 1970s and was seen as one of the most serious attacks by the North on the South since the 1953 Armistice. With power on Yeonpyeong knocked out and several fires breaking out as a result of the North Korean shelling, the South Korean military ordered civilians to evacuate to bunkers. The shelling caused a number of casualties among South Koreans living on Yeongpyeong. Two South Korean marines, Hasa (Staff Sergeant) Seo Jeong-wu and Ilbyeong (Lance Corporal) Moon Gwang-wuk, were killed. Six other military personnel were seriously wounded, and ten were treated for minor injuries. Two construction workers, Kim Chi-baek, 61, and Bae Bok-chul, 60, were also killed. Most of the islanders were evacuated in the aftermath of the shelling. Around 1,500 of the 1,780 residents on the island were taken aboard fishing boats and government vessels, with many of them being taken to Incheon on the mainland. The Incheon city authorities sent 22 fire engines and ambulances to the island, along with firefighters and paramedics, to help with the recovery and relief effort. 2,000 boxes of emergency relief materials and more than 3,500 relief kits and boxes of food were sent to help residents recover.
The attack started widespread fires on the island. According to the local county office, 70 percent of the island's forests and fields were burned and 21 houses and warehouses and eight public buildings were destroyed in the bombardment. Some of the public buildings were formerly military structures, leading the South Korean military to believe the attack was planned from old maps. North Korea states that it suffered no military casualties. However, Lee Hong-gi, the Director of Operations of the South Korean Joint Chiefs of Staff (JCS), claimed that as a result of the South Korean retaliation "there may be a considerable number of North Korean casualties". A North Korean defector who had served in an artillery battery, however, stated that the South had likely failed to destroy the North Korean artillery batteries due to its slow response. South Korean media reported that 5–10 North Korean soldiers had been killed and 30 wounded, and the National Intelligence Service suggests damage to North Korean troops had been considerable during the South Korean counter-battery fire. Satellite images released by STRATFOR cast doubt on effectiveness of South Korean artillery and damage dealt to North as asserted by JCS and NIS, with no signs of any North Korean rocket launchers being destroyed. Similarly, despite targeting the barracks, there were little signs that the underground facilities suffered significant damage.
(President Lukashenko 1 day before his impeachment)
On December 3, 2010, the political landscape of Russia witnessed a seismic shift as the impeachment process against President Alexander Lukashenko unfolded in both the State Duma and the Union Council. This historic event, orchestrated by Elvira Nabiullina and her coalition government, marked a watershed moment in Russian politics, signaling a decisive break from the past and a reaffirmation of democratic principles and the rule of law. The journey towards impeachment began long before the fateful day in December. It was the culmination of months of careful planning, strategic maneuvering, and coalition building by Nabiullina and her allies. At the heart of this effort was a commitment to accountability and transparency,principles that had been increasingly challenged during Lukashenko's tenure. The decision to impeach Lukashenko was not taken lightly. It was the result of mounting evidence of misconduct, abuse of power, and corruption on the part of the president. Allegations of corruption, human rights violations, and suppression of opposition voices had tarnished Lukashenko's reputation both domestically and internationally, prompting calls for his removal from office. The impeachment process unfolded in two stages: first in the State Duma, the lower house of the Russian parliament, and then in the Union Council, the upper house. In the State Duma, members from various political factions gathered to debate the motion for impeachment, weighing the evidence and arguments presented by the coalition government. The atmosphere was tense, with emotions running high as lawmakers deliberated the fate of the president. Ultimately, the motion to impeach Lukashenko passed in the State Duma, thanks to the support of a broad coalition of parties, including New People, Yabloko, Right Cause, and a significant contingent of members from the United Labor Party. The vote sent shockwaves throughout the country and marked a significant turning point in Russian politics. With the impeachment motion approved by the State Duma, the process moved to the Union Council for final approval. Here, too, the motion garnered overwhelming support, paving the way for Lukashenko's removal from office. The Union Council's decision to impeach the president was a testament to the strength and resilience of Russia's democratic institutions and the commitment of its leaders to upholding the rule of law.
The impeachment of Lukashenko was more than just a legal and political process; it was a reflection of the will of the Russian people to hold their leaders accountable and demand integrity and transparency in governance. It was a victory for democracy and a reaffirmation of Russia's commitment to democratic values and principles.
