Diplomacy & Crisis News

Concluding her visit to Ukraine, the United Nations Deputy Emergency Relief Coordinator underlined on Friday the urgent need for humanitarian funding to address the dire situation faced by millions of civilians during the coming winter months.

Malgré le boom du pétrole et du gaz de schiste, le charbon demeure la principale source d'énergie aux Etats-Unis. Pour en accroître la production, les compagnies minières privilégient désormais l'exploitation à ciel ouvert en arasant les sommets à l'explosif. / États-Unis, États-Unis (affaires (...) / États-Unis, États-Unis (affaires intérieures), Eau, Écologie, Énergie, Entreprise, Industrie, Justice, Santé, Travail, Charbon, Environnement, Pollution - 2015/02

It is easy to brush off North Korea’s behavior as irrational, but the fact that the Kim regime consolidated and has maintained power since 1948 says otherwise. If North Korea was truly an irrational actor, it would not have been able to survive this long. And to have maintained a three generation dictatorship while being viewed very poorly by the majority of the international community is impressive to say the least. The Kim family, specifically Kim Il-sung, has always acted in a way to best meet their grand strategic goals. The two most important being the consolidation of national power in the Kim family and the international recognition of North Korea. In order to meet those goals they had to prevent any internal or external challenge to their leadership.

To face the internal threat, Kim Il-sung created the modern cult of personality and their militaristic culture. North Korea is thought of as an atheist state that does not tolerate religion, but this is not the case. They want the people to worship the Kim family and nothing else. Those who do not give the Kim family the proper respect can expect to receive punishment and will have a poor quality of life, even by North Korean standards. This worshipping of the dear leader allows the Kims to stop any internal challenge to their dictatorship. Their subjects consist of those who are either brainwashed hardliners in favor of the regime or those who pretend to be out of fear. Any potential insurgency or foreign powers attempting to foment resistance is stopped because no citizen would dare challenge the government. We can further see this strategy of consolidating power in Kim Jong-Il’s “military first” policy. According to CNN in 2015 North Korea had 1.1 million active soldiers and an additional 7.7 million in reserves. This could be seen as an act of deterrence. Creating such a militaristic society ensures that anyone who challenges the regime will suffer high costs.

The second part of their grand strategy is the international community’s recognition of their regime. I think it would be hard to argue that they have not achieved this goal. Kim Jong-un’s current regime is probably more repressive of its people and more internationally isolated than Saddam’s Iraq. They even have the weapons the U.S. wrongly accused Iraq of having in 2003. However, the U.S. refrains from intervening in North Korea even though our military is far superior. The obvious reason to this is China and the Soviet Union. The support of these two powers throughout the years has allowed North Korea to survive this long. However, the relationship between these countries has not been all sunshine and butterflies. North Korea knows that it can’t rely on China to protect them forever, which is why their nuclear program is so important to them. They continually engage in acts of violence and make threats so that they are not forgotten and are always taken seriously (at least as a threat).

North Korea is a belligerent nation doing everything in its power to ensure the continuation of the regime. Their economy is in shambles, they suffer from famine, and there are no signs they are undertaking measures to put their country on a productive path. To do so would run counter to everything they want to achieve. All their citizens are theirs to torment if it means the Kim family remains in power. I have heard some argue that the economic sanctions placed on North Korea do nothing but hurt the people and serve as propaganda tools for the Kims. I would take the realist approach and say that there is no way to help the North Korean people without causing suffering on a much larger scale. So I would argue for continued sanctions and more economic isolation of North Korea. At the same time I would encourage constant dialogue with them. Always letting them know that positive engagement with the U.S., South Korea, and Japan means sanction relief, while continued hostile acts leads to tougher sanctions and further detriment to their nation. Maintaining this balance and given time, I believe the Kim family will have no choice but to look for a way to make economic reforms without losing power. This could lead to a lessening of hostilities, but unfortunately I can’t see any future where the Kim’s aren’t in power that didn’t come at a very high cost.

The post North Korea’s Grand Strategy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n°3/2017). Norbert Gaillard propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Louis Chauvel, La spirale du déclassement. Essai sur la société des illusions (Seuil, 2016, 224 pages).

Louis Chauvel, professeur à l’université du Luxembourg, analyse ici le déclin des classes moyennes dans les sociétés industrialisées.

