Foreign Policy Blogs

President Trump’s pronouncements always generate froth, by his words and in the reporting and recrimination that follows.  But in Brussels, before his Helsinki meeting with Putin, he did, again, call NATO obsolete. Once any President raises it, the question takes on a life of its own.  And if NATO’s value is in doubt, who should be our allies?  That in turn raises the question: just what do we need for security?  While the President’s view about NATO is unsettling, raising the question should lead policy makers to examine their assumptions, and answer based on something beyond historical inertia.  The public deserves a considered discussion about NATO, alliances, and security, starting from the ground up.

Security is hard to define: so many developments in the world might pose threats.  The cyber realm can by itself transmit destruction; it also carries information and disinformation that can amount to attacks.  Aside from that infinity of hazard, who might take to terrorism against us, and what collapsed states might house them?  Which rising powers might overtake us, and will they employ military, economic, cyber, cultural, or some as-yet unimagined effort?  What about my job, and what about climate change?

Amid all the fears people seek security against, public discourse says little about what we need security for.  Absent an answer to that question, anything at all could pose a security hazard, and countering everything requires infinite resources.

Possible answers, after excluding everyone’s laundry lists of motherhood and apple pie, will range widely.  Americans might need only physical safety and equal market access throughout the world.  Some would hope to protect man’s capacity to find nirvana.

Presumably, most definitions would give democracy and other liberal principles high priority. Hopefully, most Americans would list living by our founding creed, the “self evident” truths over which the signers of the Declaration of Independence divorced their ethnic motherland — unalienable rights equally imbued in all, and government created to secure those rights.

A nation defined by a principle depends for its existence on validation of that principle.  Validation of our creed includes the traditional security that allows a free society to stay free, but also requires that measures to protect society comport with its principles.

What defense and diplomatic policies would serve this type of security need?  A range of configurations might work.  Anna Simons of the Naval Post Graduate School advocates a minimalist foreign policy, butting out of other nations’ sovereignty while punishing any transgression of ours.  John Ikenberry would revive the current Liberal World Order, as the best expression of America’s values.  Barry Posen of the Naval War College would revamp force structures to limit our commitments to certain key needs.  Zalmay Khalilzad sees room to make NATO more viable for the 21st Century.

A concern that has not been addressed is that today’s communications technology makes it possible actually to attack a country’s national narrative.  Narrative is not only the words expressing your values.  It includes actions and arrangements that fit your claims, and your ability to keep to them.  Security for America, and the shape of alliances, must reinforce America’s national narrative.

NATO membership includes many of the world’s firmly democratic nations, but a few that are moving toward authoritarian government.  It also excludes a number of deeply liberal democracies, most of them friendly to the U.S. and some formally allied but outside of NATO.  The premises of all those alliances are diverse, but none names the common commitment to liberal democracy.  Yet this is the basis for alliances that would fit our national narrative.  NATO itself may not — but, combing out the most egregious backsliders from liberal values, and asking the other liberal democracies to join, it could form the heart of a fitting alliance structure.

The grouping would likely comprise NATO members minus Turkey and Hungary, plus Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, Sweden, Denmark, Iceland, Finland and perhaps Chile.  It could only be assembled in a strategically defensive orientation, protecting the needs of members’ liberal lifestyles and limiting its geopolitical power projection.  The group should encourage other nations to develop toward deeper liberalism, and tighten relations with any that do.  Countries that become deeply compatible, as, say, Indonesia, Ghana, or Brazil might in coming decades, should be offered membership.

Any arrangement of this sort is hypothetical and speculative.  But reflections of this nature are needed now, to look through fresh eyes at basic questions we already face.  Those questions will not abate, and enduring answers will require that we take them up with open minds.  But those answers should, in this new and disorienting age, start from our founding principles.

The post What If NATO Really IS Obsolete? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Presented by Intelligence Squared U.S. in partnership with Georgetown University live at the first Georgetown University Women’s Forum

The post Intelligence Squared U.S. Debates – The proposition “Globalization Has Undermined America’s Working Class” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Disruptors are becoming ever more prevalent as bold solutions are offered for global problems. In health, transport, and agriculture big ideas are at the centre of fierce debates about reform and innovation; nowhere is this more evident than in education.

In developing countries, quality education for the poor is rare:  263 million children are out of school and 330 million children are in school but not learning. 69 million more teachers are needed. With many calling for more funding to meet demand, it is only now that the global community is unifying around ‘outcomes’ rather than ‘access’ as a benchmark for success and calling for innovationto help solve the learning crisis.

Sadly, at the moment nearly 600 million children are being failed; enabling those 600 million to go to a school where they actually learn is a mammoth global task and underpins Sustainable Development Goal 4 (SDG4). Re-building weak public school systems; putting in place capacity building programs; re-invigorating teacher training programs and enabling governments to generate enough financing to fund all this will take many years, if not decades.

Providing high quality schooling for all children clearly requires innovation, partnership and collaboration from all sectors that have the expertise and commitment to contribute. Yet many anti-reformists vehemently argue that SDG4 should not be pursued in partnership with the private sector. Their justification for this is often ostensibly rooted in Article 26 of the UN’s Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). The 1948 UDHR ‘strives to promote these rights and freedoms and secure universal and effective recognition’; but 70 years on; 600 million children are proof that the approach taken to fulfilling Article 26’s goals so far, has failed. Section one of the Article has five clear components a) Everyone has the right to education b) Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages and c) Elementary education shall be compulsory d) Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and e) higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit.

Many educators, including Bridge, believe that a strong free public school system delivering real learning for each and every child is the ideal. However, we must be pragmatic as well as idealistic if we accept the fundamental urgency of the learning crisis.If we believe that a) education is a right then we must strive to help fulfill that right urgently. If c) education must be compulsory, then we must urgently build and develop enough schools, classrooms and teachers for 600 million children to be served. If these rights, outlined in Article 26, cannot be urgently met by existing public systems then they must be met using other models. Otherwise, parents must wait until all governments build the will, the resources, and the capacity to provide the poor the education their children deserve. This is an unacceptable position and offers families no hope. Therefore, the ability to compromise on clause b, in the short term, is essential; a failure to do so will perpetuate the cycle of educational death for another generation of children. Clause b is often arbitrarily proclaimed by status quo defenders as most essential: education must be free. They argue, compulsory education for all (clauses a and c) must be delivered by existing public sector frameworks without any social impact investment; returns based financing or public private partnership models. According to them, governments must deliver the holy grail of strong, regenerated and reinvigorated public schools from within a failing system. Despite good intentions, this has been unachievable for the last 70 years.  This argument locates them firmly in the realm of the ideologues who place theory above the immediate needs of children.

It is only through embracing new, innovative, scalable and sustainable models that clause b will ever be achievable. The clear alternative to private sector assistance is that hundreds of millions of children remain uneducated for the years or decades it may take for all governments to reform and develop a strong primary education system. It is the verhement resistance to this logic which leads education reformers to talk about an ideological divide.

This ideological divide is increasingly visible through coordinated public attacks on the private sector and its innovations. Often driven by those that have no constituency in the communities or the countries benefiting from private sector interventions; by those that have neither experienced first hand the innovations they critique nor reviewed the materials they condemn. Perhaps, more importantly by those that do not offer any practical solutions to ensure that the 600 million can urgently learn.

Against this backdrop there are millions of parents who are choosing schools like Bridge. In Kenya alone, there are two million children alone attending ‘informal schools’. These parents are from communities living in extreme poverty, often in slums. These parents are choosing not to send their child to the nearby public school, for which they often pay, because their public school is failing; only 51% of Kenyan parents rated the quality of free to attend schools in Kenya as good.Children are not learning; teachers are struggling and parents are frustrated that their children are being failed. A parent with school aged children cannot wait for the rebuilding of public school systems; capacity building programs; re-invigorated teacher training programs. They have to send their child to school today. They choose schools where they can be intimately involved:  chairing regional and national PTAs; sitting on school boards; attending workshops. They are invested in their child’s education in every sense, as are their communities, and their children thrive. They are the living embodiment of Article 26’s section three: ‘Parents have a prior right to choose the kind of education that shall be given to their children.’

At the heart of parental choice is a parents’ desire for good teachers and  an environment that supports their child’s learning. However, teachers in developing countries face considerable challenges; they themselves struggle with literacy and numeracy; they often do not have materials with which to teach let alone good materials; they have overcrowded classrooms; often they are not paid on time, if at all; in remote communities with poor infrastructure there is no support or guidance and teacher absenteeism levels are extraordinarily high. This is the plight of many teachers and because of this, it is unfathomable that activists who claim to support teachers would seek to protect the status quo. They seek to protect labor and agitate against a focus on teacher performance. Whereas , teachers themselves are actively seeking environments where they have access to professional development opportunities and can practice their chosen profession with pride.

Nearly all primary schools in sub-Saharan Africa are failing their pupils. Solutions that utilize a wide range of partners is essential and using Article 26 to undermine these partnerships is nonsensical.

Joanna Hindley is the Vice President of Bridge International Academics. 

The post Education Is A Right That Must Be Fulfilled Urgently appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

At any given time, India contains an estimated 18.4 million victims of modern slavery. Of that number, 26 percent, or 5.5 million, are children.

India is no exception to the trend that trafficking and subsequent slavery are shown to be most prevalent in countries producing consumer goods through low-cost labor, as the rural elite have used slavery to augment their industrial financial gains for generations. Forced labor – debt bondage, indentured servitude, caste-based slavery, trafficking, enticement, abduction – is distinctly used by the rural elite to increase production in agricultural or textile industries. Often, at the mercy of the rural elite, the victims of slavery belong to poor families, a low social strata of the society, or from low caste poor families and mainly work in rural areas. Unfortunately, this is no surprise. Approximately 70 percent of trafficking victims in India belong to Scheduled Castes or Tribes – also called ‘Dalit’ classes – and are among the most disadvantaged socio-economic groups in India.

Though most in the Dalit classes are prone to economic and social vulnerability, they are the most susceptible to trafficking and other forms of slavery because of opinions of the rural elite. The rural elite may see control of lower classes as their divinely ordained, seigniorial right over people they view as serfs. To make matters worse, those in lower classes face the pressure of making wealth to survive, the need to repay debts, illiteracy and the lack of education, all of which may serve as driving forces in their vulnerability to elites who view them as lesser beings.

There is also an increasing trend of children being trafficked for domestic labor for the rural elite, who also have been shown to subject entire villages to debt bondage. Further, children forced into slavery, either from their villages or captured individually, by the rural elite may have previously been kicked out of shelters, forced beggars, gang members, or trafficked by illegal placement agencies.  

The market of sex slavery in India best illustrates the exploitation faced by victims of human trafficking. Close to 80 percent of the human trafficking is done for sexual exploitation and India is considered as the hub of this crime in Asia, with young girls also being smuggled from neighboring Nepal and Bangladesh. More than half of total commercial sex workers in India are from Nepal and Bangladesh, which can be attributed to prevailing abject poverty and ignorance in both these countries compared with India. Thus, India is not only a destination for human sex trafficking, but also a transit country for trading these victims internationally.

