Diplomacy & Crisis News

Présentation de la nouvelle version du site du « Monde diplomatique » : une seule colonne de texte, généreusement dimensionnée ; un accent particulier mis sur la typographie ; et l'arrivée de l'image. / Internet, Médias, A propos du « Diplo » - (...) / Internet, Médias, A propos du « Diplo » - 2015/11

U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov have announced an agreement for immediate humanitarian aid for besieged areas in Syria and a cessation of hostilities to begin within one week. The measures could relieve the northern city of Aleppo, which faces a civilian crisis amid a siege aided by Russian air power and foreign militias backing the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad. But the agreement was cast in terms that make hopes for a national cease-fire likely premature, says Noah Bonsey, senior Syria analyst for the International Crisis Group. The broader effort to negotiate a political transition may continue to founder, he adds, because the pro-Assad forces are making progress in their military push.

A finales de los ochenta, en Mapiripán empezó a hacer presencia el frente 39 de las FARC. Desde eso, el municipio ha vivido el conflicto armado como ningún otro lugar de los Llanos Orientales.

(Own report) - Germany's close allies have torpedoed the agreement to halt combat in Syria, reached at the end of last week in Munich. Turkey has begun attacks on Syrian territory, with the objective of forcing Kurdish troops to withdraw from the airbase near Aleppo, which would be of benefit to the al Qaeda offshoot, Al Nusra, which had previously held the base. Saudi Arabia has also announced intentions of sending ground troops into Syria. This threatens an escalation in the war with Saudi Arabia and the NATO member Turkey fighting on the one side, and Syria's armed forces and Russia on the other. The consequences would be unpredictable. While not only having massively built up Turkey and Saudi Arabia's arsenals, and allowing AWACS airborne radar systems to be used in the Syrian war, Berlin is focusing on the period after combat has ended. Refugees are supposed to serve as channels for enhancing German influence in Syria. The German government is also hoping to enhance its influence in Iraq through a Marshall Plan-like reconstruction effort. German military personnel are beginning to consider Russia's intervention in Syria as having prevented IS/Daesh from taking power in Damascus and carrying out offensives against other countries - including Israel.

La 21e conférence des Nations unies sur les changements climatiques, qui se réunira à Paris du 30 novembre au 11 décembre, n'a pas le droit d'échouer. Le temps presse : les pays industrialisés doivent réduire drastiquement leurs émissions de gaz à effet de serre. Mais, en dépit de signaux de plus en (...) / Capitalisme, Développement, Écologie, Industrie, Inégalités, Politique, Science, Stratégie, Matières premières, Climat, Environnement, Décroissance - 2015/11

Ni l'organisation par Paris d'une conférence internationale sur l'environnement, ni les proclamations martiales du président de la République, ni l'incorrigible contentement de soi de son ministre des affaires étrangères ne peuvent plus masquer la dégringolade diplomatique de la France. / Arabie (...) / Arabie saoudite, États-Unis, États-Unis (affaires extérieures), Europe, France, Golfe, Grèce, Proche-Orient, Syrie, Relations internationales, Diplomatie - 2015/11

Interrogée sur l'irruption fracassante de MM. Vincent Bolloré et Patrick Drahi dans l'univers des médias français, Mme Fleur Pellerin, ministre de la culture et de la communication, a eu une réponse apaisée. Qui oserait douter un instant que le pluralisme, la liberté d'expression et l'emploi des (...) / Égypte, Équateur, France, Communication, Économie, Entreprise, Finance, Industrie, Industrie de l'armement, Information, Médias, Presse - 2015/11

/ Démocratie, Écologie, Élections, Parti politique, Politique - Politique / Démocratie, Écologie, Élections, Parti politique, Politique - Politique

Fauzan al-Anshori, right, an Islamic State recruiter in Indonesia, leads the “bayat”, an oath of devotion, to the leader of Islamic State. Photo: SMH/Screengrab

Should a country’s citizens be allowed to return home after fighting for the Islamic State (ISIS)?  It would seem at first a silly question to ask—why welcome home hardened fighters who have the skills and may have the determination to threaten your country’s population?  Yet according to law in a number of countries, many of these fighters are allowed safe passage home.

