There is a broad-based consensus that security in Somalia has been deteriorating at an alarming rate. In the past few weeks, hundreds of people have been killed by truck bombs at two prominent locations in Mogadishu. The lethal potency of the explosives and the scale of death and devastation resulting from the Oct 14th one was far beyond what Mogadishu has witnessed in over quarter of a century of violence.
These successive deadly terrorist operations combined with allegations that attackers have used intelligence services ID cards have turned the spotlight on Somalia’s National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA). Serious questions regarding the agency’s leadership, competence and the scope of its authority are being raised.
But how does one reveal unpleasant realities and tell a traumatized nation what appeared like a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ was in fact a runaway train coming at them? How does one do that without shoving them into state of self-defeating despair? These indeed are the dicey challenges, but truth must be told.
Somalia is in an existential race against time. Much like all other critical issues facing the nation, the Somali government does not control its intelligence or security. Worse, the government does not have the political will to address the real causes and effects.
The Ownership Dilemma
Somalia is the center of gravity of international predatory capitalism. Not only because of its untapped natural resources since many countries would qualify, but because Somalia is the gold standard of these three systematically destructive elements: corruption, ineptitude and disloyalty to the nation. How many nations do you know that host dozens of security and intelligence forces with various (domestic and foreign) commands and control? Here are some examples:
There is the revolving door syndrome of failed security leadership that recycles the same has-beens. Every year or so when a new commander is appointed and another is sacked. The former brings in his own clan comrades and cronies and the latter takes with him the manpower that he brought in.
There are former al-Shabab leaders with long ugly record who, despite never seeking the forgiveness of their victims, been co-opted by the government, and, yes, been giving highly sensitive positions at NISA and other branches of government.
There is the cottage industry of intelligence serves ID cards. These IDs are readily available for anyone willing to pay the going rate. Apparently it is the agency’s failure when individuals in charge of issuing these IDs make little over $200 for monthly salary and the going price for a false ID is twice their monthly salary. While civilians try to possess these IDs for various reasons, the most common is the need to get through roadblocks and checkpoints since there is no logging system to verify authenticity of employment.
There are multiple security and intelligence agencies that emerged within the five clan-based federal states that may share a name with NISA but functionally have nothing to do with that ‘national agency.’ Most of them take their substantive orders from one neighboring state or another.
There are the corrupt leaders in the political upper echelon that readily put Somalia’s national interest behind anyone with a bag full of cash or has the capacity to aid them in attaining or keeping a position.
There are many in the circles of influence, including ministers and parliament members, who own their own private security companies and directly benefit from increased insecurity.
There is the underground business cartel that considers the status quo a heavenly blessing.
There is the Blackwater project to advance what might be called ‘world peace according to Erik Prince’ while UAE and DPW provide the diplomatic and commercial façades.
There is UK –guised as UNSOM—to guard the Soma Oil and Gas interest by any means necessary. It is mandated face that governs the Halane compound where a mishmash of the good, bad and ugly and their mercenaries are hosted. In their possession is the carrot and stick that boost or undermine security, at will.
There is the US. In addition to AFRICOM drone operations, the US runs routine covert operations in cooperation with a Somali counter-terrorism unit that is trained, paid, and commanded by the US. Though this was a thinly veiled secret, it entered into the public discourse on US’ controversial activities in Somalia since the recent killing of a Green Beret, and its role in Africa when four other Green Berets were killed in Niger a few months later.
This needless to say raised both media and congressional interests in the US clandestine operations in Africa. For years, AFRICOM has been effectively managing perception by offering ocean-cruise version of embedded journalism.
Against that backdrop it is extremely difficult to pinpoint who, or which combination, has triggered the latest wave of terroristic atrocities.
Knee-jerking Into the Oblivion
As usual, the government immediately reiterated its counter-terrorism motto: al-Shabab and ISIS have committed this atrocity. They are out to eradicate the Somali people, therefore, we should all join hands to fight them in their bloody swamps. We should wage an all-out war in many fronts and many regions and “I will be the first in the line”, said President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmajo).
Never mind the fact that the terrorists—be they al-Shabab or one of the other clandestine candidates—are executing their deadly operations behind the roadblocks and barricades across Mogadishu. And never mind that the mightiest nation on the face of the earth could not defeat terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan in a conventional warfare involving hundreds of thousands of its best soldiers. President Farmajo declared a war and went off to solicit more military support from Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Djibouti to ‘defeat al-Shabab, once and for all.’
So How Does One Get Out Of This Mess?
In order to stabilize Somalia all pieces of the insecurity puzzle must be accounted for. In addition to al-Shabab’s suicidal vision, the ever-worsening security condition is driven by the interplay of the aforementioned domestic and foreign elements.
Somalia continues being a lucrative project of international appeal, a regional cash cow, and geopolitical pretext for exploitation and military expansion. Except the government which, in theory, is the guardian of the Somali national interest, all others are entrenched in advancing their zero-sum strategies and interests. Out of that condition emerged a deadly system of ‘a favor for a favor’ that keeps insecurity ever-present, but manageable.
The Somali people need and deserve more than a cosmetic accountability fix that is intended to cover the wrinkles of incompetence and corruption.
Somalia needs competent leadership that puts its national interest in its appropriate place; leadership that is mindful of the fact that security does not exist in vacuum; leadership with strategic vision who are mindful that genuine national reconciliation is essential to harmonizing hearts and minds; leadership with the political will to demand immediate overhaul of the current dysfunctional security system; leadership willing to demand streamlining the command & control of the intelligence sector; leadership that demands a front-door entry into Somalia and thoroughly vets to select the right strategic partnerships.
Unless and until these fundamental issues are addressed, neither Somalia nor its (official and unofficial) guests could be safe. Security would be nothing more than an extended respite between one terrorist attack and another.