The prevalence of sex trafficking has additional implications for the status of women in India. Female victims with a lower social status, little to no possessions, or financially desperate have been historically easy targets for traffickers. Additionally, social pressures compel women to remain within the confines of the domestic sphere and the restricted movement, lack of education, and prevention from social and economic activities deprives the women from accessing justice, equality, and subjects them to abuses of human rights. As a result, traffickers are able to coax women into giving in to commercial sexual exploitation in order to support themselves or their dependents, as well as better their financial situation despite their circumstances. These empty promises often result in kidnapping, forced marriages, selling or bartering women for opium, wealth, or labor, and recurrent rape. Women who are sold – specifically to brothels, placement agencies, or as child brides – are bought through dealers on the black market. Once sold as sex slaves, particularly to brothels, victims seldom come back to normal life, as the impact of the suffering is so intense they often lose their mental balance and accept life as prostitutes. Those who try to escape are either killed or punished so brutally they become permanently mentally or physically scarred. These horrifying realities faced by millions of women and girls is a product of one of the fastest growing organized crimes and most lucrative criminal activity in the world that is increasing annually.

Actions taken by the Indian government and intergovernmental organizations, individually and in collaboration, to combat human trafficking have yielded mixed results. The 2008 Vienna Forum, a United Nations conference bringing together Member States, other international organizations, the business community, academia, and civil society, was planned to address different dimensions of human trafficking. The Forum examined existing definitions of and practices related to the prevention of trafficking and, by focusing on decreasing vulnerability, planned to broaden the strategic impact of existing prevention efforts.

While the global community addressing the issues of human trafficking is a stride towards preventing the crime, especially as it included the business world, limited actions were taken following this conference. In India specifically, identifying those vulnerable is not an easy task, as poverty alone cannot be the sole criteria to identify the poor. In addition to the lack of material resources, one needs to include indicators such as lack of power and choice. Reduction of vulnerability for the poor, therefore, is difficult for the government alone to accomplish.

Instead, the Indian government has looked towards crime prevention as an approach to combating human trafficking. This includes toughened criminal penalties for child prostitution and forced marriage, as well as improvements to protect victims, as well as Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s 2016 demonetization scheme. This plan, announced in November of that year, was aimed, among other things, to hit out at black money, parallel economy and criminal activities to specifically impact industries run by the rural elite, as they thrive on illegally obtained income.

While this demonetization scheme will likely deal a severe blow to human trafficking activities, the India government will likely need to do more to aid victims and crack down on officials who are involved in human trafficking. In the meantime, the rural elite still profit from human labor and human rights violations continue to go undisturbed. The cycle of human bondage in India must be broken, and only time will tell if the efforts, past and present, of the Indian government and other outside organizations will pay off.

The post Human Trafficking in India: Abuse from the Rural Elite and the Wider Implications appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A New Study Documents Meticulously a Wide Range of German Expert Opinion on Ukrainian Affairs and on Their Current Perception in Germany

Germany is Western Europe’s demographically and economically most significant country, while Ukraine has, in the post-Soviet period, become a geopolitical pivot state of Eastern Europe as well as the territorially largest exclusively European country (Russia and Turkey have parts of their territories in Europe, but most of them in Asia).

There are deep historical links between Ukrainians and Germans. One of many such connections was facilitated by the adoption of the famous Magdeburg Town Law by several Ukrainian cities – including Ukraine’s capital Kyiv, which holds a monument to the Magdeburg Law – during the 15th-19th centuries. During the pre-Soviet period, a multitude of close Ukrainian-German cooperation schemes in such fields as business, development, science, education and culture were and continue being implemented. For these and many other reasons, it is surprising how little attention the nature of the relationship, links, and feelings between the two large European nations have been received so far, in the study of European history and international relations.

While Ukrainian interest in Germany has always been very high, German interest in and information on Ukraine has only recently started to grow. In 2006, the Research Centre for East European Studies at the University of Bremen started to publish its regular German-language electronic bulletin (with the?) Ukraine-Analysen– publishing 201 issues so far. Two further specialized German-language websites, Ukraine-Nachrichten (News on Ukraine), founded in 2007, and Ukraine verstehen (Understanding Ukraine), founded in 2017, are improving German understanding of Ukraine today.

Systematic reflection on German-Ukrainian relations has also been improving, though more slowly. In 2010, Hamburg historian Frank Golczewski published a large volume on German-Ukrainian relations in the inter-war period (Deutsche und Ukrainer 1914-1939. Paderborn: Schöningh, 1058 pp.). A number essays and papers have since explored Ukraine’s presentation and misrepresentation in German media, as well as Germany’s involvement in Ukraine’s ongoing transformation.

With its new study Ukraine in Germany’s Eyes: Pictures and Perceptions of a Land in Transition, the Ukrainian program of the German Corporation for International Cooperation (GIZ) provides an extremely informative and partly revealing documentation of German views on today’s Ukraine. The investigation follows the methodology of an earlier GIZ project on the perception of Germany across the world, which asked international experts on Germany and how the German nation is perceived in their home countries. The GIZ’s 2017 Ukraine study is not a broad statistical survey of German attitudes towards Ukraine, but a deep qualitative survey of German images, interpretations, opinions, evaluations, stereotypes, knowledge, and expectations related to Ukraine. These features are drawn from 1014 statements made by 44 Germans who are, to one degree or another, especially familiar with, or interested in, Ukraine. They comprise – partly, prominent – of scholars, entrepreneurs, civic activists, journalists, artists and politicians, among the latter, for instance, the Green Member of European Parliament Rebecca Harms and the former Minister-President of Saxony and current G7 envoy to Ukraine Professor Georg Milbradt.

As the project’s initiator and supervisor Andreas von Schumann makes clear in his introduction, the purposes of this investigation was not to “search for [objective] truth” about Ukraine; rather, “[w]e wanted to distil the commonalities that can be established in various perceptions [about Ukraine] among different persons [in Germany], which contours these pictures of Ukraine have, [and] what kind of profile as well as distortions are recognizable.” Von Schumann extracts two fundamental features in the evaluations of the 44 German specialized interview partners. The consulted German experts, first, perceive the German “view on Ukraine as being too narrow, the knowledge [in Germany about Ukraine] as too sketchy, and [Germans’] attention to [Ukrainian developments] as too volatile as well as their evaluations [of Ukrainian matters] as too slimly grounded.” The surveyed German specialists, second, express, according to von Schumann,

A deep desire that Germany and the Germans would engage, with Ukraine, more frequently and intensely. This hope is grounded on several motifs: historic responsibility of the Germans, the cultural diversity of Ukraine, the economic potential of the country, the necessity to provide for stability in Europe’s East and the possible impulses [of this engagement] for the further development of the EU. Yet the most obvious motif, among our conversation partners, was their excitement about their own rapprochement with Ukraine. Independently of the concrete occasion that let them make Ukraine their central interest, most of [the interviewees] emphasized the ‘clean sheet’ at the beginning which was to quickly transform into a ‘colourful canvas.’ p. 7.

Since 2014, the German view on Ukraine and the study documents has become dominated by three negatives “K’s” – Krieg, Krise, Krim (war, crisis, Crimea). This image is only marginally improved by two older positive “K’s” for the once celebrated football team “Dynamo Kyiv” and for Klitschko, the surname of the two famous boxing world champions Viktor and Volodymyr, who used to live and are still popular in Germany. Apart from reporting common German stereotypes such as these about Ukraine, the GIZ study offers a multitude of insights into the scale of different German perceptions: topics such as Ukraine’s regime changes, reforms, corruption, nationalism, foreign affairs, European aspirations, cultural divisions, relations with Russia, and relevance to Germany.

Thus the study finds that, for instance, in German assessments of today’s Ukrainian changes, “hardly any other sector is mentioned as many times as an example for lacking reform efforts as the justice system. This is because a reform of the electoral law and the creation of an anti-corruption court – both major demands of the reformers – will decide the future division of power in the country. It is crucial that the rule of law is implemented in all public affairs” (pp. 58-59).

With regard to foreign affairs, the answers of the various experts are more diverse and partly contradictory. One interviewee cited in the study asserts: “To join NATO is not a good idea for Ukraine because this means the formation of new blocks. Ukraine has to behave neutrally and try to find a common language with Russia.” A respondent assesses that “NATO cannot fulfill the role of guarantee power for Ukraine.” Yet, the conclusion from this is that “the EU has to get ‘teeth’ and become a security actor, on the European continent. The EU and Germany, to be sure, have through negotiation of the Minsk Agreements already taken upon themselves considerable responsibility, and the German government supports ‘resolutely’ the [Ukrainian] reform process. ‘But’ – asks a respondent rhetorically – ‘does this solve the conflict – especially if Russia plays upon time?’” (p. 76).

The study is not only valuable in that it well illustrates various German interpretations of these themes, but also – by documenting the views of many of Germany’s leading experts on Ukraine and how they talk about their country of interest – the booklet provides insights on how the German public will be informed about future developments in and around Ukraine. In view of Germany’s importance to the course of EU foreign affairs, in general, and policies towards Kyiv, in particular, this dense investigation of German interpretations of Ukrainian matters will become essential reading for everybody interested in Ukraine’s current and future international relations and gradual European integration.

Andreas Umland is Senior Fellow at the Institute for Euro-Atlantic Cooperation in Kyiv, and editor of the ibidem Press book series “Soviet and Post-Soviet Politics and Society.”

The post How Germany sees Ukraine appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Everything is ready for US President Donald Trump to land on Tuesday in Brussels where he will later participate in the NATO summit. A meeting where the tensions instigated by the White House among the rest of the 28 countries will serve as a reference for the face-to-face meeting scheduled for next Monday in Helsinki between the president and his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin.

While the administration of the Republican sought last week to relax the growing nervousness among the members of the transatlantic alliance, Trump himself did not hesitate to instigate anew discord by remembering that the United States pays “between 70 and 90 percent to protect Europe and that’s fine. Of course, they kill us on trade.” In this way, there will be two main themes – the trade deficit of 151,000 million dollars with the European Union and the fact that countries like Germany only pay 1 percent of their GDP to the budget of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization.

Before the meeting at NATO headquarters on July 11–12, the US president reminded European allies of the need to strictly implement the agreement and increase military spending. Last year, the United States accounted for 51.1 percent of the combined GDP of NATO members and 71.7 percent of its defense spending. The largest economy in the world contributed more funds to the Alliance than Germany, France, Italy, Spain, the United Kingdom and Canada combined. Leaving aside the United States, only five countries have met spending standards, including Greece, the United Kingdom, Estonia, Poland and Romania.

Even so, the US ambassador to NATO, Kay Bailey Hutchison, said during a press conference that although some countries still have to do more in this regard, more than half of the members are on track to achieve the goal of spend 2 percent of its GDP on defense by 2024. Hutchison used the occasion to make clear that there were no plans to make changes among the 32,000 American troops located in Germany, as part of the Alliance and other missions, as had been rumored. “We will talk about the biggest increase in defense spending by our allies since the Cold War,” said the ambassador, who insisted that all members “are increasing defense spending.”

Indeed, during the weekend, the German Chancellor, Angela Merkel, said that the NATO countries were aimed to maintain reasonable relations with Russia. “Of course, we want to have a responsible relationship with Russia,” Merkel said in the statement, adding “that’s the reason why we will continue to have talks in the NATO-Russia Council.” At the same time though, the alliance “has to show determination to protect us,” she said.

