Foreign Policy Blogs

The Kyrgyz presidential elections are a positive sign for democracy in the Central Asian region. However, a recent quarrel between Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan tarnishes the picture and threatens regional integration efforts. President-elect Zheenbekov is confronted with crucial decisions concerning the formation of a government.

The presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan held on 15 October were remarkable in many respects. In a region that is first and foremost associated with autocrats only to be toppled by revolution or natural demise, Kyrgyzstan made history this year by holding Central Asia’s first ever competitive election. Surrounded by Kazakhstan where Nursultan Nazarbayev has been reigning since 1990, Tajikistan with its lifetime “Leader of the Nation” Emomali Rahmon in power for a quarter century, and Uzbekistan, where Shavkat Mirziyoyev was elected with 89% after Islam Karimov’s decades long leadership came to an end, Kyrgyzstan witnesses the region’s first peaceful transfer of power from one elected president to another.

The outcome was no less astonishing than lead-up to the election, as Sooronbay Zheenbekov, incumbent president Almazbek Atambayev’s personal pick, unexpectedly gathered 54% of the vote; avoiding a runoff with businessman Omurbek Babanov in a second round.

Although widely perceived as free – mainly due to a modern voting system based on bio-metric registration – OSCE addressed the burdensome nomination process for candidates and reported minor violations such as vote-buying on election day.

Owing to the competitiveness of the vote, the election campaigns between the two major opponents Zheenbekov and Babanov were characterized by the dissemination of compromising material and the massive abuse of administrative resources. For instance, after a rally in the southern city of Osh on 28 September during which he addressed the Uzbek minority, Babanov was accused of inciting ethnic hatred, a sensitive issue after the2010 riots which resulted in hundreds of casualties.

Having commenced his business career in Kazakhstan, once holding a Kazakh passport, Babanov was an easy target when it came to questioning loyalty to the Kyrgyz state, especially after reports of his clandestine meeting with Kazakh and Russian oligarchs on the banks of lake Issyk-Kul in early September were leaked into the public.

However, what might have struck Babanov with the strongest blow was Nazarbayev’sinvite to Astana on 20 September, after which incumbent president Atambayev deplored the alleged Kazakh meddling into Kyrgyz internal affairs; pointing to the Kazakh government’s corruption.

Kazakh-Kyrgyz quarrels: potential threat for regional integration?

What might have been intended as a pre-election gambit to discredit Babanov has developed into a fully-fledged international dispute between two member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). After Atambayev’s remarks, Kazakhstan on 10 October reintroduced border controls and customs checks to Kyrgyzstan and partially suspended the import of dairy products, which has led to massive congestion and economic damage to Kyrgyz companies. As Kyrgyzstan reciprocated, Southern Kazakh and Northern Kyrgyz regions experienced shortcomings in a myriad of sectors. Labour migrants’ free movement on both sides of the border is restricted. Kyrgyzstan has alerted the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to Kazakhstan’s commitment violations.

After Kazakhstan’s threats to re-impose sanitary and phytosanitary controls as well as checks of Kyrgyz national residence permits, Atambayev questioned his country’s membership in the EEU Customs Union and reminded his partners that “we have other neighbours as well”. To lend weight to Atambayev’s words, the Kyrgyz government officially renounced a USD 100 million technical aid package from Kazakhstan – granted on a Supreme Council Meeting of the EEU in December 2016 –  to assist the Kyrgyz process to harmonize itself with the Custom Union’s standards after Kyrgyzstan had refused to sign the new EEU Customs Code Treaty.

Kazakhstan, being less dependent on Kyrgyzstan economically than vice versa, has nearly unlimited escalation range to put pressure on its southern neighbour. However, Bishkek announced that it could consider tapping the Kirov water reservoir located in northern Kyrgyzstan, which would deprive bordering Kazakh regions of their water supply.

One of the most remittance dependent countries in the world (30% of the GDP in 2016, estimated at 37.1% for 2017), Kyrgyzstan relies heavily on its EEU membership. However, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, whose nationals also predominantly work in former Soviet neighbour countries, have shown the ability to manage fairly well in this respect outside the EEU.

Although the probability of Kyrgyzstan leaving the EEU can be assessed at a minimum, the current spat has revealed latent resentments between the member states and does not bode well for the organisation, and may daunt potential candidate states, such as Tajikistan.

Regional dynamics

Kazakhstan’s harsh reaction to Atambayev’s diatribe might be induced by the recent rapprochement between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which experienced a certain thaw under President Mirziyoyev. Kazakhstan, largest by territory and economy among the five post-Soviet Central Asian republics, sees its dominant regional role challenged by an increasingly engaged Uzbekistan. Bishkek could further reinforce its relations to Tashkent in order to lower its dependence on Kazakhstan. Russia would be well-advised to mediate in the regional developments in order not to see its economic (EEU) and security (CSTO) integration efforts jeopardised.

Domestic challenges

A Kremlin press release suggests that the election outcome suits Russia. Zheenbekov appears to be a convenient president in Moscow’s view. During his campaign, he asserted that he would continue Atambayev’s policies, although it is hard to determine what has constituted the latter’s tenure apart from delivering stability to Kyrgyzstan after the 2010 revolution.

Zheenbekov will struggle to find broad support among the population after a divisive election campaign and a comparably thin mandate having received the smallest vote for an elected president in the country’s history (at a turnout of 56%, only about three in ten Kyrgyz effectively voted for him). With his major opponent Babanov being backed by a third of the electorate, Zheenbekov is walking a tightrope.

Atambayev’s conspicuous bias has fuelled rumours he might want to stay in the government – potentially as new prime minister or faction leader of his social-democratic part – as the competencies of prime minister and parliament had been widened after a constitutional referendum last December. Other potential candidates for the post of prime minister are incumbent Sapar Isakov or Omurbek Babanov, who served in the same role in 2012. On the one hand, this latter scenario would accommodate a large part of the electorate. On the other, Babanov, whom Zheenbekov blustered to imprison after the election owing to his alleged corrupt business activities, might instead want to prepare for the next elections on the opposition bench.

Zheenbekov, who is widely perceived as Atambayev’s puppet has to form a government by 1 December,  and does not enjoy his entire party’s trust. By barring party leader Atambayev from pivotal executive positions, he would, on the one hand, refute critics who doubt his autonomy, but on the other would possibly lose even more support from the social democrats. If Atambayev strives for further curtailing of the president’s constitutional authority, Zheenbekov might see himself confronted with the decision to give in or risk the disintegration of the ruling party. This could play into the opposition’s hands for the next elections.

 

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Tobias Vollmer. 

The post The Kyrgyz presidential elections: domestic and regional dynamics appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Spain is on the verge of imposing direct rule over Catalonia, with potentially explosive consequences. GRI’s Marc Hernando Santacana asks: How did we get here?

The dramatic developments since the independence referendum may feel sudden, but nationalism in the Catalan region of Spain is nothing new. There was the Modernist political movement of the early 20th century – and the 1976 demonstrations demanding political amnesty, greater freedoms, and a new Statute of Autonomy.  In more recent years, a clear sequence of events has resulted in an ever-greater part of the population embracing the idea that Catalonia might be better off on its own.