Some constitutional and human rights lawyers around the world argue that safe passage should be guaranteed—that every person has the right to citizenship and to remove it would in effect make a person stateless.  Some critics argue that citizenship should only be revoked under judicial review (e.g. conviction by a court of law of an act of terrorism directed at fellow citizens).  Conviction appears to be a high standard and forces the onus of prevention on local police officials. Since preventing terrorist acts is extremely difficult—why take any chances by allowing fighters to return?

Despite the opposition by lawyers, countries are starting to take action. Following the siege of a cafe in Sydney in December 2014, Australia moved to pass measures barring its citizens who join, support or train with extremist groups like the Islamic State from returning home from conflict zones.  The new laws not only apply to Australians fighting overseas, but to those who help raise money or recruit new members for extremist groups.

In Canada, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in October 2014 at the Canadian National War Memorial in Ottawa, the country amended its Citizenship Act last May. The amendment now allows the stripping of the citizenship of dual nationals found fighting with any international terrorist organization or found guilty of terrorism, treason, or spying for a foreign government.

Austria, Belgium and Britain have also revised their laws to permit the revocation of citizenship in terrorism-related circumstances, while France is considering a change in their constitution allowing to strip French-born dual citizens of their French citizenship in certain circumstances related to terrorism. The French justice minister, born in French Guiana, recently resigned over the government’s plan. Citizens with dual nationality are being targeted largely since the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness prohibits governments from revoking a person’s nationality if it leaves them stateless.

The latest high-profile country to reconsider its citizenship laws is Indonesia, in the wake of last month’s bombings by the Islamic State in Jakarta’s commercial district, which killed eight people and injured 30 people. Lawmakers and security officials are now busy considering the rewrite of the nation’s anti-terrorism laws, which currently permit Indonesians to return home after fighting with ISIS overseas. The fear is of returning experienced jihadis launching more sophisticated attacks than the one that took place last month, which resulted in the deaths of all four attackers.

Indonesia is now home to roughly 100 Indonesians who traveled to the Middle East to join Islamic State, and may have seen very little or no frontline combat before returning. Around 500 Indonesians have made the trip so far to join ISIS.  

The bombings and shootings in Jakarta last month were the first in Indonesia carried out by ISIS, with the last major attack by Jemaah Islamiyah militants occurring in 2009, when suicide bombers killed seven at two luxury hotels in Jakarta. Indonesian authorities are now on high alert following the publication of a new warning by Islamic State that shopping centers, offices and tourist hotspots in Denpasar and Singaraja may be the next targets.

Given the potential threat posed by some of those who left their countries to join Islamic State, immigration authorities in many countries are right to be nervous about letting potential terrorists back into their country.  Citizens in these countries are already reluctant to let in refugees from Syria and Iraq—even women and children. Yet the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness prohibits leaving persons stateless.  

Perhaps the UN convention needs to be revised and updated to specifically address the world we live in today. To date, the 1961 convention argues in Article 9, “A Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds”, whose intent is likely to protect non-violent persons from persecution. However, should those persons or groups turn violent, and threaten the state, the UN convention allows for in Article 8:

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time:

(a) that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the person

(i) has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or

(ii) has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State;

(b) that the person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State.

Given proof that a citizen has travelled to the Middle East and trained as a jihadist, and represents a threat upon returning to his/her country of nationality, it would seem that citizenship could be revoked under (a) (ii). Furthermore, many recruits to Islamic State take an oath of allegiance, and if Islamic State can be defined as a State, citizenship can then be revoked under (b).  

Of course, human rights and constitutional lawyers need to fight for the rights of the innocents, but if my quick, non-lawyer reading of the Article is correct, it would appear that those citizens who travelled to the Middle East (or other regions) to join Islamic State, who took the oath, and who potentially threaten their home countries can have their citizenships revoked. With the proliferation of fake passports, however, these non-citizens will not be left stateless, and will be free to travel to and from weak and failing states, and perhaps even home.