The relations between Moscow and the West reached a critical turning point in Ukraine and the accession of Crimea to Russia after the 2014 referendum, in which more than 96 percent of the voters supported this decision. That year, the EU, the USA and several countries responded by imposing sanctions against Russia for its supposed role in the crisis, something that Moscow denied, hence it chose to activate an agri-food embargo to those who imposed restrictive measures against it.

That said, even when Washington has imposed severe reprisals on Russia and has expelled Russian diplomats, Trump at all times refuses to criticize Putin directly, something that some implicitly consider undermining NATO’s confidence. “The alliance faces a new set of challenges. Some analysts warn of a Cold War redux, pointing to Russia’s military incursions into Georgia and Ukraine as well as its efforts to sow political discord in NATO countries,” highlights Jonathan Masters, analyst of the Council on Foreign Relations.

Trump’s lukewarm support of NATO has led some European allies to question the US commitment. Before the Wednesday and Thursday summit, many members of the Alliance suggested that any sign of disunity will only fuel Moscow’s aggressiveness. “The alliance has responded by reinforcing defenses in Europe, but political rifts between members, some opened by the United States, have thrown NATO unity into question,” explains Masters.

Jeremy McCoy is a freelance journalist published in such media outlets as History Today, Activist Post, Veterans Today, Global Research, OffGuardian and Ground Report.

The post Trump Raises Doubts in NATO Allies appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On 2 April 2018, Ethiopia’s restless new Prime Minister Abiy Ahmed was sworn into power. Since then the Federal Republic of Ethiopia has found itself in a whirlwind of reform. Ethiopia is undergoing its most significant changes since the 1991 birth of the EPRDF ruling coalition under its controversial leader, Meles Zenawi. The last two months have witnessed the realigning of Ethiopia’s economy and bilateral relations with previous foes such as Eritrea and Egypt.

Prime Minister Ahmed has hit the ground running in terms of political reforms with the overdue lifting of the State of Emergency that has existed since the abrupt resignation of his predecessor in February 2018. In a landmark move, Ethiopia’s government has released thousands of dissidents in an olive branch to the opposition. This is part of the Prime Minister’s new policy of opening the political space which has included the release of leaders of the opposition. These policies have proved widely popular amongst Ethiopia’s population, especially in the Oromia region where the Prime Minister hails from.

Of all the reform policies by Prime Minister Ahmed the one that has captured the imagination is his policy of rapprochement towards Eritrea. In 2000, Ethiopia under its late Prime Minister, Meles Zenawi signed an agreement with Eritrea to end the bloody border war between the neighbouring states. The agreement came to be subsequently known as the Algiers agreement and it demarcated the boundary between Ethiopia and Eritrea. On 5th June 2019, Ethiopia’s new, reformist Prime Minister Dr Abiy Ahmed agreed to “fully implement” the Algiers agreement and cede land back to Eritrea.

This is a monumental shift in Ethiopia’s political consensus forged under the transformative Meles Zenawi. The risks in the long term are that such a deal may empower other ethnic groups within the Federal regions to agitate for changes in boundary demarcation now that the new government is seen as responsive. However, it is worth noting that Prime Minister Abiy is universally popular in all regions of Ethiopia and especially his home region of Oromia, which was at the epicentre of anti-government protests from 2014 onwards.

In another landmark move, Prime Minister Ahmed recently met with his Egyptian counterpart, President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi where both discussed the ongoing tensions over the Nile. Egypt has long been opposed to Ethiopia’s Grand Renaissance Dam, a $4 billion hydroelectric project that harvests the Blue Nile to power Ethiopia’s economy.  For years, negotiations between Ethiopia and Egypt have been deadlocked with the latter believing the Grand Renaissance Dam would harm Egypt’s access to the Nile which is critical for its industrial and agricultural sector.

For the first time, in a landmark statement, an Ethiopian leader has promised that Egypt’s share of the Nile will be preserved by Ethiopia. As part of the ongoing agreement, both sides (along with Sudan) will also set up an infrastructure fund for investing in the three countries. In the medium term such a policy of deescalating tensions with Egypt allows Ethiopia’s government to devote political capital on more pressing domestic concerns such as the liberalisation of what is considered Africa’s fastest growing economy.

On 6 June 2018, Ethiopia’s new government announced that the state will end its decades old monopoly in key sectors such as telecoms, energy and aviation. Reformist Prime Minister Ahmed is keen to modernize Ethiopia’s economy by privatizing key state-owned enterprises and limiting the state’s tight control on all aspects of the economy.

Ethiopia’s government hopes such increased inward investment will allow the state to create jobs for its increasing numbers of unemployed young people. In a country of 105 million people, absorbing more disaffected youth into its labour markets will prove crucial to Ethiopia’s future stability. Of interest to foreign investors is Ethiopia’s telecoms monopoly, Ethio Telecom which will be part privatised. Already major foreign operators such as MTN Africa have already signalled their interestin Ethiopia’s thriving telecoms sector.

Another lucrative asset to be privatised is Ethiopian Airlines which is considered Africa’s most successful airlines in terms of operations and profits. That the Ethiopian government is willing to privatise its previously untouchable cash cows shows how serious Prime Minister Ahmed’s administration is towards structural economic reform.

If done correctly, the liberalisation of Ethiopia’s economy offers substantial opportunities for the state and investors in the long term. According to the IMF, in 2017, Ethiopia’s economy was among the fastest growing in the world and it is set to expand 8.5% this year. The risks of privatisation to Ethiopia’s economy are minimal as analysts have long argued that Ethiopia’s economy requires an injection of competition to fulfill its enormous potential.

Going forward, Ethiopia’s target to attain lower-middle income status by 2025 will only be reached when it is able to limit the outsized role played by its large, state-owned enterprises. Finally, Ethiopia’s opening up of key sectors was in response to the visit of the IMF Managing Director in December 2017, where Ethiopia was advised to abandon its strategy of debt financed growth to maintain its impressive annual growth rates. Although such a strategy enabled Ethiopia to record impressive growth rates for the last several years, it is not sustainable in the long run as state-owned enterprises have not been able to create enough jobs for Ethiopia’s population of 105 million.

This article was first published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Bashir Ali. 

The post Ethiopia Between Risk and Reform appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Anti-Access/Area-Denial capabilities (A2/AD)—the ability to prevent an adversary from entering an area of land, sea, or air—have become a major component of military force postures for powers around the globe, but Russia is the most committed to advancing their development. Russian A2/AD capabilities are shaping NATO’s neighborhood and the Alliance needs a comprehensive strategy to counter them effectively in times of peace, crisis, and conflict.

Russian A2/AD capabilities include traditional air power, unmanned aerial vehicles, maritime capabilities (including submarines and offensive mining), offensive and defensive missile systems (such as the Iskander, Bastion, Kalibr, and S-400), offensive electronic warfare, special operations forces, and cyber capabilities.

During last year’s major military exercise, Zapad-2017, Russia practiced creating three A2/AD bubbles—in the High North, the Kaliningrad Oblast, and Crimea—to limit NATO’s freedom of maneuver and hinder the deployment of large US military formations.

The whole territory of Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, and Poland, as well as parts of Norway, Romania, and Turkey, are within range of different elements of this Russian A2/AD architecture, which will make it much harder for NATO to defend these areas. A scenario where allied forces must break through Russia’s A2/AD system is highly probable.

Russia’s A2/AD systems are important for two other reasons.

First, a leaner chain of command and streamlined decision-making system mean Russia can act much faster than NATO allowing it to achieve escalation control.

Second, nuclear weapons remain a crucial element of Russia’s escalation dominance strategy. In a situation when allied forces would consider breaking through Russia’s A2/AD system, Russia could threaten to use its nuclear capabilities as a deterrent. Russia’s careful calculations of thresholds and escalation triggers have been more a matter of preference than necessity in a larger military strategy. Through this approach, Russia can control the level of conflict escalation, dominating the mechanism and circumstance of escalations where nuclear elements play a fundamental role.

The NATO summit in Brussels on July 11 and 12 will be the third consecutive one to address the Russian A2/AD threat. Since 2014, NATO has adopted several steps to mitigate some of the challenges linked to A2/AD. NATO’s counter-A2/AD strategy should be based on a strategic six-pack.

First, NATO needs improved advanced defense planning to reflect the constantly changing nature and integration of Russia’s A2/AD capabilities. The Alliance must plan now for entry operations into a non-permissive environment in the future.

Second, NATO’s decision-making processes, including both political and military elements, also must be streamlined. If there is anything the Russian A2/AD systems are vulnerable to, it is the speed of NATO’s actions in the early phases of a crisis. Increasing the speed of recognition, decision, and assembly of forces could considerably diminish the effectiveness of Russia’s A2/AD capabilities.

Third, NATO should increase the number of forces and equipment on allied territory covered by the Russian A2/AD bubbles. There is no better way to deter the A2/AD threat than by stationing additional forces in the theater. This process should be preceded by strengthening the concept of pre-positioning of additional military equipment.

Fourth, readiness, deployability, and sustainability of large military formations, especially ground forces, should be enhanced. NATO’s reinforcement strategy should envisage plans for such formations to break through and operate in an A2/AD environment.

Fifth, the NATO Defense Planning Process should prioritize capabilities, including heavy ones, to counter A2/AD systems on land, in the air, and at sea. These should include electronic warfare, anti-submarine warfare, air defense, Joint Intelligence, Surveillance and Reconnaissance, as well as precision-guided artillery. These capabilities should be embraced by the cross-domain fires concept.

And, sixth, allied formations must regularly train in a non-permissive environment to practice for potential deployments. Moving troops into a zone covered by A2/AD specifically should be an important element of NATO’s training and exercises.

NATO’s deterrence and defense posture is based on credibility. The Alliance must be able to counter Russia’s A2/AD capabilities if it is to remain a reliable defense alliance and security actor.

This article was originally published by the Atlantic Council.

Dominik P. Jankowski is the newly appointed political adviser and head of the political section at the Permanent Delegation of the Republic of Poland to NATO.

The post Six Ways NATO Can Address the Russian Challenge appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Mexico’s President Elect, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, as his best animated self.

After decades of one party rule under the PRI, two standard six year Presidential terms under the PAN and a brisk return to the PRI to remind voters why they ejected them in the first place, Mexicans came out en masse to vote for the ex-mayor of Mexico City, Manuel Lopez Obrador. As the ex-mayor of Mexico City, Mexico’s new President led from the left of the political spectrum as is often the case in many large cities, but won as an independent, apart from Mexico’s main established parties. He challenged the regional and national governments to become a well known quantity running one of the largest cities in the world, and is said to have done a pretty decent job with Mexico City’s transit system during his time as mayor. He is Mexico’s new populist President, and as predicted at the end of populist driven elections, the comparisons to their northern neighbours have begun.

While comparisons to populist leaders lead many to conclude that all populist electoral victories may reflect a US experience, the popularity of Obrador comes with the experience of him as a well-established political voice in Mexican politics. He is well known as a left leaning political voice, but also may likely have to tack back to the centre on several policy files unlike his Canadian counterpart, but remain in the realm of socially oriented policies, unlike his French counterpart. Lopez Obrador’s policies seem to reflect a regional and social division of how they are applied and who they need to serve. He is well aware that raising the cost of business along the border regions and on international firms operating in Mexico will damage their competitiveness as US tax rates have significantly declined. This is not the case in Canada where taxes seem to give birth to more taxes despite the competitive reality of a lower taxes across the border. While this type of policy may seem right of centre, it addresses economic challenges to Mexico is a realistic fashion.