The 11 September movement

In 2010, based on an appeal by the conservative Partido Popular, Spain’s Constitutional Court cut back a significant proportion of a revised Statute of Autonomy for Catalonia that had already been approved by referendum, and that then-President Rodríguez Zapatero had promised he would support. The Catalan responded with a one million-strong demonstration that cut across the political spectrum. Then the Catalan started to make demands for a more favourable taxation system, arguing that Catalonia was losing economic potential under the existing arrangements. The simmering discontent culminated on Catalonia’s National Day, 11 September, when 1.5 million people took the streets. They were asking for the “right to choose”: a referendum that would gauge public opinion on independence. This demonstration even saw the participation of Spanish national parties such as the Socialist Party, since it was not officially a pro-independence rally.

Every 11 September since then has seen civil society groups organize public demonstrations that shifted towards expressing outright demands for independence. In 2014, a first attempt to hold a referendum took place. The Constitutional Court ruled the referendum illegal even before it took place, but the result – 80% in favour of independence – nonetheless had a political impact.

Soon afterwards, regional elections were held and the parties supporting independence gained a majority of seats in the Catalan Parliament.

The new cabinet took further steps towards a hypothetical independence process that was supposed to last two to three years. Meanwhile, tensions hardened between separatists and unionists. And there were other driving forces at play as well. These included “the economic crisis, the loss of legitimacy of Spanish political institutions and elites, the attractions of identity politics, and comparative grievances”, as LSE Spanish Studies Professor Sebastian Balfour told GRI at the time.

The perception grew that Madrid did not have Catalonia’s best interests at heart. Earlier this year, a plot under the name of “Operation Catalonia” was uncovered, causing widespread indignation in the region. According to judicial records, Spain’s former Minister of the Interior Jorge Fernández Díaz had conspired with high ranking police officials to delegitimize some Catalan political figures and, consequently, the process of independence.

In June 2017, the date of the current referendum was set for October. Spanish authorities indicated they were prepared use any means necessary in order to prevent it from happening. On 1 October, this was taken a step further when Guardia Civil troops actually used forced to stop people from voting.

Two political camps

Two distinct political groupings have formed over the years in relation to the independence issue. There is the nationalist movement, backed by political parties such as Junts pel Sí and the Candidatura d’Unió Popular and civil society organizations such as the National Assembly of Catalonia and Òmnium Cultural. This is opposed by the unionist movement, which includes the Partido Popular and Ciudadanos; the sole civic group supporting it is called Catalan Civil Society. In terms of the population, the demographics joining both causes are fairly homogeneous in terms of geographical origin and social status.

The two largest outliers within the Catalan borders are Podemos and the Socialist Party of Catalonia. They have been quoted both in favor and against the separatist movement. The real wildcard, however, might be the European Union. As a supranational organization, it might have the most leverage in terms of an agreement being reached, but thus far has largely stayed out of the fray.

Little prospect for compromise

In the initial aftermath of the referendum, there was some expectation in Catalonia that President Charles Puigdemont would unilaterally declare independence within the week. Instead, he equivocated: seeming to make the declaration, then suspending it and calling for talks with Spain. However, the Spanish side refuses to negotiate unless the referendum result is annulled. This has led to a new escalation, where Spain intends to invoke Article 155 of the Constitution, imposing direct rule on Catalonia – unless the region agrees to hold snap elections.

This way out has also been rejected by Puigdemont, who instead has gone out to join mass demonstrations, calling Madrid’s threats of direct rule “an attack” and an attempt to destroy democracy. He has nonetheless reiterated that his offers of dialogue are “genuine”.

Neither party seems willing to make compromises. Under these conditions, more forceful actions by Madrid are likely, which will further alienate the Catalan population, making a compromise even more difficult. An intervention by a greater authority – the EU – seems increasingly necessary.

 

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Marc Hernando Santacana. 

The post The origins of the Catalonia crisis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The latest terrorist attack in Mogadishu has brought the threat of Al-Shabaab to the forefront of world news and signalled the weakness of the Somali American-backed government.

More than 300 people died on 14 October in Mogadishu after two bomb trucks exploded in the crowded district of Hodan. While no group officially claimed the attack, experts agree that it was almost certainly directed by Al-Qaeda affiliated militant group Al-Shabaab. The deadliest terror attack in Somalia since 2007 highlights the persistent threat of Islamist militant groups and their ability to carry out sophisticated assaults on soft targets. The threat of Al-Shabaab has increased in southern and central Somalia as well as outside the country’s borders. In 2016, Al-Shabaab became the deadliest terror group on the African continent, followed by Boko Haram. While Al-Shabaab has suffered setbacks in recent years, the latest attack in Mogadishu shows that the organisation is resurgent and has the capabilities to carry out acute attacks. The incident also undermines the credibility of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmaajo)’s government, less than a year after his election.

Al-Shabaab’s enduring presence in Somalia and beyond

Al-Shabaab continues to wage a violent insurgency against the government and US-backed forces in Somalia. Since 2010, the group has suffered territorial losses at the hands of the US coalition and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) but its ability to carry out deadly attacks has not diminished. In September the group attacked a military base outside the capital, killing eight soldiers. The choice of targets (busy public areas, security forces) reflects Al-Shabaab’s attempts to destabilise the government and inflict maximum damage to shock public opinion. While small-scale targeted attacks by Al-Shabaab are common in Somalia, the scale of 14 October bombings is unprecedented. It signals the growing sophistication of Al-Shabaab’s tactics and the failure of the Somali government to address the threat. Al-Shabaab still controls many parts of southern and central Somalia as well as several strategic supply routes.

Al-Shabaab has also extended its influence outside the country and poses a transnational threat in East Africa. The group launched several attacks outside Somalia’s border, notably in Kenya, where it has assaulted security forces and beheaded civilians. Al-Shabaab militants are believed to be present in several other countries in the Horn of Africa, including Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda. The organisation regularly targets AMISON troops, recently killing 24 soldiers in an ambush attack. In Somalia, Al-Shabaab has limited the expansion of Islamic State and imposed itself as the primary security threat for the population.

Flaws in Somalia’s security strategy

The Somali president has vowed to respond to the threat of Al-Shabaab following the recent attacks. His election in February raised hopes for the security of the country and the stability of the region. The reshuffle of security services and the nomination of new heads of police, military and intelligence signaled the government’s ambition to tackle terrorism. Extra resources were invested in securing Mogadishu. Between February and September, the number of attacks in Somalia decreased.

The latest attack has nonetheless dealt a blow to Farmaajo’s record. Since February, the new government has faced several controversies. The extradition of a commander of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (a separatist group fighting advocating self-determination for Somalis living in Ethiopia) to Ethiopian authorities has sparked accusations of breaches of national and international law and has weakened the president’s ambitions to unify the country. Divisions within Farmaajo’s government over security have also come to light. Two days before the 14 October attack, the Defence Minister and the chief of the armed forces resigned over disagreements on how to combat Al-Shabaab. In late August, the death of 10 civilians in a joint US-Somali security raid against the terror group brought to light the weaknesses of the government’s tactics. Factional violence, as evidenced by recent clashes between rival governmental units, represents an additional challenge for security forces.

The impact of the attack on the Somali government

While the attack could unite Somalis behind President Farmaajo in a show of solidarity, it is also likely to raise further questions about the government’s counterterrorism strategy and embolden the president’s opponents. Divisions between federal states and central government could deepen and Farmaajo’s political opponents could exploit the situation to hold a no-confidence vote.