En début de livre, le sociologue s’attache à montrer que la racine du problème tient essentiellement à la « repatrimonialisation » qui touche les États occidentaux depuis 30 ans. Ce phénomène, dû à la stagnation des salaires, à la hausse du chômage et à l’enrichissement des ménages détenteurs de biens immobiliers, a accru les inégalités puis, au fil des années, rigidifié la reproduction sociale. Cette évolution est évidemment traumatique pour les générations nées à partir de 1960. Cependant, elle correspond aux modalités de développement des États émergents dans lesquels le capitalisme familial se nourrit de la mondialisation pour accroître le patrimoine des élites locales.

Si la « civilisation de classe moyenne » est en train de vaciller, c’est parce que ses piliers se fissurent : doutes croissants sur la méritocratie et l’idée de progrès social, remise en cause du salariat, réduction de la protection sociale, difficulté à devenir propriétaire et démonétisation des diplômes. Louis Chauvel s’attarde sur ces deux derniers points. Particulièrement marqués en France, les déclassements scolaire et résidentiel sont les symptômes les plus criants de la paupérisation et du mal-être des jeunes générations. La frustration qu’elle engendre inquiète l’auteur, surtout dans le cas où elle prendrait des formes politiques extrêmes. Les événements récents lui donnent raison : si le corps électoral avait été composé exclusivement des 18-24 ans, le second tour de la présidentielle de 2017 aurait opposé Marine Le Pen à Jean-Luc Mélenchon.

Le « grand déclassement » – à savoir le dépassement de la classe populaire et de la «classe moyenne inférieure » françaises par la classe moyenne des pays émergents – est ensuite étudié. Ce mouvement de fond est appelé à s’amplifier sous l’effet de trois facteurs : la poursuite du creusement des inégalités en France, la réduction continue entre le niveau de vie moyen ­français et émergent et la réapparition de conflits de classes violents.

L’analyse va crescendo et les 30 dernières pages de l’ouvrage sont aussi remarquables qu’émouvantes. Pour Chauvel, la crise que la France et les pays développés traversent actuellement est liée à l’insoutenabilité de leur modèle économique et social et à leur incapacité à se réformer. Il n’hésite pas à invoquer les travaux de Joseph Tainter sur la décadence et l’effondrement des sociétés complexes pour nous alerter sur le sort tragique qui nous guette. Seul un sursaut de notre jeunesse peut assurer le salut d’une civilisation qui a si longtemps cru à la science et au progrès humain. Parallèlement, l’auteur déplore un incroyable déni de réalité de la part des dirigeants politiques et des médias. Mais ses critiques les plus acerbes sont adressées à plusieurs de ses collègues, et à certains pans de la sociologie, qui s’évertuent à déclasser la notion de réalité et à construire une dangereuse illusion sociale.

La Spirale du déclassement est un livre majeur et passionnant. C’est aussi un cri d’alerte.

Norbert Gaillard

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

A force de manier le paradoxe, ou de faire usage de la langue de bois, les diplomates ont de la peine à convaincre le visiteur averti. « Nul ne peut désormais prétendre que la France tourne le dos au désarmement » , martèle l'ambassadeur Gérard Errera. Dans la partie de bras-de-fer qui se joue entre (...) / France, Nucléaire militaire, Désarmement - 1995/04

This fall, two of the EU’s biggest neighbors decided to celebrate the new school year with a slew of retrograde education policies. Ukraine sparked off a minor diplomatic crisis on Europe’s eastern frontier after Kiev unveiled politically charged plans to prevent minority-language students from learning in their native tongues. Earlier, Turkey drew strong international condemnation by imposing restrictions on school curricula and by requiring students in the ever-growing pool of religious academies to learn about the concept of jihad. Making matters worse, a lack of funding and a stilted bureaucracy have bogged down the very body supposed to oversee cross-border educational issues, UNESCO. With populism on the rise from West to East and with nations like the US more politically polarized than ever, these developments are a tocsin.

Both Ukraine and Turkey seem to have missed the memo that education is meant to bridge divides, not deepen them. Their new laws threaten to create splits not only among local communities, but also in nations beyond these countries’ borders. In Ukraine’s case, the government’s plans to forbid some 400,000 students who are currently receiving their entire schooling in a minority language – mainly Russian – has provoked severe criticism not only from Moscow, as expected, but also from Hungary, Romania, and other countries whose nationals would be affected by the law. The government has called it a necessary law to ensure that all students develop a working knowledge of the country’s majority language.