The victory of President elect Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, often referred to as AMLO, seemed to soak up the political will of those that were tired of years of problems that never seemed to be successfully challenged by established political parties. Like Macron in France, AMLO ran apart from the establishment, also running apart from any record that may be tied to them. Challenging corruption and security issues was paramount, as it always is in Mexico since the PAN turned up the heat on security issues during their time in office and the metaphorical kitchen caught fire, mind you it was a PRI built kitchen. While Macron swiftly moved to the centre in his policy approaches post-election, Lopez Obrador may have to have a creative response to the current NAFTA negotiations if he wishes to maintain his socially oriented policies. Negotiating with an aggressive American side and a Canadian side that are blind to most issues facing Mexico will be a challenge as local politics in the US and Canada are pushing NAFTA and Mexico into dangerous territory. While the North American economy is strong, working out the best deal for Mexico while maintaining a socially balanced agreement that serves the Mexican economy and the unique state of Mexico’s population compared to their NAFTA partners will be an enormous challenge.

Corruption is often why many well established parties lose the electorate, but once elected, the problems that plagued or were even created by the last governments lay on the shoulders of the current government. The characteristic one term, six year Presidential term for Mexican Presidents give a lot of time and opportunity to challenge the status quo, but it is a great challenge that anyone who sees themselves as valuing their country can support if the end of corruption is made into a possibility. The problem with corruption however is that once it is entrenched, it is almost impossible to eliminate. This will be the greatest challenge to AMLO and has been to all government in modern Mexican history.

The post Mexico’s New Six Year Presidential Experiment appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Summit

Not too long ago, President Trump was promising “fire and fury”, while Kim Jong-Un was assuring a “super-mighty pre-emptive strike”. On June 12, 2018 as cameras flashed and hands shook, both leaders significantly changed their tune with flattery and promises. The Singapore Summit was indeed a historic moment, with North Korea’s promises of denuclearization. However, this seemingly good cheer and cooperative attitude prompts the skeptic to consider what North Korea actually wants and what concessions they will actually make.

This is hardly the first time that North Korea has promised to disarm. In 1985, North Korea signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, but by 2003, the nation had withdrawn from their agreement. Since then, North Korea has flip flopped between agreeing to dismantle nuclear weapons, all the while continuing to test and develop nuclear weapons. Even with the recent treaty, it is necessary to look at why Kim Jong-Un signed the agreement in the first place.

Kim Jong-Un’s motive in light of recent negotiations is vital to explore. Typically, with two nations at odds with each other, when something appears too good to be true, it is. Kim Jong-Un’s propaganda over the years has shown missile launches and extreme nationalism. Threats leveraged at the U.S., even up until a few months ago do not indicate the actions of a man who will actually give up the leverage he has. It is natural to conclude that there is a reason for Kim Jong-Un’s seeming cooperation with denuclearization and it becomes important for the interests of national security understand why and how.

It’s Economics, Baby

China’s influence over North Korea has been striking and should not be overlooked. Indeed, it is almost a surprise that China came on board with the rest of the international community in imposing said sanctions. China has had relations with North Korea and maintained their support of stability within the Korean Peninsula. China has even gone as far as to promise to return any escapees who make it across the border back to North Korea. Additionally, there have been reports indicating that over 90% of North Korea’s food and energy supply come from China. China has been working both sides and it is interesting to say the least that they would begin applying pressure to North Korea now.

China’s recent display of economic hegemony and restricting trade of fuel and food vital to North Korea’s survival seems to have largely influenced North Korea’s recent compliance. Combined with condemnation from the international community, threats from the United States, and Kim Jong-Un’s own personal ego have also contributed to the talks with the U.S. and South Korea. Whether or not Kim Jong-Un will follow through on his end of the bargain, although doubtful, is yet to be determined. The agreement both parties signed only provided an outline of goals without a strategy of implementation.

Each player in this game has a clear stake. South Korea wants a united Korea and stability in the region. China wants power and probably nuclear weapons of their own. The United States wants North Korea to denuclearize. Lastly, North Korea wants a lift to the economic sanctions applied to the, and the power that comes with being a world player.

It is this last point that is striking. For a country that has been closed off to most of the world to now emerge and aim for peace is quite interesting. The timing is indicative of the result of economic pressure coming largely from China. Until recently, China seemed to turn a blind eye to the humanitarian crimes of North Korea. This past year, however, China has condemned the testing of nuclear weapons and applied sanctions. China’s massive influence should not be ignored.

Although the Kims have previously indicated that their regime’s survival is based on the development of nuclear weapons, Kim Jong-Un has wisely decided to take a separate approach through diplomatic measures. Yet even with the seemingly positive outcomes of the summit, sanctions will not be lifted until weapons are denuclearized.

The Humanitarian Factor

Under the best of circumstances, Kin Jong-Un will put into action his promise to denuclearize. Economic sanctions will be lifted and North Korea will continue importing gas and exporting coal. Jobs will increase in North Korea and the country may begin to prosper. Perhaps the hotel President Trump believes could be developed will come to fruition and the world will see an increase in tourism in the once restricted nation.

It would be so easy for the world to turn a blind eye to the injustices inflicted upon Kim Jong-Un’s own people. President Trump has stated that economic sanctions will not be lifted until Chairman Kim denuclearizes. Should there also not be some written emphasis on the requirement for North Korea to end their humanitarian crimes? Gulags, reeducation camps, travel restrictions and intolerance of religious groups are just a few examples of oppression that the world knows takes place in North Korea. Just as striking is the mass brainwashing that has taken place. North Korea is a country without choice and without opportunities. Kim Jong-Un may not have established the system, but he has maintained it.

Kim Jong-Un became Supreme Leader of the “Democratic” People’s Republic of Korea in 2011 upon the death of his father Kim Jong-Il. As such, he cannot plead ignorance to the crimes under his regime. With the county’s total control, nothing is done without Kim Jong-Un knowing about it. Surveillance, testimony from survivors and escapees, and credible intelligence all bear testament to these crimes.

It may not be in the immediate best interests of world leaders for Kim Jong Un to be held accountable for the crimes against his people. Despite promises and a signed document, Kim Jong-Un does not have any organization or person to enforce his part of the bargain. If it is the goal of the international community to see North Korea disarm, they will not begin to criticize how he rules his people. This does not mean that light should not be shed on the fact that the international community may be failing the interests of the people of North Korea. A way to start looking out for the interests of the people is to consider what the international community cando.

There is no easy method to address the human rights abuses in North Korea within the immediate future. If admittance is the first step to recovery, North Korea has a long way to go as the Kim Jong-Un dictatorship does not even recognize the human rights abuses taking place. China, again, may have the leverage to play a significant role in the humanitarian cause. Escapees from North Korea into China are known to be returned. China should consider these people as refugees rather than prisoners and find a way to provide asylum. International and human rights organizations could work with bordering countries like China and South Korea in order to provide the aid and resources necessary enable survivor’s recovery and prosperity.

The international community now has the opportunity to begin discussions on the human rights abuses that have taken place within North Korea. Part of the economic discussions should without a doubt include the shutting down of the concentrations camps within North Korea and allowing asylum to survivors. The process of reuniting blood relations between the two Koreas is also a necessary measure of good will that should be emphasized and not forgotten.

Now that North Korea has emerged promising peace and an effort for stability in the region, perhaps negotiations may begin surrounding humanitarian issues. It is not the sole duty of the United States to condemn the action of the North Korean regime, but the responsibility of the international community as a whole. The immediate concern is whether or not Kim Jong-Un will live up to his word and begin to denuclearize. Even if he does follow through on his promise, it will be a long while before Kim Jong-Un is recognized as a legitimate world player.

The post Is North Korea Actually Disarming? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Another day, another crisis. North Korea, despite the international community’s cautious optimism following the Trump-Kim summit, appears to be moving full steam ahead with its missile program, all while the last vestige of the Iranian Nuclear Deal is swept away by hawkish White House advisors calling for regime change. It has become alarmingly clear that, to the chagrin of all those unfortunate enough to be living on planet Earth, the role of nuclear weapons in the 21st century will be a prominent one. Through its presidential proclamations on twitter, the Trump administration has demonstrated its eagerness to open up avenues of conflict from horrific to traverse. Its actual policies, however, offer little comfort. On February 2nd, the Pentagon released its Nuclear Posture Review to little fanfare and, in doing so, announced its intention to give its nuclear arsenal a competitive edge in a new arms race with Russia and China. In a radical departure from the 2010 NPR, which concluded on the optimistic sub-chapter titled “Towards a World free of Nuclear Weapons,” the Trump-era NPR consistently compares arsenal sizes with that of its geopolitical rivals and startlingly calls for the first  increase in America’s nuclear capabilities since the Nixon administration. Viewed as a starting pistol, the NPR is the launch of a Trumpian missile–measuring contest that has reinvigorated the debate over the role of nuclear weapons in the world at a time of increasing instability.

When the first draft of the NPR was published by Huffington Post in January, response to the broadened nuclear response scope was so negative that the Doomsday Clock nauseously lurched 30 seconds closer to midnight. In its final form, the NPR seems to have scaled back some of the more troubling phrases like “supplementary low-yield weapons” or “enhance[d] deterrence,” the paper itself remains unnervingly vague on several matters.  

This macho march towards bigger arsenals risks normalizing what should be unthinkable. It is a radical shift not only in US policy, but it breaks with a global trend of non-proliferation and disarmament, best displayed by the tireless work of people like recent Nobel Laureate Beatrice Fihn of ICAN and Ambassador Jan Kickert, Permanent Representative of Austria to the United Nations, both of whom worked on the recent Nuclear Ban Treaty, which was passed by the United Nations in 2017.

Even worse, the NPR has encouraged some to consider weapons of mass destruction as a legitimate strategic option. Armchair-proponents of nuclear weapons are likely to laud the focus on the so-called realist perspective of the NPR, which in its first draft touts that its authors “view{s} the world as it is, not as we wish it to be.” This adolescent nihilism ignores that policies that encourage increasing arsenal sizes and disproportionate responses actually shape the world into the terrifying form they are supposedly protecting us from. By making nuclear weapons a deployable option in a greater number of possible scenarios, the United States is increasing the likelihood of either nuclear war or the one-sided slaughter of foreign civilians, outcomes often glossed over by tacticians, amateur and professional alike. What this strategy fails to acknowledge is that both options are almost inconceivably horrible, and their implementation should only be considered in the direst of circumstances.

More serious discussions regarding nuclear policy frequently focus on the stability enabled by America’s superior military capabilities. Scholars like Daryl G. Press and Kier Lieber have credited the mild climate of the Cold War to Mutually Assured Destruction, which admittedly may be correct. So stable was the world under constant threat of total destruction, some academics have even taken to calling the period following WWII, ‘The Long Peace.’ To do so, however, ignores the many mishaps, miscommunications, and stand-offs between the 1950’s and the 1980’s that all potentially could have killed millions. In any case, yesterday’s balancing act does not guarantee stability today, and be it by accident or intention, the probability of a nuclear incident gradually increases to a certainty over time should more countries continue to create nuclear weapons. As the saying goes, we only have to be unlucky once.