The government will also face the task of maintaining its international allies’ support. In a statement released after the attack, the US State Department reaffirmed its commitment ‘to stand with the Somali government’. The US administration’s ambivalent stance towards Somalia nonetheless casts doubt over the US’ intentions to increase its support. AMISOM has vowed to assist Somalia after the attacks but continued support will depend on the Somali government’s ability to project credibility and convince its allies that it can address the threat of Al-Shabaab effectively.

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Cecile Guerin.

The post What the terrorist attack in Mogadishu tells us about the resurgence of Al-Shabaab appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

 

 

As part of the 69th anniversary of the Armed Forces Day in South Korea, special army soldiers staged a skills demonstration performance at the 2nd Fleet Parade Ground in Pyeongtaek.  (The National/UAE)

On October 1, China kicked off its celebration of the 68th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic with a giant basket of flowers in Tiananmen Square.  A few days earlier in South Korea, military officials displayed their latest weaponry to commemorate the 69th anniversary of the country’s Armed Forces Day, which normally falls on October 1.  Next door in North Korea, things were quiet, despite predictions by some analysts that Pyongyang would specifically choose to spoil their neighbors’ celebrations with another nuclear test.

North Korea’s latest nuclear test, its sixth, took place on September 3 and was widely considered to be its most powerful yet – around 16 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.  The test quickly caught the attention not only of South Korea and China, but of the U.N. Security Council, which unanimously passed a U.S.-drafted resolution on September 11 to impose new sanctions on North Korea.  

China, a U.N. Security Council member, immediately ordered North Korean companies and Chinese joint ventures with North Korean companies operating in its territory to close down by early January.  China also cut oil exports to North Korea, banned textile trade, and closed some bank accounts in China held by North Koreans, froze others, and banned the opening of new accounts.

Yet despite the ostensibly strong actions taken by Beijing, their national day passed peacefully.  Perhaps Beijing’s large shipment of corn (up 4,586 percent in August from a year earlier) and wheat (up 5,405 percent from a year earlier) to North Korea in August helped saved the day.  For Seoul, their approval of $8 million in aid for North Korean infants and pregnant women (just days after the vote on sanctions) may have also saved their Armed Forces Day from provocation.

The recent humanitarian aid granted by Beijing and Seoul may have saved the October 1 celebrations, but the latest round of economic sanctions is intended to be enforced and squeeze Pyongyang into submission.  Unfortunately, this late in the game, Pyongyang is unwilling to give up or bargain away its security blanket of nuclear capability.  Having ruled out both the capitulation of Pyongyang over its nuclear toys and the likelihood of preemptive strikes and the destruction this could entail, some analysts are predicting the regime will collapse under its own weight.  But what are the chances of collapse and how would it occur?  

The prospects for North Korea’s collapse have been mooted before, including an 11-day simulation conducted this same time last year by Wikistrat, a geopolitical crowdsourced consultancy.  By crowdsourcing information from more than 70 of its analysts, Wikistrat simulated various collapse scenarios and mapped out the expected response of major state actors in the region.

The simulation revealed a majority (65%) of Wikistrat analysts predicted the collapse of North Korea would occur within five to ten years.  The top three causes put forth were: 1) Retaliatory Foreign Military Intervention; 2) Kim Dies of Poor Health; and 3) Internal Coup.  While the death of Kim Jong-un ranked high among the causes of North Korea’s fall, most analysts (85%) expected Kim to preside over the country at the time of collapse.

Following a collapse, Wikistrat analysts predicted Moscow may have the most to gain from North Korea’s collapse, with Japan, a U.S. treaty ally, looking to the U.S. for direction.  They also predicted any Chinese action could be preempted by South Korean forces moving rapidly to exert influence, although such unilateral action would be tremendously destabilizing.  As to the securing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the analysts believe these were best left in the hands of Beijing – provided efforts were done either in cooperation with the U.S. or carried out in such a way that Washington, Tokyo and Seoul were convinced the threat had been eliminated.  Indeed, most Wikistrat analysts argued the U.S. would have little incentive to contest Chinese primacy over most aspects of a North Korean collapse.

But collapse is not a foregone conclusion – the Wikistrat simulation noted Beijing’s strong desire to keep the Korean peninsula divided, maintain stability in North Korea (to prevent the U.S. or South Korea from intervening), and ensure the North Korean regime remains more or less under Chinese tutelage.

Recent humanitarian aid from Seoul and Beijing appear to confirm their preference for the status quo over preemptive actions, and may ward off any further launches during Xi Jinping’s 19th Party Congress starting on October 18.  Yet as North Korea’s leverage grows with each advance of its nuclear program, and if economic sanctions are enforced and enlarged, the ability of Seoul and Beijing to maintain stability on the peninsula will weaken.  Further gaming out of specific outcomes should be undertaken urgently by all concerned powers to consider the worst possible scenarios, and prepare their respective citizens should the inflammatory rhetoric between Washington, Beijing and Pyongyang continue and lead to military action.

The post Wisdom of the Crowds on a North Korean Collapse appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Shipan Kumer Basu with Israeli diplomat Mendi Safadi

In recent times, the Bangladeshi Hindu community has been persecuted immensely by the Awami League government. Due to this horrendous oppression experienced by the Bangladeshi Hindu community, Shipan Kumar Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, seeks to topple the Awami League government and has asked for Israeli assistance in doing this: “We will establish diplomatic relations with Israel if they will help us topple the Bangladeshi government. Israel will then be able to establish business ties with Bangladesh. Israel has nothing to lose and on the other hand, there will be another friend.”

Basu claims that there is grounds to overthrow the Awami League government since the removal of the Hindu Chief Justice was unconstitutional, a move that is presently being challenged in court: “Recently, the Hindu community has faced many atrocities committed by the ruling party and their personnel. A young Hindu college boy was kidnapped and his body was found in the main office of the ruling party. A Hindu teacher was raped in front of her husband at work. Her husband, who came to see her at the school, was severely beaten up and locked in a different room. There have been numerous incidents like this in our country after the constitutional amendment crisis.”

The constitutional amendment crisis began when the ruling party in Bangladesh sought to impose the 16th amendment, which the Bangladeshi Chief Justice considered unconstitutional. The 16th amendment empowers the parliament to remove Supreme Court justices if allegations of incapability and misconduct are proven to be true. The Bangladeshi Chief justice believed that an independent judicial body and not the parliament should determine whether allegations of incapability and misconduct are proven to be true since the sham elections of 2014 illustrated that the parliament was not an impartial democratic body.

The ruling Awami League Party was furious with the Chief Justice for this ruling. Since they appointed him, they expected him to be on their side rather than to be an impartial judge. Since then Bangladeshi Chief Justice Surendra Kumer Sinha was Hindu, the entire Hindu community within Bangladesh has been targeted. According to Basu, “The hatred within the Awami League Party against Hindus has risen to new dimensions. As long as the Hindus followed the Awami League like slaves, they were given the status of being second class citizens within the country. Now, when the Hindus have risen up and spoken against the Awami league Party, they have become wild and ferocious against the Hindus and have started to crush them with their feet.”

“An Awami League leader recently threatened in a public rally that if the Hindus don’t vote for him, he will kill all of the Hindus,” Basu related. “Silence is not a solution for this situation. The Hindus are in real trouble in Bangladesh and if drastic action is not taken immediately, all of the Hindus will be compelled to flee to India. The State of Israel has stood up for the minorities of the world that are in distress. In our hour of need, I invite the State of Israel to solemnly stand by the neglected and tortured Hindus of Bangladesh, so they can be relieved of the suppression, torture and crisis they endure in their own country.”