In the aftermath of impeachment, Russia faced a period of transition and uncertainty. The removal of Lukashenko from office created a power vacuum that needed to be filled, and questions arose about the country's future direction and leadership. However, amidst the uncertainty, there was also a sense of hope and optimism as Russia embarked on a new chapter in its political history. The impeachment of Lukashenko was not without its challenges and obstacles. It faced criticism and resistance from Lukashenko's supporters and allies, who viewed it as a politically motivated move aimed at undermining his presidency. However, Nabiullina and her coalition remained steadfast in their commitment to accountability and justice, undeterred by the opposition they faced. The aftermath of impeachment also presented opportunities for Russia to strengthen its democratic institutions, foster greater transparency and accountability in governance, and rebuild public trust in the political process. It was a chance to turn the page on a dark chapter in the country's history and chart a new course towards a brighter and more democratic future.
As Russia moved forward from impeachment, it did so with a renewed sense of purpose and determination. The events of December 3, 2010, served as a powerful reminder of the importance of democratic values and the rule of law in shaping the country's destiny. They were a testament to the resilience of Russia's democratic institutions and the strength of its people's commitment to freedom and justice. In the years that followed impeachment, Russia underwent significant political, social, and economic changes. The country saw a resurgence of civic engagement and political activism, as citizens embraced their newfound freedoms and sought to participate more actively in the democratic process. There was a renewed focus on human rights, civil liberties, and the rule of law, as Russia sought to rebuild its reputation on the world stage. The impeachment of Lukashenko also had broader implications for the region and the world. It sent a powerful message to authoritarian leaders everywhere that they could no longer act with impunity and that the international community would hold them accountable for their actions. It inspired pro-democracy movements and activists around the globe and served as a beacon of hope for those struggling against tyranny and oppression. The impeachment of President Alexander Lukashenko on December 3, 2010, was a defining moment in Russian history. It marked the triumph of democracy over authoritarianism, the rule of law over corruption, and the will of the people over the abuse of power. It was a testament to the resilience and strength of Russia's democratic institutions and the commitment of its leaders to upholding the values of freedom, justice, and accountability. As Russia moved forward from impeachment, it did so with a renewed sense of purpose and determination, ready to embrace the opportunities and challenges of a new era in its history.
(Konstantin Borovoy - Acting President of the Union State)
The sudden elevation of Konstantin Borovoy to the role of Acting President of the Union State, following the impeachment of President Alexander Lukashenko, sent shockwaves throughout the country and the international community. Borovoy, a veteran politician and one of the founders of the United Labor Party, assumed the highest office in the land as per the presidential line of succession, temporarily filling the void left by Lukashenko's removal from power. Borovoy's ascension to the presidency marked a significant moment in Russian politics, as he took on the responsibility of leading the country during a period of transition and uncertainty. With his long and distinguished career in politics, Borovoy brought a wealth of experience and expertise to the role, having served as the chairman of the Union Assembly since 1992. As acting president, Borovoy faced a myriad of challenges and responsibilities. His first priority was to ensure stability and continuity in government, reassuring the Russian people and the international community that the country remained on course despite the upheaval caused by Lukashenko's impeachment. Borovoy moved swiftly to reassure key stakeholders of his commitment to upholding the rule of law and democratic principles. Borovoy's leadership style was characterized by pragmatism, consensus-building, and a commitment to national unity. He reached out to political opponents and civil society groups, seeking to bridge divides and foster dialogue in pursuit of common goals. His inclusive approach to governance was welcomed by many, as it signaled a departure from the divisive politics of the past and a willingness to embrace cooperation and compromise. One of Borovoy's immediate challenges was to oversee the transition to a new presidential election, ensuring that it was free, fair, and transparent. He worked closely with election officials and to uphold the integrity of the electoral process and safeguard the democratic rights of all citizens. Borovoy's commitment to democracy and the rule of law was paramount, as he sought to strengthen Russia's democratic institutions and restore public trust in the political system Despite the challenges he faced, Borovoy's leadership was characterized by resilience, determination, and a steadfast commitment to serving the interests of the Russian people. His tenure as acting president was marked by a spirit of unity and purpose, as he worked tirelessly to guide the country through a period of transition and lay the foundation for a brighter and more prosperous future. As the political landscape continued to evolve, Borovoy remained a steady and reassuring presence, guiding Russia through the complexities of governance with wisdom and resolve. His legacy as acting president would be defined by his unwavering dedication to democracy, his commitment to upholding the rule of law, and his vision of a Russia that was strong, stable, and united.