Despite the posturing of the Trump administration, a nuclear arms race is one no else seems eager to run. Instability, braggadocio, and the ability to wipe out all life on Earth is a nitroglycerine mix, and by pursuing such a short-sighted policy, Donald Trump has finally delivered his followers back into their fetishized 1950’s. Just maybe not as advertised.

Adam J. Camiolo is the Director of Membership for the Foreign Policy Association. He currently oversees the FPA Associates program, as well as numerous lectures, conferences, and events in New York City. He also works on building strategic partnerships, various task forces, and research conducted by the FPA.

Mr. Camiolo has a Master’s degree in Public Administration with a concentration in International Economic Policy and Management/International Politics from the School of International and Public Affairs (SIPA) at Columbia University, as well as a BA in History from SUNY Geneseo.

The post On the Nuclear Posture Review appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

News about the 2018 World Cup in Russia will dominate sports headlines and television screens throughout the summer months as fans come out of the woodwork to support their nation’s soccer teams. And while the World Cup is a great way to unite people, it is important to think of the broader implications of this major international sporting event, and specifically, hosting it in one of the most politically controversial countries in the world. At the opening ceremony, Russian President Vladimir Putin claimed Russia wanted to host the event due to the country’s adoration for the sport: “In our country, football is not just the most popular sport. People genuinely love football … We prepared responsibly for this major event and did our best so that fans, athletes and specialists could immerse themselves in the atmosphere of this magnificent football festival and, of course, enjoy their stay in Russia – open, hospitable, friendly Russia.”

The World Cup is a large public relations opportunity for Putin, as leaders around the world are forced to temporarily forget and minimize the actions of his administration while their countries participate in the sporting event organized by his country. Russia is currently embroiled in controversies ranging from continued backlash over their annexation of Crimea to their support of the Syrian government in the Syrian Civil War, and even more recently controversies relating to their alleged intervention in the United States’ 2016 elections. This thick fog of controversy has seemed to escape the minds of people around the world – which is exactly what the Putin administration would want. Events like these serve to help coerce the population into believing in the legitimacy of their governments and soccer players are sadly being used as pawns for propaganda. Infamous Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov, who was recently sanctioned by the US Treasury Department for human rights violations, was seen taking photos with Egyptian soccer star Mo Salah at Grozny stadium, while also giving the player a personal tour in front of the press. According to Rachel Denber from Human Rights Watch, “This is Kadyrov trying to capitalise on Chechnya being a team base to boost his own profile…it was 100 per cent predictable.”

Now, don’t get me wrong, I absolutely love the World Cup. I’ve spent the past two weeks watching every single game (go England!), and it’s been a great talking point for everybody in my town. International sporting events like these are always a fun experience for the citizens of the host nations and those cheering abroad. These events are also always an opportunity for leaders to gain public support which is particularly noticeable this year. I think it’s important to keep politics out of stadiums and kept in parliaments.

Dominic Floreno is a high school student and 1st prize winner of the FPA’s 2018 student essay/video competition. 

The post Politics and the World Cup appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Given the seemingly relentless flow of news over the last several months, a perception no doubt augmented by the whiplash nature of today’s 280-character policy making process, the recent events in Spain have generally been relegated to the sidelines of political and foreign affairs discussions. Impending trade wars, immigration crises on multiple continents, and a turbulent political climate for some of Spain’s own European neighbors all figure into the geopolitical outlook; it’s no surprise, then, that an internal shift in the Iberian nation’s politics has garnered relatively few headlines. Nevertheless, Spain’s new Prime Minister, the socialist Pedro Sanchez, finds himself in a unique position to assume a strong domestic and European leadership role. Despite a relatively weak government and lack of an electoral mandate coupled with an environment of growing international uncertainty, Sanchez has a chance to consolidate not only his government, but also Spain as a multicultural, humanitarian-minded, and modern European democracy.

Sanchez rose to the premiership on June 1, 2018 after a successful vote of no-confidence in parliament the previous day. The vote brought together a smattering of left-wing and regional parties and allowed the socialist Sanchez, whose PSOE (Spanish Socialist Worker’s Party) holds only 84 of the 350 total seats, to unseat longtime conservative leader Mariano Rajoy, whose PP (People’s Party) maintains a proportional majority with 134 seats. Undoubtedly,the downfall of the PP-led government came down to several domestic issues: most immediately, an enduring corruption scandal, cited as the principal cause for the censure vote of May 31, that Rajoy was ultimately unable to distance himself from; and, most importantly, the protracted, and often chaotic struggle over Catalan independence.

Understanding the importance of the Catalan situation is critical to seeing Sanchez’s, and Spain’s, path forward in Europe. For his part, the ousted prime minister Mariano Rajoy demonstrated a general antipathy towards Spanish regional autonomy, most notably spearheading a successful constitutional challenge to the Catalan New Statue of Autonomy in 2006. This particular case lasted four years in the courts, and the 2010 decision, although a relatively limited revision of the statue, notably stripped language referring to a “Catalan nation” from the document, sparking outrage and setting the stage for a series of referendums and heightened discord during Rajoy’s premiership, which began one year later in 2011.

Rajoy’s handling of the independentist movement has been less than harmonious: a hardline stance by the PP that has included the application of Article 155 of the Spanish constitution, effectively suspending Catalan autonomy and bringing the region under direct control of the national government in Madrid; and, most contentiously, the imprisonment of eight separatist leaders, charged with “rebellion,” and the hurried exile of the Catalan ex-president, Carles Puidgemont. The fate of these prisoners will likely influence the willingness of Catalan moderates to negotiate in good faith in the freshly awaited dialogue with the new government in Madrid. Notably, it was some of these moderates who helped catapult Sanchez to power in the censure vote, seeing in the rise of the socialist an opportunity to reset a political discourse that has become increasingly quarrelsome, not only nationally but also at home in Catalonia. As Spain continues its recovery from the devastating global financial crisis that was exacerbated by a sovereign debt crisis in 2012, regularizing the situation in Catalonia, which accounts for around a fifth of national GDP, will prove essential to continuing the economic rebound in the face of renewed pressures.

Economically speaking, the ousted Mariano Rajoy deserves much credit for the generally steady recovery since the downturn. Spain is in its fifth straight year of economic growth, the third straight with GDP growth over 3%; largely credited by observers to Rajoy and his conservatives’ unflinching commitment to a harsh austerity program that has helped stabilize the nation’s industries and recuperate a severely handicapped labor market (unemployment is hovering around 16%, up from the pre-crisis low of around 8.4% and down from the post-crisis high of 24%). While Catalonia looms large, Sanchez will also have to navigate the consequences of long-awaited tightening in monetary policy from the ECB, and the threat of an increasingly quarrelsome international trade environment on the economic front.

If Sanchez is able to guide Spain through these challenges, the most telling and pressing of which will be the Catalan situation, then he will be uniquely positioned to solidify Spain’s liberal multicultural democracy. Politically, despite the recent upheaval, Spain remains relatively stable in comparison to some of its European neighbors; notably Italy with the unusual alliance between the Five Star Movement and the right-wing League, and even Germany given the reemergence of a right-wing political force in the Alternative for Germany and the internal strife in Merkel’s coalition over immigration policy. Despite the emergence of two new national parties, center right Citizens and the far-left Podemos, Spain has been largely spared from the global populist resurgence. As a recent Economist piece states: “Crucially, Spain has no significant movement on the nationalist right, unlike Italy, France and many others, including Poland and Hungary. Indeed, tolerance of refugees and migrants has been an impressive feature of Spanish democracy.” As European leaders continue to clash over immigration policy, Spain, then, an autochthonal and multicultural nation, may be in a position to bridge the ideological gap over immigration in Europe, a duality coincidentally embodied by Germany and Italy as demonstrated at the “informal” immigration summit of European leaders this week.

Sanchez, then, in dealing with the Catalan issue and providing clear European leadership on immigration, will have an opportunity to consolidate his left-wing leadership after nearly a decade of conservative governance and to raise Spain’s profile as a European leader. To do this,Sanchez first must act decisively in the Catalan negotiations and take steps to ensure continued economic growth and political confidence domestically (a restructuring of regional financing and a political transparency law both find themselves on the socialists’ agenda). His success will no doubt depend on his ability to maneuver his fractured parliamentary coalition, a job not dissimilar to the task of creating a European consensus in today’s geopolitical conditions (specifically, an essential prerequisite to progress on immigration in the face of a potential humanitarian crisis). If Sanchez plays it right, a strong Spain and a stronger Europe will result and Spain’s conservatives will have much work to do if they hope to regain control; his, and his party’s ability, however, remain very much an unknown. As the summer continues to heat up, Spain’s future, and its place in Europe, will be at play.

Joe Greaney is a recent graduate of the College of the Holy Cross with a degree in Political Science and Spanish. Views expressed are his own. 

The post One To Watch: Spain’s new PM Pedro Sanchez appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Joseph Kabila (Photo from The Guardian)

Current Political Crisis

The Democratic Republic of Congo has been plagued with political instability ever since independence from Belgium in 1960. This instability has contributed greatly to widespread government corruption, due to limited mechanisms of accountability. In 2006, the first democratic elections were held in over four decades and Joseph Kabila, the son of former President Laurent-Désiré Kabila, was elected. After his five-year term had expired, he was reelected in 2011. Though there were widespread allegations of voter fraud, Joseph Kabila served a second term that officially ended in 2016. Congo’s constitution allows a president to serve for only two terms, which Kabila had completed. However, rather than organizing a free and fair election and preparing for a new administration, the Kabila administration postponed elections. The administration began to suppress political opposition groups and arrest prominent civil society leaders. This marked a clear shift to a new political landscape – reminiscent of a dictatorial regime. Kabila has maintained a stronghold on power, reaping the monetary benefits of Congo’s resources, while widespread poverty among the general population continues, promulgating food insecurity and high infant mortality.

Responses

Kabila’s abuse of power and disregard for the constitution has sparked large-scale protests, many of which have been spearheaded by youth activists. Thousands of Congolese citizens have been, and continue to be, active in protests in Goma, Kinshasa, Mbandaka and other cities in Congo. Youth activists have been instrumental in mobilizing civil society throughout the country. Groups like Lucha and Quatrieme Voix have both generated and sustained international attention regarding the human rights abuses being committed by the Kabila administration. Both Lucha and Quatrieme Voix are groups that have committed themselves to pro-democracy efforts and ensuring that youth are integral to the political dialogues that transpire in Congo. The Kabila administration has targeted high-profile leaders of these groups, allegedly detaining and torturing them.

Unfortunately, Kabila has been adamant to dismantle these protests using any means necessary. Security forces deployed by him have beaten, arrested, an even killed peaceful protestors. In 2017 alone, upwards of “300 opposition leaders and supporters, journalists, and human rights and pro-democracy activists were arrested and jailed”. Pressure from Western countries have prompted the release of some of the arrested individuals, but many are apparently still being held against their will. The exact number of people who have been detained since December 2016 is undetermined but has been estimated to be as high as 600. Over the past three years, Congolese security forces have killed over 300 people engaging in political protests. However, this has not deterred civil society from continuing to push for elections and accountability. The Catholic Church has also become involved in mobilizing the population, organizing protests in conjunction with the Lay Coordination Committee, a spiritual group. In response, security forces have attacked churches with tear gas and ammunition while civilians attended Mass.