The post Bangladeshi Hindu activist: Let’s establish diplomatic relations with Israel appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A Kurdish flag burned in Kirkouk on October 16 2017 – STRINGER/REUTERS

The Economist published a piece this week on the actions by Iraqi forces against Kurdish interests in the Kurdish region of Iraq after a referendum for independence from Iraq took place recently. With dwindling ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria, the interests of those who have allied themselves with Iran, Saudi interests and US interests have already begun the rush to secure territory for a future Cold War. While combat between the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces was limited in the recent move by Iraq’s government to secure economic and strategic interests in the Kurdish region, actions by the pro-Iranian government in Baghdad seems to be working in conjunction with Iraq’s neighbours to isolate and nullify Kurdish forces and interests in the Kurdish part of Iraq.

Kurdish forces and its people have been the tip of the spear in many ways against ISIS and extremism in the region, despite getting little physical help early on and limited help in combatting extremism. The question of Kurdish independence has always existed, but with independent Kurdish forces taking on the role the Iraqi Army fled from a few years ago in their region, the Kurds are in the strongest position they have had in a long time to defend independence if they wished to enforce their claim. Intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Levy wish for the world to focus on those that have helped the world, and their role in this conflict has set them apart distinctively in human history. With Kurdish Peshmerga fighting massive odds against ISIS forces and being the government that took steps to protect minority communities from genocide, it seems as if fairness for Kurds were to take place, their destiny should be theirs to determine as their safety has been theirs to secure since 2014.

The Economist author points out that the attack on the Kurds may have to do with their faith being different than that of Iran and their allies in Baghdad’s government. While that is the case to some degree, the actions taken against them in the last few years were done by those of a different culture as opposed to a different perspective on faith. The view that the Kurdish part of Iraq is more liberally focused and their protection of different faiths and minority cultures also need to be considered in assessing the reasons why Kurds seem to be the target of everyone in the region in the future post-ISIS era. A miscalculation of divisions in the region goes further in error, as if the Sunni-Shi’a divide is going to be the next major catalyst in endless wars in the region, the Sunni Arabs will be put into a position of having to constantly defend themselves being in a weaker position in their native communities. An expansion of conflict seems to signal that the end of one war is the beginning to the next major war. With a lack of understanding of the region, it seems as if the Kurdish Peshmerga will have to also continually defend their communities in the future as well.

The post The Next Chapter to Endless Conflict appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

   Japan Coast Guard security team members display tracking and capture drills in October 2016  (Kazuhiro Nogi/Pool Photo via AP, File)

The sovereignty of the South China Sea has been hotly debated in recent years among China and the littoral nations (especially the Philippines and Vietnam).  Beijing lays claim to some 90 percent of the South China Sea under its infamous “nine-dash line” which was first published as an eleven-dash line by Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government of the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) in 1947.

Other littoral states lay claim to waters within their exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which extends no more than 200 nautical miles from their shores, as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  In July 2016, an arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled China’s claim under the nine-dash line had no legal basis.  Beijing refused to accept the ruling, and maintains their claim not only over the waters of the South China Sea, but the considerable oil and gas and mineral resources that lie below, estimated at some 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas rated as proved or probable reserves by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  While much of the attention focuses on oil and gas drilling rights, another resource is often overlooked, that of fish.

Late last month, two Vietnamese fishermen were killed after a Philippine coast guard vessel opened fire on their boat.  The boat was carrying crew members hailing from the south-central Vietnamese province of Phu Yen.  According to a Filipino regional military spokesman, six Vietnamese fishing boats were fishing illegally some 30 nautical miles off the northern coastal town of Bolinao in the Philippines on September 22.  After the Philippine coast guard initiated pursuit, one of the Vietnamese ships turned to ram the front of the coast guard boat, at which point the Philippine coast guard opened fire.  Five Vietnamese fishermen were subsequently arrested.

The latest incident is not the first – in recent years fishing boats have witnessed increasing aggression over contested fishing rights.  In 2013, a Taiwanese fisherman was killed by a Filipino coast guard crew after allegedly sailing into Philippine waters.  And in March 2016, a Chinese coast guard vessel came to the rescue of a Chinese fishing boat caught fishing some 4 kilometres off Indonesia’s Natuna island chain.  As the Chinese fishing boat was being towed away by the Indonesian vessel, a Chinese coast guard vessel came to the rescue and rammed the Chinese fishing boat, eventually prying it free.  Such incidents as the above are becoming more common, as Chinese President Xi Jinping asserts China’s claims over “traditional fishing grounds” as part of his Great Rejuvenation project, and fishermen from many countries venture farther away from their shores to chase a dwindling catch.

Indeed, some scholars question when the disputes will end.  Johan Bergenas argues in his recent article The Next Resource War May Be Over Illegal Fishing. Is the U.S. Ready? that “major powers are ignoring the international laws and norms that guide the harvesting of fish. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, every fifth fish is caught illegally. As a result, countries have begun using military force to protect what they believe to be critical national assets. This is a recipe for disaster, with the potential to give rise to another entry on the long list of wars fought over natural resources.”

Both Vietnam and the Philippines are conducting investigations into the death of the two Vietnamese fishermen and hope to announce the results shortly.  The 2013 killing of the Taiwanese fisherman resulted in Taipei recalling its envoy to Manila and suspending any hiring of Filipino workers, yet the incident was confined to diplomatic and commercial interests – no military action was taken.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine nations going to war over their fishermen, especially those who are fishing in waters not their own.  Hopefully, other nations will join Jakarta’s lead in tracking their own fishing boats.  But with fishermen (some armed) sailing farther and farther away (some with government subsidies) from their own shores, and increased militarization of the Paracel and Spratly island chains by Beijing, Hanoi and Manila, a single shot could spark a fishing war.

The post Fish Wars? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

After Kurdistan held a referendum for independence, the US administration has come out against it, stressing that they support a “united, democratic and prosperous Iraq.” The problem with this position is that the present Iraq is anything but united, democratic and prosperous. To the contrary, it is an undemocratic failed state on the verge of collapsing that is increasingly divided along sectarian lines and commits massive human rights abuses on a daily basis. Since the Kurds are opposed to this and sought to separate from Iraq as a result, the central government in Baghdad is presently uniting together with Iran and Turkey against Kurdistan’s citizens. They recently held a joint military exercise along Kurdistan’s border together with Iran and Turkey.

It is critical to note that the present Iraqi government is nothing more than a proxy regime for Iran, and Iran is threatening the Kurds on a daily basis. Iran is opposed to Kurdistan’s independence for it is a direct threat to the Shia Crescent and Iran’s colonial ambitions in the Middle East region. With Iraqi oil, Iran is number one in oil. Without Iraqi oil, OPEC ranks Iran as number 3. This means that if they control Iraq, they will have one third of the world’s energy resources in their hands.

Syrian Kurdish dissident Sherkoh Abbas illustrated that Iranian influence in Iraq creates a number of problems for Western countries: “They can increase the price of oil and harm the European and American economies especially in times of need. Also when economies are trying to get out of recession, they can put them back in recession. It is a threat to the international community. They can promote Iranian terrorism around the world. They can intimidate countries that make deals with them. They can black-mail and throw their weight around.” Abbas warned that if Iran also gets access to the Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq, the situation can potentially return to what it was in the 1970’s, with people waiting miles in line to get gas due to Iranian threats.