The post Straight Talk On Somalia Insecurity appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n°3/2017). Delphine Allès propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Kent E. Calder, Singapore: Smart City, Smart State (Brookings Institution Press, 2016, 256 pages).
Kent E. Calder se donne le double projet de définir le concept « d’État intelligent » et de détailler les caractéristiques qui inscrivent Singapour dans cette catégorie. Le smart state est selon lui capable de « percevoir et répondre de manière efficiente aux difficultés extérieures (géographiques, démographiques, financières, politiques et technologiques) et aux marchés, en utilisant les dernières avancées en matière de technologies de l’information et de la communication ». L’auteur assume la dimension normative de son analyse et ne cache pas son admiration pour les réalisations du système politique, économique et social singapourien.
Il revient sur les innovations mises en œuvre depuis l’indépendance de la cité-État (1965), notamment en matière de management public, pour compenser ses handicaps stratégiques et économiques et se positionner en carrefour politique et économique mondial. L’ouvrage présente à cet égard un utile panorama des politiques publiques singapouriennes, et des aspects qui font de la cité-État un modèle pour ses homologues développés (en tant qu’État-providence fiscalement viable) comme pour de nombreuses villes en développement (en tant que ville « vivable » malgré sa densité démographique).
On peut s’interroger sur le choix du qualificatif smart state plutôt qu’État-stratège (avec des dirigeants planifiant leurs objectifs et déployant les moyens à leur disposition pour les atteindre) ou entrepreneurial (cherchant à maximiser sa prospérité en minimisant ses investissements), mâtiné d’une forme de paternalisme. L’État singapourien définit en effet les composantes essentielles du bonheur de ses citoyens et leur enjoint de les poursuivre, à travers ses politiques d’ingénierie sociale (par exemple, le fait d’imposer une certaine répartition ethnique dans les logements publics, largement majoritaires dans l’île) ou économique (en imposant par exemple une épargne personnelle et en favorisant l’accès à la propriété).
Certains silences doivent également être évoqués. Le modèle politique et économique singapourien est largement décrit à travers la gestion semi-privée de nombreux services publics, mais les processus décisionnels ayant déterminé ces choix sont éludés, de même que l’étroite imbrication entre les sphères politique et économique. Si la viabilité du modèle socio-économique singapourien est louée, l’augmentation des inégalités, source de tensions sociales croissantes, est abordée très rapidement et sans revenir sur les stratégies envisagées par les autorités pour y faire face. Les effets du paternalisme sur la créativité singapourienne, source de préoccupation pour les autorités elles-mêmes, ne sont pas non plus soulignés. Enfin, l’auteur n’évoque que très rapidement les contestations suscitées par ce smart modèle, alors que la gestion de l’opposition et la canalisation de ses modes d’expression constituent un défi pour sa stabilité.
L’ouvrage sera utile au lecteur en quête d’un éclairage sur les spécificités du modèle singapourien et son émergence progressive, ou à l’étudiant en politiques publiques désireux de saisir les ressorts d’une combinaison unique entre vision politique et économique à long terme, constructivisme social et stabilité institutionnelle. Il souligne par ailleurs utilement le rôle central des villes, catalyseurs de la mondialisation et acteurs économiques et politiques d’une importance croissante au côté des États sur la scène mondiale.
Delphine Allès
S’abonner à Politique étrangère
Just ahead of the summit, Daniel Kritenbrink, a Nebraska native, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 26 as the next U.S. ambassador to Vietnam. Kritenbrink arrived in Hanoi on Saturday and will present a credential letter to Vietnamese State President Tran Dai Quang on Monday morning. His first mission is to accompany U.S. President Donald Trump during his trip to the APEC summit.
Kritenbrink, 50, has been a State Department Foreign Service Officer since 1994, recently serving as Senior Director for Asian Affairs under former President Barack Obama’s National Security Council. Prior to that assignment, he was Deputy Chief of Mission in Beijing, and also served at the U.S. embassies in Japan and Kuwait. Kritenbrink studied political science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and received a master’s degree from the University of Virginia. Kritenbrink replaces outgoing U.S. Ambassador Ted Osius, who under Obama was responsible for warmer relations with the Vietnamese and participated in the lifting of a lethal weapons arms embargo by the U.S.
While it is still early days for foreign policy under the new U.S. administration, recent testimony of Kritenbrink at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearings on September 27 may provide some hints of future U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam, which appears to be similar to that of the previous administration:
“Our goal remains to advance American interests across the board and support the development of a strong, prosperous, and independent Vietnam that contributes to international security, engages in mutually beneficial trade, and respects human rights and the rule of law.”
Regional security
At his testimony, Kritenbrink first pledge was to “strengthen Vietnam’s maritime security capabilities” in the disputed South China Sea, calling the region “vital to our respective security and commercial interests as Asia-Pacific nations.” To this end, he also encouraged Vietnam to continue its active role within ASEAN.
Trade and investment
Despite the U.S. pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, Kritenbrink stressed the importance of trade and investment with Vietnam, noting Vietnam was America’s fastest growing export market. He called for Vietnam to improve labor and environmental standards, transparency for state-owned enterprises, and intellectual property protection, leaving the door open for negotiation on a new U.S. bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam.
Human rights
While regional security and trade and investment may be higher priorities, Kritenbrink did not shy away from listing human rights as “a top priority for the United States.” While noting “some progress” on human rights and religious freedom, Kritenbrink called the trend over the past 18 months of increased arrests, convictions, and harsh sentences of activists as “deeply troubling” and called further progress on human rights critical for Vietnam to reach its fullest potential.
People-to-people ties
The new ambassador also noted that Vietnam is in the top six source countries for foreign students studying in the U.S. and Vietnamese students contributed some $700 million to the U.S. economy in 2015. He also highlighted the new Peace Corps program and Fulbright University Vietnam (FUV) – to which the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Vietnam, Ted Osius, was recently appointed as vice president.