Critics have called Kiev’s move a divisive provocation at a time when the government should be promoting bilingualism – and focusing on deeper educational reforms. The most furious response to the legislation came from Budapest, where Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto claimed Kiev had “stabbed Hungary in the back” and threatened that the government would bar Ukraine’s efforts to further integrate with the EU. Additionally, in an awkward turn of events for Brussels, the incident has firmly placed the Visegrad Group, along with Romania, Greece, and Moldova, on the same side as Russia in this dispute – a first.

The politicization of education is arguably far worse in Turkey. Since last year’s failed coup, the public school system has emerged as a key battlefield in the government’s attempt to squash dissent. This September, students went back to school with a contentious new curriculum that expunged the theory of evolution and introduced the concept of jihad. Critics called the new law a blow to secular education at a time when attendance at imam hitap schools, used to train Muslim preachers, has soared from 60,000 in 2002 to more than 1.1 million today.

To be fair, during its first 10 years in power, the ruling AK party oversaw impressive improvements in the national education system. Now, however, progress has started to backtrack, with Turkey scoring second to last among all member states in the OECD’s latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Parents cite issues of inept teachers, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate language courses. The fact that more than 30,000 teachers have been fired for allegedly holding dissident sentiments hasn’t helped. The government’s latest set of legislation has now only further divided the nation between religious and secular factions – and isolated the entire country.

Meanwhile, although most European countries continue to score highly on core educational competencies, the state of public education – and growing national polarization – in the US reminds us that such a state of affairs is by no means a given. The American public school system already delivers abysmal results for students who live in the poorest districts. The Trump administration seems bent on dismantling Obama’s education legacy, with Betesy DeVos handing favors to for-profit universities and removing protections for transgender students rather than focusing on more meaningful reforms.

With even the US educational system threatened by regressive political agendas, the role of UNESCO in promoting learning is more important than ever. However, for the past eight years, the outgoing director general, Irina Bokova, has presided over an organization crippled by lack of funds, an ossified administration, and vehement disputes among its member states. UNESCO tumbled into its “worst ever financial situation” in 2011, when the US pulled finding – which had made up 22% of the agency’s budget – over the body’s decision to grant membership to Palestine. Seven years later, UNESCO still lacks a predictable budget and continues to be involved in the political turbulence of the Middle East and other hotspots.

At the very least, one of the contenders to take over the helm at UNESCO, former French Minister of Culture Audrey Azoulay, has put education at the center of her platform, emphasizing that learning is foremost a tool to break down silos and expand people’s minds – not to politicize and divide. Acknowledging the difficulties of steering UNESCO at a time of disinterest from the US, she has highlighted that it is in the interest of Americans – and other nations – to promote education globally as the best way to counter radicalization.

As the agency’s motto states, the best way to prevent conflict is to construct the “defenses of peace in the hearts of men.” It will be for the future UNESCO director to remind Ukraine and Turkey of this motto – that schools are not meant to be an incubator for political division but a place for open engagement.

The post Ukraine and Turkey: when politicization starts at school appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Tandis que s'intensifient les négociations pour le renouvellement du traité de non-prolifération nucléaire (TNP), M. Jacques Chirac, candidat à l'élection présidentielle française, laisse prévoir la possible reprise par Paris des essais nucléaires. Cette proposition confirme, une fois de plus, au-delà (...) / Nucléaire militaire, Désarmement - 1995/04

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to gets his pants on.”
–Winston Churchill

On October 4th, the House Judiciary Committee introduced a bill that would extend the controversial Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is set to expire at the end of December, for six years. As NSA states on their web site, Section 702:

…allows the Intelligence Community to conduct surveillance on only specific foreign targets located outside the United States to collect foreign intelligence, including intelligence needed in the fight against international terrorism and cyber threats.

And this is important because…?