The only way to prevent this threat from coming into fruition is to support an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds will have an open oil policy and won’t use their resources to threaten other countries. Under the KRG leadership, the Kurds have nationalized their oil, have instituted a free market economy and have managed to sell it to Turkey. Kurdistan is now the second biggest market for Turkish investment and many Turkish companies are based in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani has also used the oil to build relationships with other countries as well. The Kurds have utilized this resource in order to build the fundamentals of a state. They have not used their resources to threaten others. Due to the clean oil the Kurds provide, many major oil companies prefer to do business in Kurdistan rather than to work in other areas of Iraq. If the Kurds are granted independence, the threats posed by Iran gaining access to much oil can be significantly reduced.

Nevertheless, despite this reality, the US has remained silent in the face of Iranian threats against Kurdistan in addition to opposing Kurdistan’s referendum. For the first time, democratic countries and non-democratic countries are uniting against Kurdistan’s democratic right, which is the referendum. The US has not done anything to help the people who fight ISIS alone. Right now, only the oil and business trade protects them. If the US continues to keep silent, then Iran will win the game. As a result, the Kurds are angry with American policy makers for they seek American protection. An anonymous Kurdish source stressed: “The US has not done anything for us. Russia is better than the US for they changed their policy towards Kurdistan. They respect the decision of the Kurdish people and they asked Turkey not to put sanctions on us. They support an oil pipeline from Kurdistan to Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. If Turkey decides to block the pipeline, then Russia is working to help us use Syria. If the US does not change policy, the Kurds will become pro-Russia. The US will lose if this happens. Right now, it is not in our interest for we want the US to help us and not Russia.” However, if the Kurds are pushed into a corner, they may have to move away from America.

As Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani proclaimed, “Once again, we reiterate our willingness to engage in serious dialogue and we are against resorting to violence in order to address disagreements. All standing issues should be dealt with through negotiations and peaceful means. Our calls for dialogue and negotiations must not be answered with threats, amassing forces and preparations for war.”

The post Oil and business deals protect Kurdistan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And this is important because…?

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

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

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

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

If Section 702 is so important why is it controversial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Section 702 still controversial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They don’t sound enthused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Making Matters Worse

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

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

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

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

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

Lies and deception

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

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

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

Can Farmajo be rescued?

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Flags of Catalunya

The focus on an event, movement or death of a leader has always been the rallying cry for many movements that sought to change the status quo. Even in a relatively peaceful country like Canada, the words of a one Lord Durham in a report in the 1800s that suggested the elimination of French Canadian culture in North America has become a touchstone for historic divisions in the country. Even in what some refer to as post-modern societies, the ties to culture, language and history are as strong as ever in those regions that have had to fight for it to exist. To a greater extent, many ancient cultures are facing complete ext ermination because of their language, culture and origin, and are fighting in 2017 just to survive.

The 2017 referendums in Catalonia and the Kurdish region of Iraq may be historic in their push to birth new nations in regions where borders are disappearing. New states may arise from these entrenched cultures in regions where borders may be re-characterized as being a weaker version those traditionally guarded by nation states.

The separation of Catalonia from Spain was not a likely outcome, but recent reaction where force and the denial of the right to vote in an unofficial election may become the rallying cry separatist campaigners needed in their push for independence. Catalonia’s legislative challenges to push for a vote for separation would have likely been dulled in political horse trading and the constitutional courts for decades. Video of Catalans being suppressed in the activity of voting in their own communities may become a historic touchstone for the future of the independent Catalonia movement. The overreach in preventing the vote by the government in Madrid has likely enflamed the already tense divisions between Catalunya and the capital. The feeling that independence and an expression of nationhood may be met by violence, even if it was based on activities that were seen as not completely legal, sets a horrible precedent for those who wish to separate, and even those who wish to remain as part of Spain but are proud of their Catalan heritage. A surprisingly bad policy move, one that may even break up the country if not addressed in an appropriate manner immediately.

The Kurds have recently conducted a referendum on independence where a majority voted to become an independent state. With Iraq and Iranian forces in Iraq pushing to contain any active separation, and Turkey threatening further coercive measures, the Kurds who were a key ally to almost everyone in the region in the fight against ISIS and extremism have now become underserving targets of all power brokers in the region. Despite earning their place through hard fought battle, helping regional minorities not to succumb to a complete genocide and their focus on democratic values, there is little to no recognition of the rights of the Kurdish people in forming a nation state.

There had been a great deal of coalition rhetoric in claiming support for Kurdish forces in fighting ISIS. Unfortunately, the constant minimal level of military support from Western allies has done nothing to earn the minimal amount of respect they deserve in being the tip of the spear against radicalism and genocide in Iraq and Syria. The main catalyst any society would claim as their fight for independence for the Kurdish people comes from fighting the most powerful fascist army since the end of the Second World War. The war the Kurdish people have helped win for most of the world might be forgotten in Western media, but it is doubtful Kurdish society will ever forget their victory. Denying them freedom from future incursions and the determination of their own safety and security is something no society would tolerate after years of hard fought conflict. For both regions and their people in 2017, there is now a point in history that will never be forgotten, and with that generations of independent thought and literature encouraging strong, free and independent nations.

The post The Unforgettable Moments of Martyrs appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Pictured on left is Diosdado Cabello, newly appointed to Venezuela’s inaugural Constituent Assembly. President Nicolas Maduro created this new authority to consolidate power and subvert opposition influence. Photo: Credit Juan Barreto/Agence France-Presse

When I last wrote about Venezuela in May, protests raged across the country. They derived from the ruling regime-controlled Supreme Court attempting to wrest power away from the National Assembly, Venezuela’s federal legislature and last vestige of opposition voices in the government. The move was met with harsh criticism at home and abroad, and President Nicolas Maduro quickly abandoned the maneuver, although protests and discontent lumbered on in the spring and summer.

Yet by mid-August, protests dwindled significantly in both in number and size. Was this because the opposition, and supporters of democracy in Venezuela, accomplished its goals making protests unnecessary? Unfortunately this was not the case, and the reason for the decline in demonstrations is far more sinister: Maduro and his political supporters found a way to make them obsolete.

In July, Maduro spearheaded the creation of a new governing body called the Constituent Assembly. The regime mandated that this group would have authority to rewrite the country’s constitution, and, according to the New York Times, “govern Venezuela with virtually unlimited authority.” On July 30 Venezuelans elected members of the Constituent Assembly. While the candidates did represent different occupations and every region of the country, they all had one thing in common: every single one was considered a trusted ally of the ruling regime. There were no opposition legislators on the ballot, and voters could not reject the creation of the assembly.

What’s more, the regime made no efforts to hide the fact that an express goal of this new authority it created was to wipe away the last remaining presence of the opposition in government. Maduro granted the Constituent Assembly the power to fire any official it considered to be disloyal, and to disband the National Assembly altogether. Diosdado Cabello, a former military chief and one of the new group’s most powerful members, said on television, point blank, “There is no possibility that the opposition will govern this country…Mark my words — no possibility.”