Humanitarian and war legacy issues
Lastly, Kritenbrink called for the full accounting of U.S. military personnel missing in action from the Vietnam War “our solemn obligation”, while noting the U.S. has contributed $103 million to deal with unexploded ordnance and $115 million toward the remediation of dioxin contamination in Da Nang.
While Kritenbrink may have had limited exposure to Vietnam as a diplomat (three official trips and the overseeing of the negotiation of two bilateral Joint Statements with Vietnam in 2015 and 2016), his time as deputy chief of mission in China will bring much-needed perspective to his new role in Vietnam.
As Kritenbrink duly noted in his testimony, young Vietnamese hold overwhelmingly positive views of the United States, and with a booming economy (growing between 6-7 percent), Vietnam and the U.S. could become strong partners in the region. Of course, many Vietnamese will be closely watching the speech (and any tweets) from U.S. President Donald Trump on his vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific region” during his visit this week to Da Nang. His comments could signal further interest in Vietnam and the region’s affairs – something some foreign policy analysts (and Vietnamese) fear is dwindling over U.S. domestic challenges and growing Chinese influence in Southeast Asia.
The post Daniel Kritenbrink Appointed New U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Picture of suicide bomber Ayat Al Akhras in front of UNRWA school (Photo Credit: Kay Wilson)
A new comprehensive study by the Center for Near East Policy Research & the Israel Resource News Agency, commissioned by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, highlights new Palestinian Authority school books used in UNRWA schools, which shows unprecedented incitement to terror. How should the 68 UNRWA donors react?‘
Most recently, the Center for Near East Policy Research and the Israel Resource News Agency published a comprehensive study, commissioned by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which underwrote some of the costs associated with the study. The study provides numerous examples of how new Palestinian Authority textbooks that are used in UNRWA schools incite terrorism against Jews and the State of Israel. What differentiates this study from all previous studies of PA school textbooks since the PA began introducing their own schoolbooks in 2000 is that this was the first time that all PA school books were examined.
This study argues that despite statements made to the contrary by the US State Department, incitement to terrorism remains a pivotal part of the Palestinian school curriculum. For example, Arabic Language, Grade 5, Part 1 (2017) p. 14 and Social Studies, Grade 9, Part 1 (2017) p. 74 describe Palestinian female terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered 38 Israeli civilians in the Coastal Road Massacre, as a “martyr of Islamic and Arab history” who “commanded the Fidai ‘Deir Yassin’ operation on the Palestinian coast in 1978 in which over thirty soldiers were killed.”
A terror attack targeting the Jewish community of Psagot is described by Arabic Language, Grade 9, Part 1 (2017) p. 61 as a “barbecue party [haflat shiwa’] there with Molotov cocktails on one of the buses of the Psagot colony [musta’marah – Jewish settlement].” Arabic Language, Grade 7, Part 1 (2017) p. 66 describes the State of Israel as the “devils aides.” And Our Beautiful Language, Grade 3, Part 2 (2016) p. 64 includes the following poem: “And I shall remove the usurper [ghaseb – code name for Israel] from my country and shall exterminate [ubid] the foreigners’ scattered remnants [fulul al-ghuraba’]. O land of Al-Aqsa [Mosque] and the sacred place [haram], O cradle of pride and nobility. Patience, patience, for victory is ours!”
Throughout the 2016-2017 textbooks, the name Israel was replaced by the phrase the “Zionist occupation” and the Arab-Israeli conflict was referred to as “the Zionist-Arab conflict.” The maps in the Palestinian textbooks don’t show Israel on the map. Even major Israeli cities like Tel Aviv do not appear on the maps in the Palestinian textbooks for they were built by Jews. However, there are calls for the descendants of the Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes via armed struggle. As Our Beautiful Language, Grade 5, Part 1 (2015) p. 50 declares, “We are returning/ Returning to the homes, to the valleys, to the mountains/ Under the flag of glory, Jihad and struggle/ With blood, sacrifice, fraternity and loyalty/ We are returning.” Even the math textbooks included questions that prompts students to support the “Palestinian shahids.” The question remains whether funding to UNRWA should be made conditional upon reforms in the UNRWA educational system?
Chris Gunness, spokesman for UNRWA, issued a statement that UNRWA is mandated to teach the national curriculum of the host country’s government, which in this case refers to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza and asserted: “We have reviewed them rigorously in line with our curriculum framework, which aims to ensure that our curriculum is in line with UN values. In the small number of instances where issues of concern were found, we have created enriched complementary materials for use in our classrooms and we will be rolling out training on this to our teachers in the coming months. UNRWA’s condemnation of all forms of racism is a matter of public record.”
A spokesman for the Swiss Embassy concurred: “UNRWA’s condemnation of all forms of racism and its efforts to prevent them are well documented. As evidenced by Switzerland’s regular dialogue with UNRWA, the Agency investigates founded issues with due diligence. In this regard, UNWA has one of the strictest control mechanisms in the UN system. Switzerland has no evidence of institutionalized hate speech or institutionalized anti-Semitism on the part of UNRWA.”
Dr. Arnon Groiss, the study’s author, disagreed, stressing that documentation provided by the Center for Near East Policy Research shows how some UNRWA staff members have openly supported terrorism against Israel as well as anti-Semitic hate speech online and some UNRWA teachers have even moonlighted as terrorists. For example, UNRWA’s workers union posted a poster featuring the map of “Palestine” (Israel is wiped off the map) accompanied with the following caption: “Oh UNRWA, we have a cause and our fight, jihad, resistance and struggle against those who usurped our land do not need neutrality.” The UNRWA’s workers union has been controlled by Hamas for many years. Some former UNRWA employees, such as Suheil Al-Hindi, were actively part of Hamas while working for UNRWA for years. It took a very long time for UNRWA to get rid of Hindi.