The Kabila administration had originally stated that elections would be held at the end of 2017. This did not occur, however, and the administration blamed the delay on financial and logistical obstacles. Now, elections have been set for December 23, 2018, but it is unclear if Kabila will actually follow through with this plan. There is also speculation that he may add himself to the ballot, which would violate the constitution. With the upcoming elections quickly approaching, tensions continue to rise.

The political crisis in Congo has sparked multifaceted international responses. On March 27, 2018, the UN Security Council unanimously passed resolution 2409 extending MONUSCO’s mandate, the largest peacekeeping mission in the world involving approximately 20,600 personnel, with the aim of protecting civilians from violence arising from political turmoil. Furthermore, the United States has publically articulated its support for free and fair elections. On June 21, the US Department of State imposed visa bans and sanctions on high-level Congolese officials with prior ties to electoral corruption and fraud.

Promising Future

With half of the country’s population under the age of 24, there is a new generation of youth that are pushing for change in Congo. While the world often focuses on the wide-scale violence and human rights abuses occurring in the Democratic Republic of Congo, the heroism and resilience exhibited by everyday citizens is often overlooked. It is this heroism that almost inevitably will change the trajectory of the Democratic Republic of Congo. Youth activists in Congo should be supported in whatever ways possible so they can continue striving for transparency, accountability and self-determinism.

The post  Youth Activists Push for Political Accountability in The Democratic Republic of Congo appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

I first visited South Africa in 2008, when Thabo Mbeki was being outmaneuvered by Jacob Zuma, who forced out Mbeki and ascended to the presidency in spite of sexual assault and corruption charges. No one then understood how catastrophic Zuma’s eight years in power would be—but a report the other weekend demonstrates how he undermined critical democratic institutions, behaved as though he is not beholden to the law, and used the state to employ a Western accounting firm to create and spread fake news before the term was en vogue here. As President Trump forsakes allies and negotiates with North Korea, it is critical that we do not miss the forest for the trees, lest we find ourselves ten years from now, like many South Africans today, wondering why we did not stop him sooner.

Jacob Zuma, aided by KPMG, accused South Africa’s tax authority of politically motivated investigations and illegal spying as a precursor to asserting control of the tax authority and later the treasury. He waged a war on a government department to protect himself, his family, and his cronies and to hide illegal activity. Speaker of the House Paul Ryan briefly confirmed this week that the FBI did not illegally or inappropriately spy on the Trump campaign, only to talk back his statement under political pressure, as Trump continues to undermine the entirety of the FBI. Donald Trump, aided and abetted by the Republican Party, has led a public war against Mueller, so it should come as no surprise public approval of Mueller’s non-partisan investigation is at an all-time low, along partisan lines. Mueller is successfully identifying and prosecuting criminal acts; Trump is working to delegitimize our entire justice system in service of his personal interests.

Under South Africa’s post-Apartheid government, the number of people paying taxes quadrupled, surpassing even the United States for the rate of collection. The South African public did not know Zuma himself refused to pay taxes, but they resented endemic corruption while watching Zuma incapacitate the tax authority, driving down collection rates. Not only has Trump lauded tax avoidance like Zuma, but also the unfettered indulgences of Cabinet members Ben Carson and Scott Pruitt support the false narrative that such corruption is politics-as-usual, fostering cynicism about governance while the politically connected abuse power for personal gain. Endemic corruption of this nature undermines democracy at its core.

In perhaps the darkest of parallels, Zuma once mused to his tax commissioner, “Why must I go and answer questions in Parliament? Putin doesn’t go to Parliament to answer questions.” Trump’s admiration for Putin and Russia are well documented, as is his legal team’s argument for not answering the questions of Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Trump and his team argue they are above the law, with self-pardon power and the authority to end any investigation at any time. Trevor Noah’s early segment on Trump becoming our first African dictator is more prescient now than when it aired in October 2015, with Trump’s total disregard for transparency and democracy.

My first night back in the United States after I returned from South Africa included the infamous debate in which Donald Trump implicitly referenced the size of his genitals. Yes, that happened. Yes, he is President. Here’s the thing: I’m still optimistic about South Africa and its new President, Cyril Ramaphosa. I think he may be able to right the ship. But initial optimism has given way to recognition of the depth of the hole created by Zuma’s corrupt presidency (the currency has dropped more than 30 percent since the initial bounce after Zuma’s ouster). The question, then, is how deep of a hole will we let Trump dig us? Congressional Republicans have not exercised oversight, Trump may succeed in undermining Mueller’s investigation, and the Trump family continues to profit on executive decisions. How deep will we let him dig this hole before we reclaim our identity as the leading democratic nation on the planet?

Steven Leach is a conflict and development expert who lived and worked in sub-Saharan Africa for five years; he is also a Security Fellow with Truman National Security Project. Views expressed are his own.

The post On South Africa appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Secretary Kirstjen Nielsen has reportedly expressed reservations about the family separation policy. (Photo: Department of Homeland Security)

This is the second of two parts.

The CHIP Model Applied to the Border

To understand the fate of children at the border, it may be necessary to examine what else was happening at the time. Trump’s campaign and presidency have focused on the issue of illegal immigration, in particular on what he sees as a need for a wall running the length of the Mexican border, but despite the unity of rhetoric his party is divided on the issue. Populist Republicans may worry about immigrants suppressing wages or may simply want to stop the flow of foreigners into the country. No doubt there are some who believe the specious arguments that a wall is required for national security (although few Republican national-security experts are among them). But other Republicans worry about the electoral implications of alienating the entire Hispanic population for a generation or more. Small-government Republicans don’t want to spend the money. Pro-business Republicans favor the availability of cheap labor and may foresee the danger of a shrinking working-age population as a constraint on future economic growth and tax revenues, problems that could be easily remedied with increased—not decreased—immigration. (Many of the latter prefer a “guest worker” program, or legalization without citizenship; in other words, temporary cheap labor that will never be in a position to demand higher wagers, climb the socio-economic ladder, or vote for Democrats.) These internal divisions have been significant. After a year and a half of unified Republican government and a host of unilateral executive actions, there has been no progress in Congress on the president’s top priority.

This has prompted Trump on occasion to try to forge a bipartisan compromise. This has involved proposals, for example, that couple money for the wall with renewal of DACA for people already in the country (but with restrictions on future immigration). But once again many Republicans don’t like making concessions to Democrats; concessions that increase the number of Democrats will often decrease the number of Republicans. Also, hard-line Republicans who are often Trump supporters lobby against such deals, which they view as an unprincipled sell-out. Republican leaders in the House, moreover, are generally reluctant to endorse deals that do not have the backing of a majority of their members. (After all, remaining a leader requires the support of a majority of your members.) Thus, the deals tend to fall apart, often revoked by the president who proposed them.

The fate of the latest legislative attempt in the House—involving a hard-line Republican bill and a so-called consensus bill that represents a compromise among some of the House Republican factions—is still unclear. Speaker Paul Ryan, who wanted to avoid a divisive vote on immigration, especially in an election year, allowed a vote on the two GOP bills solely as a way to avoid a vote on any proposal supported by Democrats. (Ryan’s agreement to hold the vote successfully cut off progress toward a “discharge petition” that was being pushed by Democrats and Republican moderates frustrated by the lack of action on immigration and that would have led to votes on four bills, including the two GOP bills. Discharge petitions, through which a majority of House members can force votes against the will of the leadership, are exceedingly rare since majority-party members rarely want to alienate the majority-party leaders.) This strategy, however, did not improve their chance of passage. When the hard-line bill was voted down (193-231) on June 21, the vote on the consensus bill, which also appeared to lack sufficient support, was postponed to the following week. Neither bill was ever expected to pass in the Senate, which had already rejected one similar to the consensus bill.

In the meantime, what did the administration do? It created a new crisis on the border by taking children away from their parents. The president was apparently willing to end it in return for concessions from the minority party—well, not for concessions exactly, since all-Republican bills were the only option, but for votes. While blaming his own policy on the Democrats, Trump suggested such a trade via Twitter: “Democrats can fix their forced family breakup at the Border by working with Republicans on new legislation, for a change!” and “The Democrats are forcing the breakup of families at the Border with their horrible and cruel legislative agenda. Any Immigration Bill MUST HAVE full funding for the Wall, end Catch & Release, Visa Lottery and Chain, and go to Merit Based Immigration.” Or, as Attorney General Sessions put it, “We do not want to separate parents from their children. You can be sure of that. If we build a wall, we pass some legislation, we close some loopholes, we won’t face these terrible choices.”

Strategy or Chaos?

Was this an actual strategy to create an artificial crisis in order to extract concessions for ending it? As is so often the case with Trump, it is hard to say. Many argue that this presidency is motivated more by spontaneous impulse than by planned intrigue, so perhaps we cannot exclude the possibility that the situation arose by chance—part of the ongoing flow of chaos that is the Trump administration—even if it does fit the CHIP model. Attorney General Sessions certainly appears to like the policy; he was nearly giddy while quoting a Bible verse in its defense. Presidential adviser (and former Sessions senatorial aide) Stephen Miller has always favored this approach as well. It seems unlikely that either of them would gladly give up Zero Tolerance as a bargaining chip. On the other hand, Secretary Nielsen has reportedly resisted the separation of families and at one point nearly resigned. Moreover, once it was initiated and became controversial, substantial groups, including Republican-leaning groups, denounced it, such as the Southern Baptist Convention, the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Business Roundtable, a dozen GOP senators, all living former first ladies, and behind the scenes the president’s wife and daughter. These factors favor discarding the policy, especially if Trump can be made to look the hero for resolving the crisis he manufactured and if it can be used to elicit votes from Democrats for a Trump “win.” Regardless of whether the policy was originally put forward as a bargaining chip, it was used that way when its unpopularity became manifest.

Resolution: Chaos and Deceit

The model failed. The House Republicans were—as in the case of Obamacare repeal—hopelessly divided and in some cases more interested in proving their purist bona fides than in actually legislating. Having been burned before, the Democrats were not interested in helping Trump out of his dilemma. Their experience of negotiating with Trump, the self-styled master of the art of the deal, had shown it to be a frustrating and dangerous game. Trump makes little effort to understand the issues under discussion, regardless of the topic; he appears incapable of thinking beyond the short term or of foreseeing the potential consequences of his actions; he cannot be trusted to carry out a commitment when he does make one; and his general behavior is such that Democratic constituents will resent any effort to accommodate him, even if it is justifiable. Instead, some Democrats (and some Republicans) proposed narrow legislation that would order the separation of families to cease, but Democratic leaders simply pointed out that the president created this problem and could stop it at any moment he chose.

Consequently, after days of insisting that he was helpless to act without legislation, Trump signed an executive order on June 20 undoing the policy of family separation but not the Zero Tolerance policy. As with the original Zero Tolerance decision, the new order was issued without guidelines for the people assigned to carry it out, sowing chaos. The Justice Department took it to mean that families were to be detained together. The Department of Homeland Security announced a suspension of referrals for prosecution in the case of adults with children, but it was initially unclear whether this was the department’s interpretation of the new order or the result of a lack of capacity to handle more children. The Defense Department was ordered to provide 20,000 beds on military bases, but it was unclear whether these were intended for children or whole families. A court was asked to revise the Flores settlement so that children could be detained with their parents beyond 20 days, but even the secretary of homeland security acknowledged that this was unlikely. (It is still possible for Congress to change the rules regarding how long children can be detained, even if its recent record of achievement is not encouraging.) Thus, the policy of family separation could be renewed in as little as thee weeks. Finally, the order made no mention of reuniting families that were already separated. The Trump administration appears to be infinitely better at creating chaos than it is at fixing it.