On August 18, only 2 weeks after it began operating, the Constituent Assembly gave itself the power to write and pass legislation. Nicholas Casey of the New York Times reported that this move “essentially nullifies the opposition-led legislature and puts [Maduro’s] party firmly in control of the country.” Casey further states that this latest power grab “is a decisive step in the quest by Mr. Maduro’s allies to dismantle the country’s legislature.” While Maduro has often acted to suppress his critics in the past, it seems that now his government isn’t even trying to maintain the appearance of adhering to the democratic process.

Beyond the political maneuvering, Venezuelan citizens continue to suffer under crippling economic conditions. And one definitely affects the other. Largely in response to the actions described above, on Aug, 25 the U.S. government placed new sanctions on Venezuela restricting trading of Venezuelan bonds in American financial markets. While not expected to have a significant impact, it may further hinder the Maduro’s regime ability to address its massive debt and pay off its loans.

And as if often the case in authoritarian regimes, those who are in the most need are those who are not getting help. The value of Venezuela’s currency continues to shrink while prices keep rising. Many cannot afford basic necessities, and many turn to the black market for goods and currency which further strangles the economy. The value of minimum wage earnings has plummeted by an astounding 88% in the last 5 years.

Has Maduro achieved checkmate in Venezuela? Has he eliminated the possibly of being removed from power? Just as those critical of his rule seemed to be gaining momentum, he found a way to pull the rug out from under them. Let’s hope the opposition is taking this opportunity to regroup and develop a new approach. International pressure should continue to be brought to bear, and aid to the Venezuelan people must be provided. More attention needs to be paid to the immense hardships facing them.

And democracy must make a comeback. It is long past due.

The post Latest on Venezuela woes appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Iraqi Kurds numbering 5.2 million are voting today in a Kurdish independence referendum. The referendum includes the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) territories and contested provinces of Kirkuk, Shingal, Makhmur, and Khanaqin.

The ballot reads: “Do you want the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistani areas outside the administration of the Region to become an independent state?” Either ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ The balloting already started in diaspora on September 23, the results so far showing a close to 98 percent of ‘Yes.’

Kurdish independence vote takes place despite the international community’s pressures. The UN Security Council raised concern over the KRG’s unilaterally holding the referendum. Turkey, Iraq and Iran in a joint statement expressed their unequivocal opposition to the referendum, warning counter measures. Turkey threatened with sanctions and deployed military vehicles and personal to its border with northern Iraq.

If Self determination is a right, as inscribed in the UN Charter, why is the international community persistently hostile to Kurdish expression of will for self-determination?

As expressed, the international community is concerned that the Kurdish referendum might undermine the fight against the Islamic State. There is also an unuttered belief that a successful separation of Iraqi Kurdistan might inspire independence movements.

Of all enigmas surrounding the Kurdish independence, the most concerning perhaps is the international community’s fear that an independent Kurdish state may further destabilize the already volatile region.

This fear predominantly stems from a zero-sum understanding of the international community—an understanding which constantly feeds the principal approach of keeping the existing borders intact. This approach has served for further violence and has been maintained by the international community at the expense of grave human rights violations, oppression, and injustices against the local peoples.

As a matter of fact, the seemingly bad examples of separation are regions where host states work to turn the newly separated part into a failed state through conflict instigation and exporting violence. Host states destabilize these parts either directly or through their militias and allies.

Thus it is not the independence per se that generates conflicts or invites instability, but the hostile attitude and the belligerent policies of host states and/or neighboring countries that insist in their destabilizing moves.

South Sudan is illustrative at this point. Sudan with its Arab allies and militias did not cease infiltrating conflict and instability after the South Sudanese separation in 2011.  Malaysia invested in turning Singapore into a failed state. While the attempts succeeded in the former, they failed in the latter case.

Added to the international community’s fear is the anxiety of neighboring countries, particularly Turkey and Iran, because of their existing Kurdish minority populations. My research shows that due to a history of conflict with their Kurdish populations, they seem to have developed Kurdophobia—any Kurdish gain is considered an existential threat to their own security and national unity. As such, Kurdish empowerment elsewhere might instigate further demands from the Kurds in these respective countries.

In a nutshell, Turkey approaches Kurdish independence as a win-lose. Turkey’s official stance has been one of denial and disapproval—an obstinate stance that is saturated by its existential fear of any Kurdish gain. Turkey’s Kurdophobia for decades has been fueling the Turkish war against Kurds.

If Turkey can overcome its deeply entrenched Kurdophobia, and look for the prospects of building the foundations for stronger cooperation with the newly independent Kurdish State, it will be one of the, if not only, beneficiaries. As it were after the establishment of the Kurdish de facto autonomy in 1993 in Iraq, despite Turkey’s initial furry and threats against the Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq. Thus, rather than fomenting the seeds of tension and conflict with the Kurds, Turkey should look for the opportunities that arise from Kurdish independence.

In addition to economic, security and energy cooperation, an independent Kurdish state will efficiently, and resourcefully, mediate between regional actors and their Kurdish minority populations. The KRG has mediated for decades between the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, and Turkey. The Kurdish state will have a vested interest in helping them peacefully resolve some of the entrenching, seemingly intractable issues the Kurds have with their host states.

The international community has to accept Kurdish independence with all of its complexity and dynamism. A broader understanding of the issues surrounding Kurdish independence and a collaborative approach to help resolve some of the entrenched relations, through win-win solutions, can make the region a better place. Such constructive approach will contribute to regional stability and global security.

The international community and the Iraqi Central Government can choose peace and stability through collaboration and constructive engagement with the Kurds, or to maintain the status quo and force the Kurds to remain part of Iraq—an option that seems hard to endure and particularly difficult for Iraqi Kurds to accept.

And a third possibility, and perhaps mostly disregarded, is the Kurdish pursuit for statehood notwithstanding the concerns of the international community or the Iraqi State. This is a trajectory that neither the international community nor the Iraqi government would want, as this might instigate conflict between the Iraqi Central Government and the KRG and lead Iraq into a new phase of civil war in the post-Islamic State era.

Kurdish independence is a reality and will materialize. However, it should be pursued through constructive diplomacy and mutual respect both for the rightful claims of the Kurds and genuine concerns of the international community and the Iraqi Government.

Huseyin Tunc is a New York Mediator and Researcher working on the Turkey’s Kurdish conflict at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, Columbia University. He has published, including in the peer-revived journals.

Contact Email: ht2360@columbia.edu and Phone: +1 917- 804 2003

 

The post Why is the International Community so Hostile to Kurdish Independence? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On Sunday, Germany elected Angela Merkel as chancellor for the fourth time, matching the postwar record set by the late Helmut Kohl, who was chancellor of West Germany at the time I was born there.

Helmut Kohl has cemented his place in German and European history as the unifier of East and West Germany and one of the original champions of the European Union. Merkel, a Kohl protégée, has now similarly made her mark as one of the Western world’s longest serving leaders, as well as a key figure in navigating Europe’s economic crisis, Brexit, and a migration crisis that drew 1.2 million people to Germany.

Overcoming the integration challenges associated with the migration crisis in particular will present Chancellor Merkel with the opportunity to maximize her impact on history. Broadly speaking, access to employment for refugees and immigrants is an important factor for successful integration. Merkel, therefore, should focus on developing policies and laws that focus on the socio-economic integration of refugees by addressing societal issues, like employment discrimination, head-on. If she seizes this moment, Merkel will ensure that these newly arrived refugees and their children not only build new economic opportunities for their own families, but also contribute to the fabric of a more diverse and aging German population.