Om Alaa, who identifies herself as an UNRWA teacher on her Facebook profile, published on social media a picture of Adolf Hitler and his “top” ten quotes. Eman Shammala, who identifies herself as an UNRWA teacher on her Facebook profile, published a photo on Facebook of a keffiyeh-clad Palestinian playing a knife like a violin, using a Palestinian “key of return” as a bow. At the Al Fakhoura Middle School (UNRWA), the Islamic Bloc organized an event honoring 13 years since the martyrdom of senior level Hamas terrorist Sheikh Yassin. A sign featuring Sheikh Yassin and the Hamas flag waved outside of the school.
There are many more examples that highlight how UNRWA has been exploited by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah terrorists. However, there are still those in the international community who refuse to call a space what it is. Therefore, Sander Gerber, a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, added: “The PA indoctrination of its population is well known but its pervasiveness and impact hasn’t been fully appreciated. The Center for Near East Policy Research study identifies UNRWA education as one epicenter for this institutionalized hatred, which blocks any hope for peace.”
Rabbi Elie Abadie of the Sephardic Academy in New York emphasized: “I think the US and also the UN need to review that entire budget to UNRWA and to make it conditional on them maintaining their neutrality, removing any inciteful material and removing any employee that is connected to terror organizations. Many of the UNRWA employees are sympathizers of terror organizations. Some of those schools are used to store weapons, keytoushas and rockets. That entire charter of UNRWA has to be checked and revised. I think it should have been done long ago.”
Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely concurred: “A fundamental examination and serious revision of UNRWA is required. It is crucial that the UNRWA curriculum be revised to educate for peace instead of continuing to incite a new generation towards hate and violence. We need to see a reform in UNRWA. There needs to be increased supervision and accountability of relief funds to ensure they are going to help needy people and not to support terror and the destruction of Israel.”
MK Dr. Anat Berko added: “The issue of UNRWA should be investigated. It definitely should not stay as it is today. Yes to humanitarian aid. No to ‘refugee forever’.”
Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado) took it a step further: “All funding for UNRWA should be cut until reform conditions are met. Textbooks that delegitimize Israel, denigrate the Jewish people, promote the “right of return” through violent struggle, and glorify martyrdom must be banned.”
According to Former Israeli Consul General to Miami, Former Israeli Consul General to Chicago and Former Deputy Mayor of Netanya Dr. Yitzchak Ben Gad, “I think UNRWA is a source of trouble. Its mandate was to help the Palestinians to stand on their own two feet and to be a constructive element in Palestinian society and to support themselves and their families. Instead, they are doing the opposite. They teach children to hate Jews and Israelis. They even quote the Quran that says that the most terrible enemy of the Muslims is the Jews. Enough is enough. Time for a change.”
Prominent Middle East expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar stressed: “UNRWA lost its raison d’etre years ago and all of the other issues are secondary.”
Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, declared: “Since the 1990s, the ADL has been a strong voice calling for peace education for all. We have long expressed outrage that textbooks in the Palestinian Authority have not prepared these students for peace, and instead have instilled deep hostility towards Israel and Jews and support for terrorism and armed conflict. Over the years, much attention has been paid to this issue, and the Palestinian Authority, UNWRA and others have pledged to remove anti-Semitism, the celebration of terrorism and incitement from these educational materials. To a degree, they have done so. We are therefore alarmed that new textbooks for Palestinian students appear to still venerate terrorists and promote martyrdom and do little to promote the idea of Israel as a reality and a partner for peace.”
Rabbi Donniel Hartman, head of the Shalom Hartman Institute, believes that assuming this study is accurate, there are deeper issues that the international community must grapple with: “In contemporary moral discourse, the powerless are always moral. The powerless aren’t challenged for their moral failures. Power equals immoral, colonialism, etc. We allow the powerless to maintain mediocre moral standards as if we are somehow being considerate when we are condemning their society to the mediocre. You are not doing the powerless any favor by providing excuses. Moral expectations are healthy for everyone. When you don’t treat someone as an adult, it is paternalist. It is not just UNRWA. It is a universal discourse.”
“In the Jewish tradition, we are taught we have sinned,” Hartman added. “You don’t pound someone else and say you are wrong. When you don’t do that, there is no societal improvement. Every society has to ask themselves what they have done wrong, not what someone else did as an excuse for my wrongdoings. Too often they excuse moral mediocrity. They don’t challenge those categorized as history’s victims. Today, you win when you are considered the victim. The issue is how we live together, not counting the chips of victimhood. Under the assumption that the textbooks are morally flawed, anybody who pushes for more improvement is helping. Whether the best way is sanctions or not is a separate issue. The Palestinians have to be held responsible for what they teach their children and until they do, any aspirations for peace and a better Middle East won’t come to fruition.”
The question remains, who is correct? All of the documentation provided by the Center for Near East Policy Research and the Israel Resource News Agency demonstrates that the claims made by the Swiss Embassy and UNRWA that incitement is not a major issue in UNRWA schools is not accurate.
It is clear to any objective observer that incitement remains a major problem in the UNRWA school system despite the introduction of new textbooks in the Palestinian Authority. How idealistically should the international community respond to this? Disbanding UNRWA is not an option as it can only be disbanded by the UN General Assembly.
Therefore, the only possible way to bring about change in UNRWA education is for donor states in the West to use their financial influence to insist that UNRWA’s curriculum rigorously excludes the promotion of hate and violence and whose materials reflect the reality of a neighboring Jewish state. In addition, the new UN Secretary General and all nations committed to peace in the Middle East must demand that UNRWA ends all incitement in their schools. Furthermore, all staff members—especially teachers—who are members of terror organizations and/or make a statement in support of terrorism and/or demonstrate hate speech should be fired.