The “so what” factor in all of this is that senior intelligence officials consistently say this is one of the most important programs we have for dealing with the terrorist threat. Last month I attended the annual Intelligence & National Security Summit in Washington D.C. The event is in its fourth year and was co-hosted by AFCEA  and INSA (The Intelligence and National Security Alliance). During the conference, Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of both NSA and U.S. Cyber Command stated, Section 702 produces a “significant segment of NSA’s ability to generate insights on counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, what nation-states and other actors are doing”. He also said he had told Vice President Pence that week, “Sir, I know of no ability that this organization has to replace that which we’re able to access because of the authority under 702. Sir, if this were removed, and it was not reauthorized…I can’t overcome that”. Rogers understands the concerns and acknowledged in the course of conducting 702 operations they may encounter U.S. citizens but NSA takes care not to violate U.S. citizens privacy.

Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Susan Gordon said “there’s nothing more important” than to reauthorize Section 702. She also said if you are not talking to one of the terrorist targets, “you’re not in existence in this world.”

New FBI Director, Christopher Wray, concurred with his peers during the summit and said the place 702 is most important is that place in the terrorist planning process where we can detect and prevent a plot citing the detection and prevention of the New York Subway bombing as an example.

Speaking at the same conference, Tom Bossert, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said the terrorism threat was not going to “sunset” so 702 shouldn’t. He also said President Trump wants to have the legislation pass. Bossert pointed out that terrorists use of gmail is very prevalent today. This should come as no surprise to anyone since the news is filled with reports of terrorists using email and social media to recruit and as their command and control system. He said 702 gave him the ability to “pounce” in the very small window in between the “idea” and the “attack” of a terrorist plot.

If Section 702 is so important why is it controversial?

In the aftermath of the Snowden leaks, many Americans were left with the impression that NSA was using this authority to collect and read not just the emails of “bad guys” but also all emails sent by U.S. citizens. A Joint statement issued at the height of the controversy by the Director of National Intelligence and the head of NSA unsuccessfully sought to defuse the situation saying:
“Press reports based on an article published in today’s Wall Street Journal mischaracterize aspects of NSA’s data collection activities conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The NSA does not sift through and have unfettered access to 75% of the United States’ online communications.”

When the initial media reports came out in 2013, I knew immediately it was a distortion of the truth. First, the information in the Snowden leak was old news. I discovered the existence of the program during the Bush administration several years earlier while doing my daily reading of unclassified national security related topics that could be found by anyone interested, in mainstream media reporting. It didn’t get much traction at the time, probably because it was not reported in a salacious manner. As a retired intelligence professional, I admittedly now sit on the sidelines; but I’d seen nothing in either the Bush or the Obama administration to suggest they had suddenly gone J. Edgar Hoover on the nation.

Second, as someone who spent 28 years working in intelligence, despite what you see in Hollywood movies and TV shows, I knew it was against the law for the intelligence community to spy on U.S. citizens, a fact that was constantly pounded into our brains.

Third, one of the challenges of conducting intelligence analysis is that so much information is collected that most of it does not get looked at. In 2007 a senior Intelligence community official stated at a conference that of all the intelligence that’s collected only one tenth million percent of it is looked at by analysts.

He put that information out because he was speaking at a conference asking industry and academia for help in finding a solution. The intelligence community says analyzing large amounts of information (current buzz word is Big Data”) is still a major problem; that is also one reasons artificial intelligence (AI) is a new craze in the intelligence world.

Specifically looking at the Section 702 controversy, the previously mentioned Joint Statement indicated, “In its foreign intelligence mission, and using all its authorities, NSA “touches” about 1.6%, and analysts only look at 0.00004%, of the world’s internet traffic.”

Fourth, NSA was embarrassed by the leaks and in the spirit of transparency, released into the public domain the documents Snowden leaked as well as their training program they set up for the 702 program. I’m a Geek but even I did not read all the hundreds of thousands or so documents released (neither did Snowden); but there were several things in the statement that jumped out at me and I think the public should have on their radar as the program comes up for renewal in December.

o Section 702 specifically prohibits the intentional acquisition of any communications when all parties are known to be inside the U.S.
o The law specifically prohibits targeting a U.S. citizen without an individual court order based on a showing of probable cause.
o The law only permits NSA to obtain information pursuant to Section 702 in accordance with orders and procedures approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
o When conducting 702 FISA surveillance, the only information NSA obtains results from the use of specific identifiers (for example email addresses and telephone numbers) used by non-U.S. persons overseas who are believed to possess or receive foreign intelligence information.
o Foreign terrorists sometimes communicate with persons in the U.S. or Americans overseas. In targeting a terrorist overseas who is not a U.S. person, NSA may get both sides of a communication. If that communication involves a U.S. person, NSA must follow Attorney General and FISA Court approved “minimization procedures” to ensure the Agency protects the privacy of U.S. persons.