Muslims, a visible minority in Germany, have experienced higher labor integration than Muslim communities in other European countries like neighboring France. To ensure continued economic integration of newly arrived refugees, the German government adopted the Integration Act in August 2016, which provides for integration classes, vocational training, employment, and training opportunities.

However, the law does not address hurdles that refugees may encounter once they are integrated. Educational achievement has not guaranteed a smooth transfer to gainful employment for immigrants in Germany. Studies indicate that ethnic minorities, including Turks, experience discrimination in the German labor market. Having a foreign name can also reduce the chance of getting a job interview; this happened to my father around the time that he completed his PhD in the late 1980s.

My father left the former Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, not long after the infamous “Rumble in the Jungle” boxing match in 1974. Not knowing any German, he left Zaire for Germany in hopes of becoming an engineer, having received a scholarship through the European Economic Community. My father was required to take one year of intensive German language courses at the Carl Duisberg Society. Thereafter, he gained acceptance to RWTH Aachen University to study electrical engineering.

By the time my father submitted his doctoral thesis in 1987, he expected that graduating with a PhD from one of Europe’s top engineering universities would result in numerous employment opportunities. That did not happen. He mailed out 50 resumes to various German companies and did not receive a single offer. I suspect that racial discrimination, unfortunately, was a contributing factor in this situation. One fateful day in January 1988, however, he decided to apply for a job interview in neighboring Luxembourg with an American company—General Motors. He got the job, and the rest, as they say, is history.

To be clear, the racial climate in German society has improved since the late 1980s, and Germany enacted the General Equal Treatment Act in 2006 to address employment discrimination based on categories like race and ethnic origin. The law, however, has noted gaps. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, the body tasked with the implementation of the act, does not have the power to carry out their own investigations in discrimination proceedings, for example. If Germany expects refugees to fully integrate into German society, the hope is that they will be rewarded with employment opportunities that will permit them to enjoy all facets of German life. Everyday discrimination against ethnic minorities is still commonplace in Germany, and the Merkel government should develop legal and policy tools that adequately address the barrier that employment discrimination could present to the successful integration of refugees.

The German people are a resilient and welcoming people, and Chancellor Merkel took a huge political risk by opening Germany’s borders to the world’s most vulnerable because of it. In 2015, she famously said that Germany would overcome the challenges associated with the migration crisis by saying “wir schaffen das,” which translates to “we can do it.” I really hope she does—just like Helmut Kohl did when Germany faced uncertainty in earlier times. The stability of German society could hang in the balance.

Laura Kupe is a German-born, Congolese-American attorney and a Political Partner at Truman National Security Project. She served as a Special Assistant in the Office of Policy, working on European affairs, at the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama Administration. Views expressed are her own.

The post In the Quest for Successful Refugee Integration, Merkel Must Address Employment Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities in Germany Head-On appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Photo: Nigeria Electricity Hub)

After five quarters, Nigeria has edged out of a recession as GDP expanded by 0.55 percent in the second quarter, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. The growth is fragile, which the government concedes, and there are not many rosy predictions from experts and pundits of a trend line continuing upward.

The Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP), announced in April, could lend a potential conduit, though. “Nigeria will be on its way to sustainable growth in the medium-term if it successfully implements the ERGP,” said Gloria Joseph-Raji, Senior World Bank economist. Potential growth may be based on increased oil production, agriculture, infrastructure and additional foreign-currency reserves.

Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country with nearly 200 million citizens, is awash in energy riches: it is the continent’s largest oil producer churning out about 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day and has the second largest oil reserves in Africa of about 37 billion barrels, trailing Libya which tallies an estimated 48 billion barrels. The nation holds the largest gas reserves in Africa – ninth globally – with 180 trillion cubic feet (tcf) with Algeria second totaling 160 tcf. With such immense supply, and comparatively lower consumption levels, the nation is the fourth largest exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) globally. The reserves present plenty of room for natural gas expansion, but rapid growth has been restricted by a lack of new infrastructure, violence and to viably capture flared gas.

Tapping the resources has left the nation saddled by the drop in oil prices and previously decreasing oil production, also partly due to militants in the oil rich southern Niger Delta forcing companies to scale back operations. The current price for a barrel of Brent crude oil sits around $55/barrel, less than half the price of $115/barrel in June 2014 (in the latest round of oil instability, the price bottomed in early 2016 to under $30/barrel). This is a tough burden to guard against as the oil and gas industry constitutes around 70 percent of Nigeria’s government revenue and over 90 percent of exports.

Nigeria’s economy has been diversifying, though, and the oil and gas industry’s contribution to its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which was rebased in April, is actually the lowest in OPEC. The National Bureau of Statistics found the industry contributed about 10.45 percent to real GDP in the third quarter. Compared to Angola, Africa’s second largest oil producer, oil production and its supporting activities contribute about 45 percent of the nation’s GDP and in Saudi Arabia, the largest producer in all OPEC, 48 percent of GDP is accounted for by the industry. In 2016, Nigeria’s GDP grew to 405 billion USD, the largest in Africa, but with a GDP per capita of 2,178 USD in 2016, trailing Sudan’s 2,415 USD, according to the World Bank.

Millions of Nigerians Remain in the Dark

With such abundant natural gas, and geography to exploit solar, among other sources, electricity access has remained low, yet increasing the past years. Estimates still range from 75 million to nearly 100 million people not having access to electricity, and of that a disproportionate amount of those with access are located in urban areas. Where electricity is present, there is well accepted knowledge that poor service, losses and the widespread lack of reliability and consistent access is unacceptable. There is large scale use of diesel generators, which can have negative health and environmental effects, as well as increase the cost of business and local goods, to make up for the shortfalls. Furthermore, the International Energy Agency estimates that 115 million people rely on traditional biomass as their main sources of energy – mostly wood, charcoal and waste – to meet basic needs, such as cooking and heating.

The Federal Ministry of Power, Works and Housing publishes updated power data on its website frequently. As of September 19, the data displayed generation peaked at 4,518 megawatts (MW), generation capability was 6,989 MW, but distribution capacity was 4,600 MW leaving potential new power to be stranded, and peak demand forecast was 17,720 MW. In a speech September 21, Federal Minister of the aforementioned ministry, Babatunde Raji Fashola, stated generation peaked at 7,001MW. Regardless of the discrepancy in peak generation information, there is an immense gap from the peak supply and peak demand.

In order for future electricity to reach end-users, and reliably, vast investment is needed by generation companies (gencos) and distribution companies (discos) for new plants, transformers, repairs, improvements, expansion and protection against theft. Nigeria began to privatize its power industry in 2013 under President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration under the auspices of the Energy Sector Reform Act of 2005, and 60 percent share of the twelve discos are privatized, so it is vital to harness that source of capital. According to Mr. Fashola, government’s role, both federal and local, now is to implement the laws, voice policies and take actions that help the private sector play its part effectively.

Lack of electricity and energy overall can lead to unstable situations, often accompanied by higher unemployment in growing young populations. Situations similar to these have been cited as potential Boko Haram recruiting grounds. That in itself can be seen as a need to stimulate access, but, of course, is not an answer in its own to prevent the scourge of terrorism.