The post Should ISIS Fighters be Allowed to Return Home? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro adjust their jackets at the start of their meeting at the United Nations General Assembly in New York September 29, 2015. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Written by Matthew Barbari

During his last State of the Union address President Obama made reference to his hope that the long-standing trade embargo between the United States and Cuba would end during his last term in office. “Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin America,” the President said adding further, “Recognize that the Cold War is over. Lift the embargo.”

Obama has already begun the process of normalizing relations with Raul Castro’s government. On July 20, 2015, diplomatic ties were restored and it was announced that the Cuban embassy in Washington D.C. would be reopened, along with the American embassy in Havana. However, since the embargo still holds, it seems that it will fall upon the next U.S. President to further Obama’s legacy and end the island’s economic isolationism.

Congressional approval has been the biggest roadblock in lifting the embargo. The Republican-controlled Congress opposes the change, still perceiving Cuba as an adversary and leaving little doubt that Obama will not witness the end of the embargo before he leaves office. While many other issues have been at the forefront of the ongoing Republican and Democratic primaries, Cuba is one that each major candidates has touched upon, providing their opinion on how to handle the relationship between Washington and Havana.

Republican Candidates’ Platforms

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio,two candidates in the Republican primary, have been particularly vocal with regard to the embargo. Both Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban dissent and both have publicly denounced President Obama’s policy of normalization, calling for an end to the embargo. Cruz has called Obama’s policy a “tragic mistake,” arguing that it gives legitimacy to the Castro regime.

Cruz believes that opening trade with the island will harm Cubans that aspire for more freedoms by allowing the communist regime in Cuba to stay to place. This sentiment is shared by Rubio, a senator from Florida, the state with the largest Cuban American population. Rubio has long been a critic of the Castro regime, judging Obama’s policy towards Cuba dangerous.

For him, lifting the embargo “threatens America’s moral standing in the region.” He has also stated that if he were elected president that he would close both embassies in Washington D.C. and Havana and would instead tighten sanctions against Cuba until the Castro regime was overthrown. This puts him at odds even with Cruz who advocates for a gradual reduction of sanctions against Cuba conditional on the improvement of their human rights record.

Democratic Candidates’ Platforms

While Republicans tend to support the embargo, many Democrats have sided with Obama, viewing the embargo has a diplomatic failure and call for the relations with Cuba to be normalized. Sen. Bernie Sanders has publicly stated that he is against the embargo and for normalizing relations, while leaving the future of Cuba up to the Cuban people. He hopes that the island will eventually become a democracy and has a track record in Congress of voting for pro-Cuban legislation. In 2015, Sanders co-sponsored a bill presented to the Senate that would allow travel between the U.S. and Cuba.

The Democratic front-runner is former Secretary of State and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton has stated publicly that she too supports Obama’s call to normalize relations, despite her past record being in favor of the sanctions. She has stated recently that the embargo is an “albatross”on the U.S. in its maneuvering in Latin America and that American foreign policy no longer needs to be viewed “through an outdated Cold War lens.”

Clinton has also taken the stance that if elected she would push Congress to lift the embargo or use her executive power to reduce travel restrictions and increase trade. She claims that during her time as Secretary of State, she asked Obama to consider ending the embargo. However, the process of normalization only began after her time as Secretary ended.

Clinton has had to defend her current position on Cuba as it contradicts her past record, having supported the embargo during her 2008 presidential campaign. Even during her time as First Lady under President Bill Clinton, she was in favor of measures to strengthen the embargo such as the Helms-Burton Act of 1996. While Clinton is allowed to change her mind about policy issues, it raises the question whether she truly supports such policies or is looking to please her pro-normalization voting base in the bid for the Democratic nomination.

Regardless of candidates’ stances on the Cuba embargo, little will happen as long as Congress remains opposed to ending it. With Raul Castro set to step down in 2018, the coming years will be crucial in Cuban history. Whether we want the U.S. to be a part of it is ultimately up to us.

The post The Cuban Embargo After Obama: The Presidential Candidates’ Platforms appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Cette recension d’ouvrages est issue de Politique étrangère (4/2015). Jérôme Marchand propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Chris Woods, Sudden Justice: America’s Secret Drone Wars (Londres, Hurst & Co, 2015, 400 pages).