The post Should funding to UNRWA be made conditional on ending incitement? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
I’ve missed you even if you did not know that you missed me.
From 2007 to 2014 I was at various times the: Blogger/Senior Blogger/Senior Editor for African Affairs here at FPA.
Well, I’m back! I’ll mostly be focusing on South Africa, because politics and society in South Africa in the next few months will have a vitally important influence on the continent. But my coverage, in keeping with my own work — both journalustic and scholarly — will be broad. I will write about politics, yes, but also sport and culture, history and ephemera. And I will also continue to look beyond South Africa’s borders to events and questions arising in other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.
I am thrilled to be back. Thanks for reading!
The post The Prodigal Son Returns appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
This post is written by W.A. Schmidt, an op-ed contributor.
—
When it comes to the Trump presidency, sympathetic observers outside the United States are preoccupied with the same question that the majority of their American counterparts must be pondering: How much longer will this president inflict damage upon his country, its political culture, its international relations and its global reputation without paying more of a penalty than a mere shrug among most of his supporters?
For the sake of illustrating the extent of incredulity among foreigners, let us imagine for a moment the shock and dismay that would emerge if the leaders of some of America’s closest allies were to have uttered what has flowed so carelessly out of Trump’s mouth.
What if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, had mocked a reporter for his disability, demonstrated her complete ignorance of the country’s nuclear deterrent during a debate, braggingly disclosed an intelligence source to Russia, praised President Putin for expelling British diplomats and suggested that the U.S. president appoint a far-right bigot as American ambassador to the UK?
What if Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, had bragged about his sexual prowess, about grabbing women with impunity and about his voters’ forgiveness even if he shot someone in the middle of Paris, had encouraged police brutality against arrested suspects, become obsessed with and incessantly lied about the crowd size at his inauguration and claimed he received praise in meetings that never occurred?
What if Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany had incited violence against protesters at her rallies, attacked mainstream media as “fake news,” called journalists “sick people,” retweeted pictures of physical violence against a major news network and encouraged Russia to hack and leak the e-mails of her political opponent?
What if the Prime Minister of Italy, Paolo Gentiloni, were openly stoking and abetting racism, had called illegal immigrants “rapists,” compared them to “vomit,” refused to distance himself unequivocally from the violence perpetrated by domestic neo-Nazis, called some participants in their rallies “very fine people“ and waxed aesthetic about fascist statues?
And what if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had called Canada’s election system “rigged” when he was not sure he would win, falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping him, questioned the legitimacy of members of the judiciary as “so-called judges,” called for the prosecution of his political opponent after the election, engaged in pitiless personal vendettas via Twitter and repeatedly expressed his infatuation with human-rights abusing authoritarian rulers?
These examples are but a fraction of the unrelenting dose of equally un-presidential missives and falsehoods that continue to stream forth from President Trump.
In more decent times – i.e. before Trump’s dreadful feat of coarsening public life by mainstreaming vulgarity and normalizing mendacity – voters would have recoiled. They would have treated such utterances as either the work of a humor-challenged satirist or the product of a fake news outlet. Alternatively, they would have considered the source incompetent, immoral or out of touch with reality and certainly unfit for public office. And yet, this man was elected and has remained, so far, in power.
Meanwhile, we must rely on the efficacy of the countervailing powers to contain the damage. Thankfully, some of the checks and balances within government have been triggered. Resistance in society-at-large is strong and mounting. His record low approval ratings are a further sign that common sense is still alive and that the majority of Americans is not being fooled.
Hope rests also in the fact that, so far, none of the policies he intends to pursue command majority support at home. Interestingly, some of his highest domestic disapproval ratings relate precisely to those issues that are of greatest concern abroad, namely foreign policy and the environment.
Trump claimed speaking not just for America but for the West at large when he read out the disingenuous prose of his scripted remarks in Warsaw, Poland: “I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail.” This begs the question: What in his unscripted and hence unfiltered outbursts could possibly be representative of the values of the West?
In any case, his actions speak louder than the fake solemnity of his teleprompter speeches. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his willful destruction of American diplomacy. If Trump took the defense of the West and the United States seriously he would strengthen not eviscerate the Department of State. Nor would he mistreat friends and allies while expressing his admiration for the methods of authoritarian strongmen.
Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly was yet another missed opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship. For the most part, it was jarringly incoherent and parochial. Its many retrograde aspects pleased the adversarial powers he spared most. They see in him a fellow traveler, if not an ally, in their quest to undermine the fundamental values that undergird the United Nations, particularly in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law.
Since the UN’s founding, each consecutive U.S. administrations has endorsed the universality of these values and at times promoted and protected them – until now when even the pretense is gone. His tirade left America’s closest friends understandably aghast. Many of them rebuked him diplomatically in the speeches that followed. Some, like Sweden’s foreign minister, expressed their disagreement with more frankness.
Trump’s supporters would be well-advised to go beyond the soundbites of his speech and its fawning coverage by the news sources they typically consume. Instead they ought to read it in its entirety and then compare it with a speech that would have made Americans proud had it been given by their own president. It was Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, who took on the task of filling the void left by a politically and morally abdicating America. His engaging and inspiring address at the UN aimed at mobilizing humankind’s best intentions and abilities to cope with the world’s problems.
In contrast, Trump’s inclination lies in appealing to people’s lowest instincts and in debasing, not upholding, civilized norms and values. He is neither suited for nor interested in leading by example. As a result, the U.S. has morphed into an outlier among the community of democracies in both style and substance. This voluntary retreat from global leadership is a godsend to America’s enemies and to autocrats the world over. It should make every patriotic American shudder.