Why is Section 702 still controversial?

In a recent article on this topic, the Washington Post indicated, “House members generally agree that the authority is useful and that it should be renewed. But a number of them have one major privacy concern: The law allows the FBI to query the Section 702 database for emails and phone-call transcripts of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.”

In an attempt to address this situation, the proposed House bill, “would not restrict the query process itself. But the legislation, called the USA Liberty Act, would require the FBI to obtain a warrant to review any communications that are returned in response to a query seeking evidence of a crime. The drafting of the bill was led by the panel’s chairman and vice chairman, Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).”

Civil Liberties groups are also lining up to express their concerns. Think, I’ll end here. It will be interesting to see how the arguments pro and con will develop. As always my views and opinions are my own.

The post GailForce: Standby for More Debates on Privacy vs Security appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Le 6 octobre dernier, Jacques-Hubert Rodier, éditorialiste diplomatique aux Échos, a publié un article sur l’enjeu planétaire que représente l’Arctique : il cite à ce titre le dossier « Arctique : une exploration stratégique » publié dans le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n° 3/2017), qui « permet de répondre à nombre d’interrogations sur les enjeux stratégiques d’une région souvent mal connue ».

« Si quelqu’un venait à envahir l’Arctique canadien, ma première mission serait de le secourir », avait dit en 2009 le chef d’état-major de la Défense canadienne. Cette déclaration du général Walter Natynczyk est, huit ans après, toujours d’actualité.

La région où sont impliqués directement les États-Unis, le Canada, la Russie, la Norvège et le Danemark et plus indirectement la Suède, la Finlande et l’Islande, est non seulement un enjeu entre les différentes puissances mais elle doit aussi faire face à nombre de défis rappelle la revue de l’Ifri (Institut français des relations internationales). Le plus important est le réchauffement climatique qui modifie la donne, comme le souligne Mikkel Runge Olesen de l’Institut danois d’études internationales. De plus, cette région a un important potentiel en termes de ressources naturelles et joue un rôle de plus en plus important dans le développement du commerce international, au fur et à mesure de la fonte de la banquise. Le risque d’une escalade entre les grandes puissances reste pourtant limité, écrit l’auteur. Pour Barbara Kunz du Cerfa (Ifri), on ne peut cependant pas totalement négliger le risque d’une confrontation militaire.

Citation choisie : « Nul pays n’a plus intérêt que la Russie à une région stable » dans l’Arctique.

Retrouvez l’article de Jacques-Hubert Rodier ici.

Manhattan Project: Code Name “Trinity,” Trinity Site, Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range, N.M., July 16, 1945, 53 milliseconds after detonation.

Based on the amount of news coverage, you may not have heard of it, but on July 7, 2017, the United Nations adopted the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty. The agreement bans the use of nuclear weapons, and the threat of their use, as well as their testing, development, possession, sharing, and stationing in other countries. The treaty was approved by 122 countries; the Netherlands voted no, and Singapore abstained. (The treaty enters into force only after 50 signatories ratify it.) There is, however, one major hitch: all the world’s nuclear-armed countries boycotted the negotiations, as did all the members of NATO (save the Netherlands, which was mandated by its parliament to participate) and Japan and South Korea (all countries under the U.S. nuclear umbrella), and they refused to sign it. Under the standard rules of international law, of course, treaties do not bind countries that do not sign them.

So, how did the nuclear powers respond to the announcement that these other countries had signed the treaty? In the case of the United States, Britain, and France, they issued a joint statement:

“We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it. Therefore, there will be no change in the legal obligations on our countries with respect to nuclear weapons. For example, we would not accept any claim that this treaty reflects or in any way contributes to the development of customary international law.”*

They don’t sound enthused.

The roots of this treaty can be found in many countries’ frustration with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. That treaty rested on a three-part foundation. Countries without nuclear weapons (cleverly labeled the Non-Nuclear Weapon States, or NNWS) agreed not to acquire them; countries with nuclear industries (that is, the Nuclear Weapon States, NWS) would help them with the development of nonmilitary nuclear technology if they wanted it; and the NWS would work toward the eventual elimination of their own arsenals. The first two parts of the agreement have gone fairly well, if not perfectly. (Notable imperfections include Israel, India, and Pakistan, which never signed the NPT, and North Korea, which signed it but then withdrew.) Some countries, however, seem to see a failure to make progress on the third.