Les enquêtes journalistiques sur les drones tueurs et leur déploiement dans les aires de conflit armé, multiples ces dernières années, n’ont pas forcément cherché à remettre en cause les mythes « rassurants » derrière lesquels se retranchent les instances utilisatrices. Sudden Justice représente de ce point de vue un ajout bienvenu. Écrit par un journaliste d’investigation britannique, l’ouvrage examine de près la manière dont les États-Unis font usage de drones équipés de missiles ou de bombes, en guerre « conventionnelle » ou dans le cadre de la lutte clandestine contre les mouvances terroristes ou assimilées. L’ensemble s’articule en douze chapitres suivant globalement une trame chronologique. Il évoque les premiers essais opérationnels, décrit rapidement le profil des cibles individuelles de choix, relate l’extension progressive des doctrines d’emploi, expose la manière dont les administrations concernées (USAF, JSOC, CIA) valident ou non le passage à l’acte, et n’oublie pas de donner la parole aux servants spécialisés (pilotes, observateurs, analystes, contrôleurs), de façon à déterminer l’impact psychologique de cette technologie sur ceux qui la gèrent au quotidien. Nourris de nombreux entretiens individuels, étayés par de solides recherches documentaires, ces passages se montrent vivants et instructifs.

Surtout, Sudden Justice contient des considérations critiques touchant au caractère soi-disant légaliste des frappes dirigées contre certains ressortissants occidentaux, à la fiabilité des discours et rapports officiels faisant état de dommages collatéraux réduits à des proportions minimes, au degré de précision des outils de localisation et d’identification – optiques, renseignements de terrain, profilages sigint probabilistes – utilisés en amont, à la validité profonde des systèmes de légitimation utilisés par les donneurs d’ordres. Plus significatif encore, Chris Woods revient à de multiples reprises sur l’impact contre-productif des frappes non discriminatoires – spécialité de la CIA –, qui génèrent de vastes poussées de ressentiment et de radicalisation parmi les populations touchées, déstabilisent les régimes a priori bien disposés, et vont à l’encontre des objectifs nominaux de pacification durable mis en avant par la Maison-Blanche.

Pour autant, l’ouvrage se garde de basculer dans la charge accusatoire. Quoiqu’exposé à la désinformation et au black-out des bureaucraties concernées, quoique menacé de représailles létales par un « fin dialecticien » du renseignement d’État, l’auteur a su maintenir un discours équilibré, tenant compte des périls que représentent les mouvances extrémistes et des avantages que présente le drone armé, par rapport au support aérien classique. À signaler également que Sudden Justice pose sur le président Obama un regard plutôt tempéré, alors même que l’actuel Chief Executive a étendu le périmètre des assassinats ciblés ou prétendus tels, et lâché la bride à des instances bureaucratiques peu encombrées de nuances et de remords. Point notable, l’auteur attire quand même l’attention sur les effets de dé-légitimation profonde et durable auxquels s’expose une puissance dite dominante qui use et abuse du mensonge officiel pour neutraliser les garanties juridiques de base et masquer ses bavures. Verdict final de l’auteur : pour le moment, la manière qu’ont les États-Unis de solliciter les drones tueurs constitue un exemple à ne pas suivre.

Jérôme Marchand

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

Les négociations internationales sur le climat négligent trop souvent les océans. C'est pourquoi les associations, les scientifiques et les citoyens doivent se mobiliser à l'occasion de la COP21. L'un des enjeux majeurs sera la définition de règles précises concernant la protection des espaces marins (...) / Animal, Eau, Écologie, Mer, Climat, Environnement - 2015/11

(Own report) - In an article published by the leading German foreign policy journal, an influential diplomat predicts that worldwide, there will be a further increase in the number of wars and their victims, this year. "The number of conflicts, their victims, and their refugees" has been increasing worldwide, for the past five years and this development will "most likely continue this year." The journal, "Internationale Politik," substantiates this assumption by presenting an overview of the current wars. Today's deadliest wars - in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Afghanistan, and South Sudan - are indeed a direct or indirect outcome of western hegemonic policies. With its military interventions or subversive support for insurgents, this policy is aimed at provoking pro-western putsches or weakening non-compliant states. "Internationale Politik" assesses the possibility of conflicts in China's vicinity. During the years of China's rise, western powers were unsuccessful in knitting strong ties with the resource-rich Arab world, in view of the impending power struggle with the People's Republic of China. This power struggle is already emerging.