It is not surprising that when a prominent BBC journalist returned to the U.S. after spending a few weeks in Europe this past summer, she felt that she had returned to a country “diminished and dismissed.” Her impression was that in Europe “general publics increasingly see the US as a non-entity. It’s not even seen as a joke, people are saddened by America’s diminished global status.”
This becomes painfully obvious in personal exchanges with citizens from other democratic countries. Condemnation of Trump the person and most of his policies is near universal across the political spectrum, except for the extreme right. Case in point was Trump’s complete isolation due to his decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. His ignorance of the world inures him from grasping the damage he causes to the standing of his own country, let alone the health of the planet. His pointless posturing may well feed his ego, special interests and the most ill-informed members of his base. Yet for those who care about the U.S., it was just another sad instance of America’s unprecedented alienation from the rest of the world.
Americans better engage in some somber soul-searching as to why such a great nation took such a potentially fateful turn. This task applies predominantly to those Trump voters who do not generally share his or his far-right supporters’ extremist views. They would be well-advised to heed the warnings by fellow Republicans such as former President George W. Bush, former presidential candiates McCain and Romney as well as Senators Corker, Flake and Sasse. How much longer can sensible supporters possibly remain complacent or complicit?
As for the self-proclaimed “super-patriots” among his base, when will they realize that their unconditional support will discourage him from changing course; that giving him a free pass will only deepen domestic and international divisions; that it will wreck America’s image further; and that this may ultimately put the nation at risk – whether from outside or even from within?
And, on a more personal level: that maintaining their allegiance to such a toxic leader in spite of the harm he causes speaks volumes about their gullibility? Or worse, that it exposes the shallowness of their professed “love of country”?
—
W.A. Schmidt is an international affairs consultant and a member of the board of the Foreign Policy Association. He is an op-ed contributor, and his views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foreign Policy Association or of the Foreign Policy blogs network.
The post Trump and the West: The Alienation Continues. Will His Supporters Ever Care? 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 d’Antulio J. Echevarria, Military Strategy: A Very Short Introduction (Oxford University Press, 2017, 144 pages).
Cet ouvrage, publié dans la collection « Very Short Introductions », équivalent britannique des « Que sais-je ? », est signé d’Antulio J. Echevarria, rédacteur en chef de Parameters, revue de l’U.S. Army War College. Il définit la stratégie militaire, objet de son étude, comme la recherche de la réduction de la capacité physique et de la volonté de combattre d’un adversaire. Sa mise en œuvre se fait en temps de paix ou de guerre, et peut impliquer, directement ou indirectement, l’emploi de la force. L’auteur nous offre un propos synthétique et stimulant, utilisant systématiquement des exemples historiques pour l’étayer.
Echevarria débute son passage en revue des stratégies militaires par les catégories de l’annihilation et de la dislocation, qui répondent le plus souvent à la volonté ou au besoin d’un des belligérants d’emporter rapidement la victoire. Par l’annihilation, on cherche à réduire significativement, ou à détruire, la capacité physique d’un adversaire en une ou deux batailles décisives. La dislocation vise, elle, à vaincre par une manœuvre inattendue qui déstabilise l’adversaire. Ces deux stratégies supposent généralement une prise de risque élevée.
L’auteur passe ensuite à l’étude des stratégies d’attrition et d’épuisement. La première vise à consumer les ressources matérielles de l’adversaire. La deuxième se concentre sur la détérioration de sa volonté de combattre – c’est donc, autrement dit, une « attrition psychologique ». Ces deux méthodes impliquent des conflits longs, et des coûts socio-économiques élevés.
Le troisième duo regroupe dissuasion et coercition. La dissuasion entend persuader l’adversaire que l’on dispose de suffisamment de capacités physiques et psychologiques, soit pour défaire un agresseur, soit pour que les coûts de l’agression dépassent les bénéfices attendus. La coercition consiste, elle, à prendre des mesures punitives, d’intimidation, de récompense, etc., afin d’imposer sa volonté à l’adversaire.
L’auteur étudie ensuite la terreur et le terrorisme. Une stratégie de terreur peut prendre, par exemple, la forme de bombardements massifs indiscriminés, comme pendant la Seconde Guerre mondiale. Echevarria revient dans cette partie de son ouvrage sur le débat qui cherche à déterminer si le terrorisme constitue une tactique ou une stratégie. Il estime que, généralement, il s’agit d’une tactique, mais qu’employé systématiquement pour la poursuite de buts politiques, le terrorisme est bien une stratégie.
L’auteur s’attache enfin à expliquer les stratégies de décapitation et d’assassinats ciblés. Les deux reposent sur le présupposé qu’éliminer physiquement les leaders d’un mouvement peut résoudre un problème plutôt que l’aggraver – ce qui n’est guère évident. Les dilemmes moraux et légaux sont ici également prégnants. Ces stratégies, facilitées par l’accroissement de la portée et de la précision des armements, sont pourtant de plus en plus privilégiées par les gouvernements occidentaux, du fait de leurs faibles coûts matériels et politiques.
Ce court ouvrage, agréable à lire, permet de bien appréhender les grandes catégories des stratégies militaires, et il sera utile à toute personne, étudiant comme praticien, qui cherche à clarifier ses idées sur ce sujet.
Rémy Hémez
Current negotiations between Canada, Mexico and the United States to revise and modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have been characterized by notable disagreements and heavy demands across parties, as well as threats from US President Donald Trump to exit the current agreement altogether. However, the energy sector – and North American energy independence specifically – is a potential area of cooperation that might save NAFTA in the long-term.
The original 1993 agreement excluded rules and regulations for the energy sector largely because Mexico still had a nationalized energy industry. However, current President Enrique Peña Nieto enacted sweeping reforms in 2014 that opened up the industry to private and foreign investment. The renegotiation of NAFTA therefore presents an opportune time to harmonize the three countries’ large and diversified energy industries. Theoretically, this would create an entire region of energy independence and affordable and reliable access to fuel.