To be sure, actively deployed nuclear arsenals have been substantially reduced since the end of the cold war. (The United States had tens of thousands of deployed nuclear warheads in the 1980s; today the figure is about 1,650, although there are more in stockpiles or awaiting dismantling.) Progress, however, has slowed in recent years. As the remaining arsenals get smaller, military leaders become more reluctant to lose the relatively few remaining weapons, and the countries that have always had smaller nuclear stockpiles, such as China, or countries that are just starting to develop arsenals, such as North Korea, start to look competitive. Russia relies heavily on its nuclear deterrent given the inferiority of its conventional forces. Moreover, given the rising tensions in Europe (and new questions about U.S. reliability), Germany has been considering whether it can lend financial support to the France’s and Britain’s nuclear defenses, thereby joining the nuclear club indirectly and somewhat clandestinely. In addition, the advancing age of the existing warheads is forcing decisions on expensive modernization programs, which may be necessary if arsenals are to be maintained at all. These trends have contributed to the notion that the arsenals remain too large, and too dangerous, despite the reductions that have occurred.

But what is the purpose of such a treaty if the nuclear powers do not sign it? Nina Tannenwald of Brown University (someone who believes that the acceptance of a moral “taboo,” rather than mutual deterrence, is what has prevented the employment of nuclear weapons since 1945) argues that the treaty’s promoters had a longer-range view. Their aim was to implant in people’s minds the notion that nuclear weapons should be under an absolute prohibition, framed in humanitarian terms rather than security terms, the way that chemical and biological weapons are. This, in turn, is to give further impetus to the nascent transnational grassroots movement to eliminate nuclear weapons, symbolized by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). In doing this, the treaty’s advocates actually prefer to set the standards without the participation of nuclear powers inasmuch as the latter would work to dilute or stall any agreement (much as they have the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has yet to come into force more than two decades after its adoption by the UN General Assembly because certain nuclear powers, including the United States, have not ratified it). This is a model that has had partial success (and could still have further success) in banning antipersonnel landmines and cluster bombs.

The U.S. government says the treaty could undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty, alliance commitments, and the benefits of deterrence. Other suggest that the effort would have served better if it had addressed more immediate concerns. Will the treaty have an impact? Not in the short term, no, but its advocates do not seem to expect that. In the long term, it is harder to say. Much will depend on the degree to which active citizens get involved in the ban movement (and whether growing involvement results in a “norm cascade”). That in turn could depend on the level of tensions in international relations generally—and on the consequences if a nuclear weapon is actually used.

*“Customary international law,” like common law, is not based on formal documents. It is a subjective element rooted in long-accepted practice and opinio juris, the shared belief of experts and practitioners that something constitutes law. Treaty law, on the other hand, is specific and rooted in expressed consent.

The post What If the UN Banned the Bomb and No One Noticed? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n°3/2017). Rémy Hémez propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Laurent Touchard, Forces armées africaines, 2016-2017 (auto-édition, 2017, 600 pages).

Laurent Touchard, chercheur indépendant sur les questions militaires, a notamment été consultant défense pour Jeune Afrique. Son ouvrage sur les forces armées africaines vient combler un vide. En effet, en 600 pages, il décrit de façon complète les principaux enjeux géopolitiques et sécuritaires de 55 pays. Il analyse le fonctionnement opérationnel des armées, détaille certaines opérations et va même jusqu’à parler du comportement au feu de certaines unités.

Pour chaque pays on trouve d’abord un tableau de synthèse où les atouts principaux et les faiblesses majeures des différentes forces armées africaines sont présentés. Puis sont précisés budgets et effectifs. Ensuite, des ordres de bataille et des tableaux d’équipements détaillés sont exposés par armée (terre, mer, air, mais aussi forces paramilitaires). Enfin, et c’est là que l’auteur fait véritablement la différence avec le Military Balance, on trouve une analyse, plus ou moins longue selon les pays (quatre pages pour le Tchad, huit pour le Maroc, une pour le Somaliland).