Trump personally responded to the chaos by doubling down on his demonization of illegal immigrants. He already had a history of denouncing members of the murderous MS-13 gang as “animals,” then using that to justify the deportation of illegal immigrants in general. On June 22 he met at the White House with the relatives of people who had been killed by illegal aliens. He has subsequently called for their expulsion without due process. Yet, while criminal elements can be found in any population, immigrants are statistically less likely than native-born Americans to commit crimes, and areas with large immigrant populations are less likely to be crime-ridden. (Illegal immigrants are more likely to commit crimes than legal immigrants, but still less likely than native-born Americans.) According to a report commissioned by Trump, they even add more to government revenues than they cost. Moreover, in Fiscal Year 2017, MS-13 members constituted only 0.075 percent of immigrants detained (yes, that is 75 one-thousandths of 1 percent); inclusion of the rival Barrio 18 gang increased the share to 0.095 percent. In any event, ICE neither targets MS-13 members for deportation nor tracks how many it has deported.

Finally, it is worth mentioning that, for all the popular images of ever growing masses swarming across the Rio Grande, the number of people crossing the border each year is less than a third of what it was a decade ago. (The rate has tipped up in 2018 over 2017, but 2017 was the lowest since 1971.) Overall, the illegal-alien population in the United States peaked back in 2000 and then again in 2007, fell a bit after the crash of 2008, and then leveled off. As of 2014, about two-thirds of unauthorized immigrants had lived in the country for ten years or more and only about 14 percent had arrived in the past five years. The unauthorized Mexican population has actually declined as more leave than enter, although the number of Central Americans has increased. Over the long run, the Central Americans may well follow a similar pattern of decline. Thus, not only was the immediate crisis on the border artificially manufactured by the Trump administration, possibly in a failed attempt to get his way in Congress, but the larger issue of illegal immigration is largely based on greatly distorted facts concerning both the rate of entry and the criminality of the entrants. Yet we will be living with the consequences of Trump chaos for some time to come.

The post Children at the Border, Part 2: Failure, Chaos, and Deceit appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Iraqi lawyer Ammar Al Hamadani stated: “I love and support the State of Israel as well as the Jewish people across the world. I congratulate both the American and Israeli governments for transferring the US Embassy to Israel’s eternal capital city of Jerusalem. In addition, I ask for the establishment of diplomatic relations and economic ties between Iraq and Israel, which would initiate with the opening of an Israeli Embassy in Baghdad and an Iraqi Embassy in Jerusalem.”

This is not the first time that Al Hamadani spoke out in favor of the Jewish community. Last year, in an interview he gave to Israel Hayom, he proclaimed that the expulsion of Iraq’s Jews and the seizure of their property was “unconstitutional and inhumane,” stressing with sadness that the laws that prompted the Iraqi Jewish community into exile remain in force today “despite the political change that took place in Iraq in 2003 and the enactment of a new Iraqi Constitution in 2005 in which we had some hope for change for Iraqi Jews in a democratic, federal and multi-cultural Iraq.”

During the interview, Al Hamadani emphasized that it is unlawful to strip any Iraqi of their citizenship for any reason and it is the right of “any Iraqi who has lost his citizenship for either political, racist or sectarian reasons to request the restoration of citizenship.” However, Al Hamadani noted that while the Iraqi Constitution permitted the restoration of Iraqi citizenship for those who lost it for the above reasons, Iraqi Jews were excluded: “Iraqi Jews remain depraved of justice under the new Iraq in such a crude violation of the constitution.”

Today, Al Hamadani is working to defend the rights of Jews in Iraq and the greater Middle East. In an exclusive interview, he stated: “I will not withdraw or retract my defense for the Jewish people and Israel despite the threats to my life by the Iranian militias in Iraq. I defend the human rights of the religious minorities in Iraq. My work is motivated by humanity and professionalism.” The Jews of Iraq indeed have suffered greatly. Salima Shachouda was a member of Baghdad’s ancient Jewish community who recently passed away. She once told me in an exclusive interview about all of the suffering that she endured during the Farhud pogrom, which was one of the many massacres implemented against Jews in the Arab world in the period leading up to Israel’s Independence: “During the Farhud, they came and killed everyone, making mass graves. They were the size of my house.”

Iraqi Jewish women’s suffering was immense during the Farhud. They would cut open the stomachs of pregnant women and rape young girls en masse. She noted that if a Jewish woman left her home without wearing an abaya (Islamic face covering), the masses in Iraq at that time interpreted it as an invitation to rape her. According to Shachouda, the Iraqi Arabs committed many atrocities against the Jewish people during this period of time including cutting off the leg of a child and playing with the amputated leg.

For many Iraqi Jews, the horrors of the Farhud pogrom and other instances of persecution that they experienced in the period leading up to their expulsion from the country are quite livid. The Jewish refugees from Arabic speaking countries remember the atrocities that they experienced as if it was yesterday for to date throughout the Arab world, the Jewish people are deprived of their legal and historical rights. In 1945, around a million Jews lived in the Arab world. Some of these Jewish communities pre-dated the existence of Islam itself. Between 1948 and 1972, around 850,000 Jews were compelled to flee these countries due to the existence of anti-Jewish pogroms, massacres and state-orchestrated oppression. Some countries like Iraq and Egypt literally expelled their Jewish community. The Jews from Arab countries had their property confiscated by the government. These refugees and their descendants were never compensated for their suffering.

According to Kurdish Jewish dissident Sherzad Mamsani, to date, Iraqi Kurdistan is the only region of Iraq where Jews can reclaim their stolen assets and property: “In April 2015, the Kurdish Parliament passed a piece of legislation where all of the lands and assets taken and confiscated by the Iraqi government in the name of sectarianism, religious violence and domestic politics can be returned to their rightful owners. For the past 70 years, this piece of legislation is the first time that we see this much veracity and equality shown to our religion and cause.”

However, he noted that the Iraqi authorities do not share the same mindset as the Kurdistan Regional Government: “To this day, this kind of legislation and law doesn’t exist in neither the Iraqi legal framework nor in the mindset of the people who lead the Iraqi government. They are not united and they are fighting among themselves about the differences between Sunnis and Shias. Therefore, it is a far-fetched idea that they will accept other religions as well. They have occupied all of the assets and the lands belonging to Jews, Christians, moderate Sunnis, Yezidis, Kakaes, Faylis and Zoroastrians.”

Nevertheless, a growing number of non-Kurdish Iraqis are increasingly sharing views that differ from the ruling Iraqi government when it comes to the Jewish people and the State of Israel. Not too long ago, Miss Iraq Sarah Idan visited Israel, where she proclaimed to Israel’s Channel 2 News: “I don’t think Iraq and Israel are enemies. I think that maybe the governments are enemies with each other. With the people, there are a lot of Iraqi people that don’t have a problem with Israelis and the Jewish people.”

In addition, the Jerusalem Post reported that the Israeli Foreign Ministry recently launched an “Israel in Iraqi Dialect” Facebook page after numerous followers on the Israeli Foreign Ministry’s Arabic Facebook page requested a page that was more geared towards an Iraqi audience. According to the report, Yonatan Gonen, who heads the Foreign Ministry’s Arabic branch on digital diplomacy, stated: “We are seeing an openness and an understanding that Israel is an established fact” in countries like Iraq, Morocco and even some of the Persian Gulf countries.

According to Levana Zamir, the head of the Central Organization of Jews from Arab and Islamic countries, many Arabs today recognize that expelling the Jews from the Muslim world was a mistake: “In Egypt, Amin Al Mahdi, an Egyptian journalist, wrote a book titled The Other Opinion. The book was translated into Hebrew. He said that when Egypt is a democratic country, we will have peace. He cried in his book that Nasser expelled the Jews. He said only Egypt lost by it. Now after Al Mahdi, we have other people saying the same thing. Maged Farag said all of this on the Egyptian TV. He came to Israel for an art exhibition.”

Zamir stated that an Egyptian Jewish painter had an exhibition on what Egypt looked like based on her memories of her life in the country before the Jews were expelled. Farag originally invited her to Egypt to display her artwork in his country club but when Mubarak fell, his country club was bombed and the country was not safe so she had her exhibition in Jerusalem instead: “We were all there, all of the Jews from Egypt. We came with two buses. Magid Farad met my grandchildren and we continued by Facebook. Once he was back in Egypt, the TV wanted to interview him and asked him how he could do such a thing. They accused him of normalizing Israel. He said, look, we have normalization between the governments, so why not the people? It’s time to finish all of these wars. He is very courageous. We all applauded him.” According to Zamir, peace will only come to the Middle East when Arabs like Ammar Al Hamadani, Amin Al Mahdi and Magid Farad speak out against the injustices experienced by the Jews in the Arab world.

Zamir is a strong advocate of establishing an international fund to compensate both Jewish and Palestinian refugees who were compelled to flee their homes either during or following Israel’s War of Independence: “We have to do what Bill Clinton said. I have $21.5 billion from Europe, Japan, the US and Ehud Barak will add to this fund. We will give compensation but no right of return, not for us and not for them.” She noted that Jews cannot live in Arab countries today as churches and even mosques are getting blown up, so it is only fair that both sides receive compensation without a right of return.

Zamir believes that establishing a fund like this is a tool for peace for it will give the Jewish refugees from Arab countries the peace of mind that they deserve. At the same time, she believes that it can help foster a solution for the Palestinian-Israeli conflict by removing grievances held by both sides. Therefore, Zamir argues that such a fund should be established irrespective of the status of negotiations for it will remove a major stumbling block for a resolution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. She thinks that this international fund should be pursued for it is our best hope of reducing tensions between both sides and encouraging a more peaceful tomorrow.

However, David Bedein, who heads the Center for Near East Policy Research and Israel Resource News Agency, stressed that a process needs to be introduced to ensure that the money that goes to help Palestinian refugees is used for its intended purposes given that the Palestinian Authority and its officials have pocketed foreign aid for themselves or used it to pay the salaries of terrorists imprisoned inside Israeli jails. He feels that it is critical that any money that is given as part of such an international fund is only used to compensate Jewish refugees from Arab countries and to help Palestinian refugees build homes, start businesses to finance themselves, educate their children, provide health care, etc.

However, while Zamir argues for an international fund to compensate refugees and Bedein warns about the importance of adding safeguards for such a fund, David Dangoor, the Vice President of the World Organization of Jews from Iraq, stressed in an article that he wrote in the Jerusalem Post that dialogue between Iraqis and Israelis as well as Jews and Muslims is badly needed for a brighter future: “Greater interaction can only be beneficial for greater harmony, understanding and acceptance in our region and beyond.”

The post Iraqi lawyer calls for establishment of diplomatic relations with Israel appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Attorney General Jeff Sessions has quoted a Bible verse, which merely says to obey the law, to justify taking children from their parents. (Photo: U.S. Department of Justice)

This is the first of two parts.