Cross-border energy commerce already strongCanada, Mexico and the United States possess more than enough natural energy reserves to achieve full energy independence if a free trade agreement induces affordable prices and accessibility. The US Energy Information Administration projected in its 2017 Annual Energy Outlook that the three NAFTA countries’ combined production of petroleum and other liquid fuel sources is on track to very soon surpass consumption. The US also now ranks as the world’s largest joint producer of oil and natural gas.
The North American energy industry also already boasts a significant level of trade in oil and refined products, gas, and electricity, even without a specific provision in NAFTA. According to the US Department of Energy, as of 2012-2013, the United States had $140 billion and $65 billion in trade of energy products with Canada and Mexico, respectively. Canada is the United States’ largest source of trade in energy products, and Mexico already purchases around 60-65 percent of US gasoline and natural gas exports. The approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline earlier this year, while highly controversial from an environmental standpoint, now enables 108,000 barrels daily of refined petroleum to flow from the US to Mexico. The US already manages 17 pipelines that carry over four billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to Mexico. These statistics indicate a fast-growing market for US energy products.
Furthermore, while NAFTA energy integration would be dominated by fossil fuels in the near future, North America’s diverse range of climates and topography make the region poised to become a major player in cleaner, renewable energies, particularly solar, wind and ethanol. Mexico has grown significantly under NAFTA to become a competitive, middle income country. This growth has translated into a rapid increase in demand for electricity; Forbes estimates that, in the next 25 years, Mexico’s power use will double.
Approximately two-thirds of Mexico’s energy growth will come from natural gas, but the remainder is expected to come from renewables. Accordingly, Mexico has rapidly expanded its capacity for wind energy, with a 400% increase expected from 2014 to 2018 and the US has witnessed a similar level of growth in wind energy capacity. This has already created major demand for turbine equipment from US companies such asGeneral Electric, with considerable space for additional growth.
Political commitment to North American energy independenceEncouragingly, all three NAFTA leaders have signaled that they view North American energy independence as a major priority, demonstrating a potential major area of consensus in the midst of otherwise tense negotiations. In 2016, Presidents Obama, Peña Nieto and Trudeau stated a joint goal to make renewable energies constitute 50 percentof North America’s electricity by 2025, up from 37 percent in 2015. This goal may be deprioritized under Donald Trump, but his administration is most certainly focused on energy independence in general. In a June speech at the US Department of Energy, Trump announced his desire for “US energy dominance.” Moreover, the US Trade Representative’s NAFTA renegotiation objectives, released July 17, emphasized support for North American energy independence, indicating buy in from the US in this arena.
Leading industry associations in all three countries have echoed these goals. Earlier this year, the American Petroleum Institute, Asociación Méxicana de Empresas de Hidrocarburos and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers issued a joint proposal urging reforms that liberalize trade of energy goods and integration of North American energy supply chains. These commitments provide an opportunity to integrate a new export sector into NAFTA that could help eliminate the United States’ trade deficit with Mexico, a particular point of contention regularly raised by Trump. They also provide an opening to create a holistic set of common cross-border standards around energy production and usage for both traditional and renewable fuel sources.
Political risks to energy sector integrationThe biggest political risk to achieving these energy integration goals will be Mexico’s leading candidate for the presidency in 2018, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), a leftist populist whose platform has been elevated, largely in response to harsh rhetoric from Donald Trump towards Mexico. AMLO has threatened to reverse the 2014 reformsthat opened up Mexico’s energy sector to more private investment.
Second, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) will be critical to keeping the three countries’ energy policies and regulations in harmony, but the Trump administration has proposed scrapping this vehicle from NAFTA. For example, each country currently provides different levels of subsidies and standards for what exactly qualifies as renewable energy. These disparities could theoretically lead to conflicts between foreign companies and the state with regard to tax breaks and fair competition. Consequently, the ISDS provides a critical independent judicial body and risk management mechanism to protect their international investments.
Energy sector integration across North America is a lofty goal to achieve, especially amongst three heads of state with vastly different political philosophies and political headwinds in 2018, indicating potential for further polarization. However, current trends in cross-border commerce and domestic economic objectives make NAFTA renegotiations an appropriate forum to address the issue.
This article first ran on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Samuel Schofield.
The post How the drive for North American energy independence could save NAFTA appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
One of the most iconic tools for bringing down the Soviet Union was the distribution of information from the West and the promotion of an anti-Soviet narrative that was forbidden behind the Iron Curtain. In societies where the control of information was a necessity to controlling the narrative and beliefs of a society, challenging the ruling elite and the Politburo created a distrust of the Soviet leadership and promoted dissident movements inside the Soviet Union. This tactic was so effective because information and the freedom to challenge the government were limited to those at the upper echelons of the Communist Party. In a one party state, opposition in any form and the treatment of different opinions as dissidence makes any challenger a soon to be martyr. In societies where a small group of people seeking justice and revolution are scripted into the national character, challenging the powerful control of elites dominating a corrupt system is something most citizens are receptive to in their daily lives. For this reason the organisation Radio Free Europe was created, broadcasting behind the Iron Curtain to promote Western ideas or freedom of speech and democracy inside of Eastern Europe at the time.