L’analyse des forces armées du Burkina Faso met par exemple en exergue les difficultés financières auxquelles elles font face, mais aussi la coopération au sein du G5 Sahel, ou encore les difficultés de coordination entre les différentes forces de sécurité et de défense. L’auteur rappelle qu’il ne faut pas regarder les armées africaines avec condescendance. Les pays occidentaux ne sont pas exempts de lacunes et de dysfonctionnements, notamment dans la lutte contre le terrorisme. L’objectivité et la rigueur sont présentes tout au long du livre et permettent de remettre en question bien des idées reçues. Laurent Touchard estime par exemple que les forces terrestres gabonaises sont efficaces et bien équipées, mais que les forces aériennes, qui alignent des Mirage F1AZ sont surdimensionnées. On apprend aussi que le Gabon n’a pas honoré ses dettes à Piriou, un chantier naval français, suite à la commande d’un patrouilleur et la demande de rénovation d’un autre.

Dernière illustration, l’auteur réussit à donner une certaine clarté au chaos qui caractérise la Libye. Les principaux combats sont présentés, ainsi que les acteurs qui y participent. Laurent Touchard explique les déconvenues rencontrées, en particulier par les Européens, dans la formation d’une armée nationale libyenne. Se pose encore aujourd’hui une question cruciale : qui entraîner ?

Les analyses proposées sont pertinentes et l’équilibre entre précision et clarté, revendiqué par l’auteur, est atteint. À la fin de l’ouvrage on trouve aussi une série de tableaux synoptiques fort utiles, qui classent les différentes armées selon leurs principaux matériels terrestres, aériens ou maritimes.

Ce livre présente aussi quelques défauts, comme une analyse un peu courte pour certains pays, à l’instar du Bénin. Toutefois, le travail de recherche, réalisé par un seul homme, est dans son ensemble considérable, et l’intérêt de cette somme indubitable. Cet ouvrage, auto-édité via CreateSpace, mériterait d’être actualisé à intervalles réguliers et publié par un éditeur qui lui assurerait une plus large diffusion.

Rémy Hémez

S’abonner à Politique étrangère

Former Somali president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud passing the baton to current president Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmajo)

 

All betrayals are not made equal. In recent weeks, a political disaster of epic proportions has befallen upon Somalia. The Somali government has committed what many – including some of its staunchest supporters – consider a treasonous act.

Somalia’s National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) has extradited a Somali citizen, a highly decorated military officer, a war hero who was wounded in the 1977 war against Ethiopia and an officer of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) to Ethiopia without any due process.

Initially, the government denied and dismissed all information related to the illegal rendition as “vicious rumours intended to undermine government’s credibility”; claiming their objective is “Qaran dumis” or to destroy the nation.

Once the truth hit the streets that Abdikarim Sheikh Muse (Qalbi-Dhagax) was handed over by his brethren to a brutal regime with a long record of human rights violations, it unleashed a collective public fury the likes of which Somalia had never seen. The public space became saturated with songs, poems, and skits expressing extreme disillusionment on a popular president – Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo – who only a few months earlier was celebrated as the long-awaited saviour of the nation.

Making Matters Worse

Desperate to shake off this scandal, Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire convened a Council of Ministers emergency meeting. To the utter dismay of many who were still hopeful that their government will do what is right, the Council of Ministers made the problem even worse. They accused Qalbi-Dhagax of being a terrorist who “committed serious crimes in Somalia” and who “was in cahoots with al-Shabab to further sabotage the nation”. Furthermore, they declared ONLF, which is an internationally recognised liberation movement that has offices throughout the West, Middle East and Africa, a terrorist organisation.

While irredentism or Somalia’s historical struggle to reclaim all five parts of its nation as partitioned by the “colonial masters” is, for all intents and purposes, dead; the loyalty, the commitment to advocate for the rights of all Somalis in the region to live freely and off the chains of oppression is alive and well. It is in that spirit of solidarity that Somalis of all walks of life support the ONLF cause and the group’s right to work towards liberating their homeland.

Let us hypothetically assume that all allegations against Qalbi-Dhagax were true and that he was a ruthless “terrorist” who carried out clandestine operations to sabotage Somalia and has killed and committed rape as the cabinet (no judge or jury) has declared, how do such allegations justify his rendition to Ethiopia? Why would the government not prosecute him in Somalia?

If he is guilty of these serious crimes, why he was living in Mogadishu for years as an ONLF officer without ever being arrested? Qalbi-Dhagax was not an anonymous figure. He was not in hiding. Clearly, the cabinet’s decision to hand him over to Ethiopia is not a well-thought-out one.