President Zine El Abidine Ben Ali had ruled Tunisia since 1987, mostly as a one-party state with the Democratic Constitutional Rally (RCD), following the overthrowing of his predecessor Habib Bourguiba. His government was characterised by the development of Tunisia's private sector in favor of foreign investment, and the repression of political opposition. Foreign media and NGOs criticised his government, which was supported by the United States and France. As a result, the initial reactions to Ben Ali's abuses by the U.S. and France were muted, and most instances of socio-political protest in the country, when they occurred at all, rarely made major news headlines. Riots in Tunisia were rare and noteworthy, especially since the country is generally considered to be wealthy and stable as compared to other countries in the region.Protests had been repressed and kept silent by the regime, and protesters would be jailed for such actions, as with hundreds of unemployed demonstrators in Redeyef in 2008. As noted by Mohamed Bacha in his book, The Revolutionary Chants of Club Africain Ultras, Tunisian youth had found an outlet to express their anger and dissatisfaction, through the fan chants of sports association Club Africain Ultras, such as: The capital is very angry, We are solidary when we make war to the sons of — Who oppress us, and Hey Regime, The Revolution is Imminent. At the time of the revolution, Al Jazeera English reported that Tunisian activists are among the most outspoken in its part of the world, with various messages of support being posted on Twitter and Facebook for Bouazizi. An op-ed article in the same network said of the action that it was "suicidal protests of despair by Tunisia's youth." It pointed out that the state-controlled National Solidarity Fund and the National Employment Fund had traditionally subsidised many goods and services in the country but had started to shift the "burden of providence from state to society" to be funded by the bidonvilles, or shanty towns, around the richer towns and suburbs.[clarification needed] It also cited the "marginalisation of the agrarian and arid central, northern west and southern areas [that] continue unabated." The protests were also called an "uprising" because of "a lethal combination of poverty, unemployment, and political repression: three characteristics of most Arab societies." It was a revolution, notes a Tunisian geographer, "started not by the middle class or the northern urban centers, but by marginalised social groups." In 2010 Ben Ali banned parential punishment.
Twenty-six-year-old Mohamed Bouazizi had been the sole income earner in his extended family of eight. He operated a vegetable or apple cart (the contents of the cart are disputed) for seven years in Sidi Bouzid, 300 kilometres (190 miles) south of Tunis. On 17 December 2010, a female officer confiscated his cart and produce. Bouazizi, who had had such an event happen to him before, tried to pay the 10-dinars fine (a day's wages, equivalent to US$3). It was initially reported that in response the policewoman insulted his deceased father and slapped him. Although many of the details were incorrect, the story was "disseminated and used to mobilize as much as possible against the Ben Ali regime," according to sociologist Habib Ayeb. The officer, Faida Hamdi, stated that she was not even a policewoman, but a city employee who had been tasked that morning with confiscating produce from vendors without licenses. When she tried to do so with Bouazizi, a scuffle ensued. Hamdi says she called the police who then beat Bouazizi. A humiliated Bouazizi then went to the provincial headquarters in an attempt to complain to local municipality officials and to have his produce returned. He was refused an audience. Without alerting his family, at 11:30 am and within an hour of the initial confrontation, Bouazizi returned to the headquarters, doused himself with a flammable liquid and set himself on fire. Public outrage quickly grew over the incident, leading to protests. This immolation, and the subsequent heavy-handed response by the police to peaceful marchers, provoked riots the next day in Sidi Bouzid. The riots went largely unnoticed, though social media sites disseminated images of police dispersing youths who attacked shop windows and damaged cars. Bouazizi was subsequently transferred to a hospital near Tunis. In an attempt to quell the unrest, President Ben Ali visited Bouazizi in hospital on 28 December. Bouazizi died on 4 January 2011.
Sociologist Asef Bayat, who visited Tunisia after the uprising and carried out field research, wrote about the mechanisation of large-scale capitalist farms in towns like Sidi Bouzid that have come "at the cost of smallholders' debt, dispossession, and proletarianization." Tunisian geographer-cinematographer Habib Ayeb, founder of the Tunisian Observatory for Food Sovereignty and the Environment (OSAE), has questioned the model of development that was introduced in Sidi Bouzid: [The region] received the most investment between 1990 and 2011. The leading region. It is a region that had an extensive semi-pastoral farming system, and it became in less than 30 years the premier agricultural region of the country. At the same time Sidi Bouzid had been a "moderately poor" region, in a sense, and I put that in quotation marks, and it is now the fourth-poorest region in the country. This is the development which people desire... The problem is that the local population does not benefit. These are people from Sfax and the Sahel who get rich in Sidi Bouzid, not the people of Sidi Bouzid. Hence the link with the story of Mohamed Bouazizi.