Has the Donald Trump administration instituted a practice of using children as hostages in Congressional negotiations? In April the administration introduced an extraordinary policy of separating children from their families in the case of people crossing the border illegally and, apparently, in the case of some legal entrants as well. The reasons given for doing this have varied. Attorney General Jeff Sessions told us it was a conscious policy intended to deter people from even trying to cross the border. Secretary of Homeland Security Kirstjen Nielsen asserted that there was no such policy at all. After its unpopularity was highlighted, Trump declared that it had been forced on the administration by a law passed by Democrats. The latter argument suggests that the Trump administration had given up on even trying to make sense. This was a matter of discretion. And, by the way, the administration had been talking about intentionally separating children from parents as a deterrent for over a year.

Technically, the new policy—known as Zero Tolerance—was to subject adults crossing the border illegally to criminal prosecution, of which family separation is merely a foreseeable—and intended—consequence. Presumably, this is why Nielsen believed she could argue that there was no new policy of family separation; criminal prosecution was the new policy. The new Zero Tolerance approach was consistent with the law, but it was in no sense required by the law. Crossing the border without authorization is a federal misdemeanor (only reentry after deportation being a felony). Previous administrations, including Trump’s until April, dealt with it in a civil procedure. The typical sentence in such cases is time served, a $10 fine, and immediate removal. Criminal prosecution requires detention in a federal facility. Under a 1997 consent decree known as the Flores settlement (from the case Flores v. Reno), children cannot be kept in detention for more than 20 days. That is the root of the dilemma.

Since the children cannot be detained for long, previous administrations have released detained families and told them to come back when their court hearing is scheduled, which can be after a considerable time. The Trump administration and its supporters refer to this as “catch and release” and assert that, once released, none of those people will ever come back. Having anticipated that outcome, they apparently conclude that it must be true. Otherwise, by “none” they must mean 99.8 percent. According to NPR’s John Burnett, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officials recently told him that “99.8 percent of participants enrolled in alternatives to detention successfully make it to immigration court.” (Alternatives to detention may include electronic ankle monitors and periodic check-ins with ICE, telephone check-ins with electronic voice recognition, or a mobile phone app called SmartLINK.) This is the basis on which the Trump administration detains thousands of people, separates their children from them, transfers the children to the Department of Homeland Security Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR), and then transports those children to other states with no provision made for how they are to be reunited (because the ORR system was not designed for small children, toddlers, and infants taken from their parents).

It should be noted that, despite the rhetoric, the administration was still not prosecuting all immigration violations. As former U.S. Attorney Barbara McQuade has pointed out, the Justice Department prosecutes roughly 70,000 cases a year, including about 20,000 immigration offenses. Prosecuting all immigration offenses would raise the total to 300,000, which would overwhelm the department’s capacity even if it were to drop all other cases. The rest were still being “caught and released.” Nevertheless, the number of people detained for prosecution has risen sharply.

Why was this happening? It may be that the administration created a needless crisis precisely so that it could offer to end it as a “concession” in return for concessions from Democrats in Congress.

The CHIP Model

A possible model for this can be seen in last year’s controversy regarding of the Children’s Health Insurance Program (CHIP). CHIP was created in the 1990s by the Clinton administration and a Republican Congress. It has not been a center of controversy; unlike the Affordable Care Act, Republicans had not made an issue of repealing it. Nevertheless, it was allowed to expire at the end of September 2017. Little action would have been required to renew it, but Congress’s Republican leaders claimed they were simply too busy to attend to it. Many pundits and commentators were left confused.

To understand the fate of CHIP, it is necessary to examine what else was happening at that time. Congress had returned from its summer recess with a large agenda of unattended items that had to be addressed by September 30. These included funding for emergency hurricane relief, appropriations to keep the government running in the fiscal year starting October 1, and a vote to raise the debt ceiling. In particular, the need to raise the debt ceiling was—as repeatedly in the past—indisputably necessary but politically hazardous because many voters interpret such votes as fiscally irresponsible, a view that Republicans have done much to encourage. (In actuality, they merely authorize the government to make payments to which it has already obligated itself through the appropriations process.) Congressional leaders would need at least some Democratic votes on the appropriations and debt questions because some Republicans, as a matter of principle, refuse to vote for spending or for anything related to debt regardless of the circumstances.

Trump, in one of his more effective moments as president, bypassed the Republican leadership and made a deal directly with Democrats for votes to fund hurricane relief and to postpone the appropriations (by means of a continuing resolution) and debt ceiling decisions until December 8. Republican leaders were irate, although unwilling to contradict the president in public. Not only had they been left out of the negotiations, but the outcome would require them to take unpopular votes in September and then again in December. (They had wanted to push the debt ceiling decision, in particular, past the 2018 midterm elections.) Moreover, they would need to win Democratic votes again in December, and the Democrats would demand concessions. Compromising with Democrats—and giving them leverage over Republicans in decision making—is always unpopular these days, especially within the House Republican caucus.

At about the same time, perhaps to appease his Republican colleagues, Trump revoked President Barack Obama’s executive order authorizing Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA), a program that allowed people who had been brought into the country illegally as children to remain and acquire work permits. DACA was popular among Democrats but not among Republicans. (Although Republicans insisted that Obama’s original DACA executive order was unconstitutional, it’s Trump’s order revoking it that has been held up by the courts.)

So, what did the Republicans in Congress do? They allowed CHIP to expire, creating a new, unrelated crisis in which concern, while widespread, was especially strong among Democratic constituents. A few months later, they magnanimously agreed to renew CHIP in a deal that effectively killed a Democratic demand to renew DACA in the form of legislation. It appears that the whole situation had been invented solely so it could be given away as a “concession” in return for real concessions from the other side.

Continued in Children at the Border, Part 2: Failure, Chaos, and Deceit

The post Children at the Border, Part 1: Hostage Taking as Bargaining Tactic appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Shipan Kumer Basu, the President of the World Hindu Struggle Committee, has claimed that for the Bangladeshi government, there is a direct link between the murder of Bangladeshi opposition figures as well as minorities and the promotion of Islam: “As soon as the month of Ramadan began, the Bangladeshi law enforcement agencies started to murder people in the name of abolishing the drug business. They targeted most of the opposition leaders and critics of the government. Since Sheikh Hasina is desperate to come back to power in this way, more people will be killed. The people of the country are very concerned and angry in this dire situation. Moreover, many believe that ISIS stands behind the killing of intellectuals in Bangladesh and that Sheikh Hasina is sponsoring them with looted bank money.”

Basu claimed that so far, three intellectuals have been killed: Shahjahan Bachchu, Suman Zahid and another unidentified intellectual: “People are not leaving home. The atmosphere is not festive like the season demands. As a result, the prices have increased. The government’s corruption and the murder of Hindus, Buddhists, Christians and other indigenous people continues unabated. Nobody is getting justice. The oppression of the minorities is increasing in Bangladesh. There are more and more cases of homes getting vandalized, temples being attacked, crematoriums being seized, different shops being closed down, the forcible conversion of Hindu girls, rape, sexual harassment, etc. Sadly, most of the government leaders are involved with these horrific incidents.”

“I have heard rumors that a crematorium belonging to Hindus was leased among the local Awami League leaders,” Basu stated. “1,326 Hindu students of two upzilas of Noakhali district have not yet received textbooks. The home of Rabindranath Gosh, founder and president of Bangladesh Minority Watch, was attacked and demolished by an assailant recently. Hindu lawyers are also not safe in Bangladesh, especially if they work to advance human rights.”

“Recently, two Hindu lawyers have been harassed,” Basu noted. “One of the victims is Samir Chowdhury. According to his daughter, he has been framed for a crime that he did not commit by the government merely in order to impede his work to advance human rights. In addition, a land grabber recently occupied the homes of Hindu families in Mymenshingh. And even though 20 million Hindus still live in Bangladesh, Sheikh Hasina recently placed a Muslim in charge of the Hindu Welfare Trust, which impedes the rights of Hindus in Bangladesh in the same way that having a Muslim school principle in Iranian Jewish schools serves a similar purpose.”

According to the Annual Report of the United States Commission on International Religious Freedom, there has been a spike in attacks upon minorities in Bangladesh and that these incidents are frequently followed by the seizure of Hindu lands, the Dhaka Tribune reported: “Local governments and police often fail to investigate violent attacks that accompany land grabs because their colleagues are implicated.” Basu alleged that such behavior by the Bangladeshi government is religiously motivated.

Basu claimed that the Bangladeshi government is doing everything to advance political Islam in Bangladesh to the detriment of minority religions: “Awami League Organizing Secretary Khalid Mahmoud Chowdhury reported that no one has playing a significant role in promoting political Islam in Bangladesh without the Awami League. He claimed that the Awami League serves Islam and politics in the name of BNP-Jamaat Islam. They have corrupted Islam via terror in the name of religion. In this way, they want to introduce Islamic rule in Bangladesh. Proof of this is the fact that the 300-seat parliament refuses to give the responsibility of a full minister to a single Hindu.”

While General Secretary of the Awami League Obaidul Quder claimed that his political party is the best friend of the Hindu people, Basu claims the reality is the opposite of what he claims: “How many Hindu women have been raped under the rule of the current government? Can anyone tell me? A helpless Hindu minority woman and her infant daughter were recently raped by Awami League leaders in the Kishorgonj district of Bangladesh. The police filed a hassle case instead of a rape case against the accused. Is this an example of the Awami League’s friendship with the Hindu people?”

The post Hindu dissident: “Bangladeshi government supports killing in the name of political Islam” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

During the opening statement of the 38th session of the Human Rights Council held in Geneva on June 18th, the United Nations (UN) High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al-Hussein condemned the Trump Administration’s decision to separate children from their parents at the United States (US)-Mexico border. “The thought that any State would seek to deter parents by inflicting such abuse on children is unconscionable,” Mr. Al-Hussein said.

On June 5th, the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights called the practice of separating children from their families “a serious violation of the rights of the child.” The statement also noted that the US is “the only country in the world not to have ratified the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child.” The statement called on the US “to immediately halt the practice of separating families and stop criminalizing what should at most be an administrative offence – that of irregular entry or stay in the US.”

In his public remarks in Geneva, the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights referenced the American Academy of Pediatrics Statement Opposing Separation of Children and Parents at the Border. In their statement, the American Academy of Pediatrics confirmed that the trauma of family separation “can cause irreparable harm, disrupting a child’s brain architecture and affecting his or her short- and long-term health…. [and] can carry lifelong consequences for children.”

Other medical and health-focused organizations, including American Psychiatric Association and Physicians for Human Rights, have issued similar calls for the Administration to cease unwarranted separation of children from their parents. The American Psychological Association stated that “the administration’s policy of separating children from their families as they attempt to cross into the United States without documentation is not only needless and cruel, it threatens the mental and physical health of both the children and their caregivers.”

Disagreement with the Trump Administration’s policy is not limited to health organizations. Many US-based civil society groups have called on the government to refrain from separating vulnerable children from their parents. On June 1st, several faith-based organizations wrote an open letter to President Trump “to protect the unity of families” and work to “ensure each individual asylum seeker is afforded due process”. The Women’s Refugee Commission, Human Rights Watch, Human Rights First, and many other prominent organizations in the US have also denounced the policy.

In the meantime, the American Civil Liberties Union sued the Trump Administration to stop the practice. The ACLU is currently awaiting a decision as to whether the judge will issue a nationwide preliminary injunction to halt the separation of families going forward.

The post UN High Commissioner for Human Rights Zeid Ra’ad Al Hussein Condemns Separation of Children from their Parents at US Southern Border appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.