If the cabinet does not withdraw the politically motivated charges directed at Qalbi-Dhagax and implant them into the law instead, anyone who supports him or the ONLF either verbally, in writing, by marching or even by simply rejecting the charges government directed at them could get charged with “aiding and abetting” terrorism and subsequently could be renditioned to Ethiopia. 

Lies and deception

To understand the foreign-dominated, self-refuelling system that propels the Somali political process one should think of an aircraft carrier with a massive flight deck where the Somali president is granted the discretion to walk, march or even run to any direction he wishes as that will neither alter the carrier’s course nor its destination.

For over a decade, the same strategy has been used to lure each Somali president into a glorified failure. I call it the “3F seduction”: False security, false esteem, and false authority. That is to say, while he, the president, in on the deck of the aforementioned aircraft carrier, he can dress for the part and quixotically claim to be in charge. Meanwhile, the system continues its course.

The Qalbi-Dhagax case is not only good for Ethiopia, it is good for all other failed institutions: UNSOM, AMISOM, other clandestine operatives and economic predators who perpetuate the status quo in Somalia -the overtly most-aggressive beneficiaries being the UAE and Erik Prince of Blackwater port management partnership.

Can Farmajo be rescued?

Most of those who knew the new president (this author included) were confident that he would prove himself the right catalyst for a genuine Somali-led reconciliation process and revitalise Somalia’s decaying sense of nationhood. Unlike his predecessors, President Farmajo came in with a certain level of experience and significant political capital and public trust.

He knew any substantive reform would have to be instituted and implemented within the first year. He was not to waste time or to squander opportunities. The expectation was to reclaim Somalia by pushing for the establishment of an Independent Reconciliation Commission, made of credible citizens of good character with no political affiliation or ambition; by pressuring the Parliament to establish a constitutional court; by establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission composed of trustworthy patriotic citizens; by creating a Somali military counterintelligence branch that keeps track of all foreign militaries, paramilitaries and mercenaries in the country and their activities; and by reaching out to Somaliland.

Back in February, I described the newly Parliament-elected president as “a champion of enlightened patriotism that is optimistic and relies on itself to restore the corroded dignity of a self-destructive nation”. Two weeks later, after he appointed a man who was an employee and part-owner of Soma Oil and Gas as prime minister, I saw the writing on the wall but opted to give one last chance to the new president.

Seven months of dazzle have only proven that President Farmajo and his team have mastered how to seduce public sentiments – mainly overenthusiastic youth – with glittering generalities such as justice, peace, and accountability, without any specifics. It is common to hear President Farmajo make assertions such as: “Ours is a government of the people. We are accountable to the people.” But, when the masses were outraged by the government’s decision and demanded answers, the president of the people sought refuge in silence. He is yet to make a single statement regarding the Qalbi-Dhagax fiasco. Farmajo seems to have plunged into that all too familiar cesspool of presidential betrayals. He has succumbed to a system that was designed to perpetuate failure and keep Somalia where it is or worse. And in doing so, he has written his legacy in the pages of infamy by becoming the first ever president to commit betrayal of such magnitude against the Somali people.

At this point, aside from divine intervention, the only remaining conceivable game-changer is the Somali Parliament. The speaker of the parliament has appointed a committee to review this grave matter. The Somali people are now waiting to see whether its representatives are going to do the right thing.

** This article was originally published by al-Jazeera under a different title

 

The post Farmajo Follows Footsteps of Failure appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Is Trump’s undermining of Tillerson another step in his “madman” theory of diplomacy?

Russia is behind the United States but trying to catch up.

Trump took aim at the Obama-era DACA program. Now, reform-minded conservatives are scrambling to find their own immigration solutions.

An American assessment regimen would propel international organizations to better serve their own missions — and to incorporate U.S. interests.

/ Irak, Kurdes, Minorité nationale, Pétrole, Kurdistan, Frontières - Golfe / Irak, Kurdes, Minorité nationale, Pétrole, Kurdistan, Frontières - Golfe

As American drone bases sprout up across the continent, special operations forces push out.

A study shows that World Bank aid is vulnerable to geopolitical influence.

Service members should be aware that if they are assaulted off post, they may have better options in the civilian justice system.