In all societies there is a natural inclination to have justice prevail so citizens with little power do not have to live under the repression of powerful elites and work fruitlessly for the sole needs of a few corrupt individuals. In most societies where the free press is protected, there is the ability to challenge whatever narrative and information is distributed publicly. The damage to a Communist society does not have the same weight as there is no coercion following the distribution of ideas in free societies. Blocking or repealing thoughts and ideas should not become acceptable because no thoughts or ideas can exist in such societies without the ability of being challenged in some fashion. Coercion to block freedom of speech is often illegal in those legal systems, and that is how modern democracies should function. When someone in a free society with complete freedom of speech is touched by a real event that is reported in a manner that people close to an incident know not to be true, it is not the same as listening to a challenged report behind the Iron Curtain. Focusing on their opinion and attempting to sully, damage or threaten an individual for voicing whatever opinion they hold is and should be considered a gross violation of their rights in free societies. This is the case because if an idea is dangerous and is not creating a direct physical threat, it means it is breaking the control of someone or a group of people, and that power structure likely should not exist in the first place to take justice away from people in a society who dare to voice their opinion. Even if information contains bias, the ability to challenge it should be paramount as blocking it creates the impression that there is a lack of justice in the process of banning that form of speech.
Many will then ask, how do you know if a news source is reliable? In reality you do not know how reliable a source may be as there is no oracle that can be relied upon to disseminate such information to an extremely reliable degree. It is best to measure the source of the information and whether or not their information is distributed to benefit those that run that organisation. Bias in reporting will exist, but if that bias is to help a cause the reader sees as just, it can be seen as reliable as much as it is agreed upon by various groups and interests. Another good measure is to be extremely skeptical of any source that focuses or divisive policies or targeting thoughts, ideas or individuals without contributing new information to a narrative. News that acts as an attack advert against other news agencies, groups or individuals mirrors Soviet era overreactions in the pre-Glasnost era. Any negative media against open ideas that go beyond debating the ideas and moves into attacking a person or their character is likely a disservice to an open society. These tools are usually used by political elites to win elections, and would be best described as propaganda as opposed to a story published by a journalist who works in a professional manner.
Journalism and its role in society is paramount. It is so crucial that stories are not banned, but challenged, as the truth often comes with justice. While laws are changed or lawyered into different meanings, justice and equity tend to be at the core of values in a free society no matter how much suppression is applied against free thinkers. Justice is so powerful that even a lack of truth did not save the Soviet Union from the effects of Radio Free Europe and other measures to remove that elite structure from existence. Half-truths and coercion against free speech almost always make for martyrs in societies, and when ideas are suppressed the natural imbalance and lack of justice becomes intolerable to individuals, and they react, they always react.
The post Lessons from the Cold War in Alternative Media appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.
Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’automne de Politique étrangère (n°3/2017). Thibault Boutherin propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Cécile Jouhanneau, Sortir de la guerre en Bosnie-Herzégovine (Karthala, 2016, 384 pages).
Voici le résultat d’un travail audacieux, d’une qualité et d’une ampleur qui méritent d’être soulignées. Il est né sous les meilleurs auspices : il s’agit d’une version remaniée de la thèse de doctorat en science politique soutenue par l’auteur à l’Institut d’études politiques de Paris en 2013, sous la direction de Jacques Rupnik et Marie-Claire Lavabre. Travail ambitieux : il entend tester la validité – d’aucuns préciseraient la réfutabilité – des lectures des débats et des antagonismes politiques en Bosnie-Herzégovine selon des lignes de rupture strictement ethno-nationales. Les processus de stabilisation, de construction étatique et, à terme, d’intégration européenne ont un préalable impérieux : celui de la pacification du pays, dans toutes ses composantes et notamment nationales, y compris à l’échelle locale. Or, celle-ci est conditionnée par un travail de mémoire tel qu’il a dû s’opérer dans d’autres régions d’Europe et du monde.
Le travail de recherche de Jouhanneau s’est penché sur la politisation des discours de mémoire et sur l’effectivité de ces tentatives. Les lignes de fracture politique mises en scène entre Bosniaques, Croates et Serbes se retrouvent-elles en réalité dans la vie, la vision, la parole des citoyens bosniens ? Pour mesurer cela, l’auteur s’est intéressé à la figure du détenu de camp, qui constitue depuis l’éclatement de la guerre un point sensible, puisqu’il incarne la figure paroxystique et symbolique de la victime/héros de guerre. Or les définitions du détenu, du camp, de l’intention des belligérants sont sujettes à un débat encore très politisé aujourd’hui. Cécile Jouhanneau a choisi d’éprouver ces concepts et l’approche qui en est faite en allant sur le terrain (à Brcko, district au statut spécifique au sein de la Bosnie-Herzégovine, qui représente parfaitement le morcellement du territoire selon des lignes ethno-nationales), pour y interviewer sur place d’anciens détenus de camps et des associations les représentant. Elle en a recueilli les témoignages qui l’ont aidée à observer une différence conséquente, non anodine, avec les discours que les leaders politiques (et certains chercheurs) veulent y plaquer.
À l’appui d’une observation scientifique, fondée sur une méthode rigoureuse qui assoit la valeur de ce travail et de ses conclusions, l’ouvrage met en exergue des schémas qui s’avèrent grossis ou biaisés par rapport à la vision qu’en ont les victimes elles-mêmes et les citoyens de façon générale. Il ne se limite pas à souligner la résistance des récits et de la mémoire des victimes de la guerre en Bosnie-Herzégovine. Il met aussi en lumière, au quotidien, sur le terrain, un évitement des sujets porteurs de conflit ou de désaccord. Ce que l’auteur appelle « civilité » constitue un levier indirect de la pacification du pays, et peut-être une clé pour sa stabilisation et la transition, qui semble tarder à se traduire dans le discours politique, vers le parachèvement d’une construction nationale.
Par son approche spécifique, et l’apport de ses conclusions, le travail de Jouhanneau permet de dépasser la rhétorique et les postures des dirigeants politiques, et offre un aperçu éprouvé de la réalité sur le terrain 20 ans après les accords de Dayton, dans un territoire qui expose clairement les limites de ces derniers. En cela, cet ouvrage comptera certainement comme une référence dans le monde francophone de la recherche sur la région des Balkans occidentaux.
Thibault Boutherin