China’s African strategy

Speculations over China’s plans to set up a “logistical facility” in the East African country of Djibouti were put to rest following an announcement by the Chinese foreign ministry that the two countries have reached a consensus on the proposal. Although lacking a detailed timeline, the agreement will come as a natural conclusion to what has been an ever tightening of relations between the two countries, dating back to China’s involvement in anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden back in 2008.

However, unlike NATO countries and Japan who are also conducting anti-piracy missions in Djibouti, China currently has no permanent naval base in the region. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Hong Lei, “In fulfilling escort missions, [China] encountered real difficulties in replenishing soldiers and resupplying fuel and food, and found it really necessary to have nearby and efficient logistical support.”

Djibouti was the natural choice for the Chinese given that the former French colony already hosts a number of European outposts as well as Camp Lemonnier, the U.S. expeditionary base from where drone operations in Yemen and Somalia are conducted.

In recognition of Djibouti´s geostrategic importance, the country has been the recipient of many financial blandishments from China over the past few years. These include the $590 million injection of funds for the development of its port, aimed at transforming it into a major transshipment terminal, and investment in the $4 billion railway connection between Djibouti and its landlocked neighbor, Ethiopia. It also comes on the back of a deal to set up a free trade zone for Chinese companies in Djibouti and allow Chinese banks to begin operating in the country.

While undoubtedly important, China’s first overseas military facility in Djibouti only accounts for a small piece in a much bigger puzzle being put together by Beijing. Djibouti, and its much larger neighbor to the north, Egypt, mark the final stage posts in the maritime leg of China’s ambitious One Belt One Road (OBOR) project: a vast trade route encircling half the globe and connecting China with Europe along the ancient Silk Road.

Supported by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund, the overland route will see massive investments in infrastructure, stretching from western China through central Asia and the Middle East into Europe via Russia, Greece and Turkey.

For the maritime route to be successful, it will require that Chinese merchant ships are able to reach the Suez Canal unhindered after traversing the Indian Ocean. Djibouti’s position on the cusp of the Red Sea, leading into the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean, makes it a vital node in that network.

Given that investment in OBOR is expected to top one trillion dollars over the next 10 to 15 years, it is no surprise that the People´s Liberation Army has been slowly moving away from its traditional stance of protecting the homeland and towards establishing a force projection capability in line with its expanding overseas interests.

This newfound assertiveness, of which the base in Djibouti is China’s first statement of intent, is being watched with caution by Western capitals. But according to Shen Dingli, a professor of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, as quoted in the New York Times, it is keeping in line with the behavior of any power whose financial interests abroad are in need of protection.

“The United States has been expanding its business all around the world and sending its military away to protect those interests for 150 years,” Mr. Shen said. “Now, what the United States has done in the past, China will do again.”

However, while China is free to pursue its political ambitions, its presence will most definitely have a negative impact on Djibouti’s freedoms. Beijing’s strict policy of noninterference means that President Ismael Omar Guelleh knows that Beijing will not be critical of his bid to run for a fourth term as president this coming April.

Ever since he inherited the presidency from his uncle in 1999, Guelleh has used a combination of coercion and bribery to keep his hold on power. In 2010 he amended the constitution and scrapped term limits, reneging on earlier promises to run for no more than two terms.

Since then the country has continued its slide down the international rankings for press freedom and human rights and political instability has grown. In 2014, Djibouti suffered its first terrorist attack against Western personnel in the country, stoking fears that the presence of foreign soldiers in a poor, oppressed Muslim country could provide a fertile breeding ground for Islamic extremism. And last December, up to 19 opposition activists were killed when police opened fire at a religious procession, prompting the International Criminal Court to officially place Djibouti on its watch list.

While Guelleh has promised to transform the country into Africa’s Dubai or Singapore, feverishly courting Beijing and Washington for continued financial assistance, the upcoming presidential elections will most likely dispel the fiction that Djibouti and its people are actually benefiting from international attention.

The post China’s Military Pivot to Africa just got Serious appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.