(Tunisian revolution in late 2010 and early 2011)
On 28 November 2010, WikiLeaks and five major newspapers (Spain's El País, France's Le Monde, Germany's Der Spiegel, the United Kingdom's The Guardian, and the United States' The New York Times) simultaneously published the first 220 of 251,287 leaked documents labeled confidential. These included descriptions of corruption and repression by the Tunisian regime. It is widely believed that the information in the WikiLeaks documents contributed to the protests, which began a few weeks later. There were reports of police obstructing demonstrators and using tear gas on hundreds of young protesters in Sidi Bouzid in mid-December. The protesters had gathered outside regional government headquarters to demonstrate against the treatment of Mohamed Bouazizi. Coverage of events was limited by Tunisian media. On 19 December, extra police were present on the city's streets. On 22 December, protester Lahseen Naji, responding to "hunger and joblessness", electrocuted himself after climbing an electricity pylon. Ramzi Al-Abboudi also killed himself because of financial difficulties arising from a business debt by the country's micro-credit solidarity programme. On 24 December, Mohamed Ammari was fatally shot in the chest by police in Bouziane. Other protesters were also injured, including Chawki Belhoussine El Hadri, who died later on 30 December. Police claimed they shot the demonstrators in "self-defence". A "quasi-curfew" was then imposed on the city by police. Rapper El Général, whose songs had been adopted by protesters, was arrested on 24 December but released several days later after "an enormous public reaction". Violence increased, and protests reached the capital, Tunis, on 27 December where a thousand citizens expressed solidarity with residents of Sidi Bouzid and called for jobs. The rally, organised by independent trade union activists, was stopped by security forces. Protests also spread to Sousse, Sfax and Meknassy. The following day, the Tunisian Federation of Labour Unions held another rally in Gafsa which was also blocked by security forces. About 300 lawyers held a rally near the government's palace in Tunis. Protests continued again on 29 December.
On 30 December, police peacefully dispersed a protest in Monastir, while using force to disrupt further demonstrations in Sbikha and Chebba. Momentum appeared to continue with the protests on 31 December and the Tunisian National Lawyers Order organised further demonstrations and public gatherings by lawyers in Tunis and other cities. Mokhtar Trifi, president of the Tunisian Human Rights League (LTDH), said that lawyers across Tunisia had been "savagely beaten". There were also unconfirmed reports of another man attempting to commit suicide in El Hamma. On 3 January 2011, protests in Thala over unemployment and a high cost of living turned violent. At a demonstration of 250 people, mostly students, police fired tear gas; one canister landed in a local mosque. In response, the protesters were reported to have set fire to tires and attacked the RCD offices. Some of the more general protests sought changes in the government's online censorship; Tunisian authorities allegedly carried out phishing operations to take control of user passwords and check online criticism. Both state and non-state websites had been hacked. On 6 January, 95% of Tunisia's 8,000 lawyers went on strike, according to the chairman of the national bar association. He said, "The strike carries a clear message that we do not accept unjustified attacks on lawyers. We want to strongly protest against the beating of lawyers in the past few days." It was reported on the following day that teachers had also joined the strike. In response to 11 January protests, police used riot gear to disperse protesters ransacking buildings, burning tyres, setting fire to a bus and burning two cars in the Tunis working-class suburb of Ettadhamen-Mnihla. The protesters were said to have chanted "We are not afraid, we are not afraid, we are afraid only of God".
Military personnel were also deployed in many cities around the country. On 12 January, a reporter from Italian broadcaster RAI stated that he and his cameraman were beaten with batons by police during a riot in Tunis's central district and that the officers then confiscated their camera. A curfew was ordered in Tunis after protests and clashes with police. Hizb ut-Tahrir organised protests after Friday prayer on 14 January to call for re-establishing the Islamic caliphate. A day later, it also organised other protests that marched to the 9 April Prison to free political prisoners. Also on 14 January, Lucas Dolega, a photojournalist for the European Pressphoto Agency, was hit in the forehead by a tear gas canister allegedly fired by the police at short range; he died two days later. During a national television broadcast on 28 December, President Ben Ali criticised protesters as "extremist mercenaries" and warned of "firm" punishment. He also accused "certain foreign television channels" of spreading falsehoods and deforming the truth, and called them "hostile to Tunisia". His remarks were ignored and the protests continued. On 29 December, Ben Ali shuffled his cabinet to remove communications minister Oussama Romdhani, while also announcing changes to the trade and handicrafts, religious affairs, communication and youth portfolios. The next day he also announced the dismissal of the governors of Sidi Bouzid, Jendouba and Zaghouan.