Infrastructure Insufficient but Investment and Possibilities Continue

The acting Director General of the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC), Mr. Chidi Izuwa, has pegged the total amount of funds required to provide quality infrastructure in Nigeria over the next six years at about 100 billion USD. Of that sum, 60 billion USD would be required for the oil and gas sector and about 20 billion USD to bring the power sector up to speed.

One such project to help overcome the electricity shortage and power sector funding is the huge 3,050 MW Mambilla hydropower project, including transmission, with a price tag of 5.8 billion USD. The project has been in discussion since the 1970s with various obstacles. A new attempt to resuscitate the project has come about with an agreement with a Chinese consortium, led by the Chinese Export-Import Bank, and approved by the Federal Executive Council, presided over by President Muhammadu Buhari. An anticipated completion date was announced for 2024. Based on the multiple efforts and the last attempt being cancelled in 2013, the question is will this deal for the ambitious project actually come to fruition and shovels in the ground. The project is also expected to help Nigeria meet its Paris climate agreement commitment.

In addition, further investment is evident with Shoreline, a Nigerian company, recently completing a 300 million USD agreement with a Shell subsidiary to develop gas infrastructure around Lagos. Shoreline wants to bring its natural gas to the growing business hub and residential communities.

Solar energy is in its infancy in Nigeria. There have been multiple utility scale solar projects moving beyond concept stage and signing power purchase agreement (PPAs), but none have yet to reach commercial operations. Starting in 2015, ten PPAs were signed by the government-owned Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading (NBET). In sum of potential projects, more than 1,000 MW could be operational. There have been additional pledges by companies that could reach more than 4,000 MW. It is only a matter of time before solar does come online with the administration’s focus of solar energy and necessary financial structuring being negotiated.

Policy is Catching Up

The Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) issued a feed-in tariff in 2015, making the market more attractive for investors. One of the aims was to stimulate more than 2,000 MW of renewable generation by 2020. As another part of the scheme, discos need to source at least 50 percent of their procurement from renewable energy. The remaining 50 percent needs to be sourced from the NBET – which needs improved financial capability itself to support the electricity market.

NERC has also issued mini-grid regulations this past August to allow people to provide their own power from 1 kilowatt-1 MW. Mini-grids can play an important role reaching those in rural communities without access to electricity. In addition, an important step taken by President Buhari in March was the formation of the Board and management of the Rural Electrification Agency to facilitate access and advocate for solar options. There are a multitude of multi-national organizations, such as the World Bank, that have mini-grid/off-grid programs in other nations with electricity shortages that could act as a multiplier with investment.

The Power Sector Recovery Program involves producing more power, reducing system losses, increasing financial viability, completion of transmission projects, increasing access to electricity and implementation of more meters.

Future Remains Bright with Right Commitment

Vast opportunity continues to lay ahead for Nigeria with its increasingly educated population, the largest internet penetration in Africa, a developing tech sector, financial structure and various entrepreneurial companies sprouting up. Appropriate further policy can lead the nation on a sustainable course of development and address many of the current pressing needs, despite political wrangling and disagreements. In addition to energy, important areas to keep a focus on will be agriculture, transport, infrastructure, education, transparency, stymying corruption and evolving technology. A solid grasp of these plus Nigerians ingenuity and passion will be a path to success with appropriate support from office holders.

The post Unleashing Nigeria’s Energy Potential? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Speaking at a panel this week in New York City, retired Marine Corps Brigadier General Stephen Cheney emphasized the link between energy security and U.S. national security.

“Our nation’s concept of energy security was defined in the American mind by the two oil crises of the ’70s…where our country found its economy literally held hostage by hostile foreign powers over decisions that our leaders made in international affairs,” he said. “To ensure that nothing like that ever happens again—that should be our goal in building energy security.”

General Cheney is the CEO of the American Security Project (ASP), which presented the panel in partnership with the Foreign Policy Association. He spoke alongside two of his colleagues at ASP, Navy Vice Admiral Lee Gunn and Air Force Lieutenant General Norman Seip, both retired. The panel was an Official Affiliate Event of 2017 Climate Week NYC.

While the Department of Defense (DoD) remains the single largest consumer of fossil fuel in the world, the military faces an array of strategic and tactical concerns that have propelled it to become a leader in energy innovation. Threats include, for instance, fuel price volatility, the vulnerability of fuel convoys to attack, and the susceptibility to disruption of the commercial power supplies that installations rely on.

DoD’s energy usage is divided between installation energy (about 25%) and operational energy (about 75%). The Army is the largest installation energy user, while the Air Force is the largest operational energy user. DoD is required by law to obtain 25% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and it has committed to install one gigawatt each of renewable generating capacity from the Army, Navy and Air Force Installations by 2025.

Lieutenant General Seip highlighted programs in each of the services that address energy security on the operational level, including the Navy’s Great Green Fleet; the Marines’ Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System (GREENS) and Solar Portable Alternative Communications Energy System (SPACES); the Army’s flagship Net Zero Initiative; and the Air Force Energy Flight Plan.

“The good news is that alternative energy type of biofuels are getting to be cost-competitive,” he stressed. “It’s got to be drop-in, it’s got to be scalable, it’s got to have the same performance…and it has to be cost-competitive.”

DoD recognizes climate change itself as a threat to national security. Vice Admiral Gunn described climate change as a strategic challenge, using three terms—“threat multiplier,” “catalyst for conflict,” and “accelerant of instability”—that are employed by ASP and by CNA, where Gunn serves as president of the Institute for Public Research.

On the tactical side, he noted that “more than thirty bases around the country, but also around the world, are subject to the threats of changing climate,” including sea level rise and extreme weather conditions.

The panelists stressed the focus on long-term planning in the military, in contrast to political preoccupation with election cycles. “We must see energy security as a long-term process, not as a moment that’s frozen in time,” said Brigadier General Cheney. “Some policies get billed on security today while harming our future security.”

Vice Admiral Gunn noted progress and enthusiasm on the the local and state level in the absence of Trump administration leadership. But he warned that “China, the EU and even Saudi Arabia have national energy strategies. The United States does not and never has.” On research, development and deployment of renewables, he continued, “We’re number three and falling back every day in terms of national dedication to this…There’s no leadership on this…It’s going to be very damaging to our country.”

The post Energy Security Is a Matter of National Security Say Retired Military Leaders appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In his first address to the United Nations, President Donald Trump gave the international community a message consistent with much of his prior rhetoric on international affairs. The President declared that the United Nations, “… was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity”, and these three pillars resonated strongly through his remarks. President Trump attempted to walk the tightrope between promoting the sovereignty of all nations while denouncing the behavior of “rogue nations” both domestically and in their international engagements. In a way that seems standard to the President’s domestic observers (but was likely unfamiliar to a body like the United Nations), Mr. Trump simultaneously highlighted the importance of the sovereign rights of each nation while calling for unified global action against nations who behave in ways that cause turmoil and uncertainty for the global community.

This call to collective action is grounded in the belief that well intentioned nations in the world would find it in their individual interest to combat the advances of bad actors. President Trump’s continued promise to put America first was followed by the assumption that the leaders of other nations will, and should, follow the same approach on behalf of their citizens. To further this argument, the President highlighted remarks made by President Truman, who argued that the United Nations draws its capacity from the strength of individual members who are willing to pool their strength collectively for the betterment of all. While this approach seems common sense, it is only useful to the extent that other nations share the President’s subjective approach to right action and views on what constitutes good governance.

President Trump was unwavering in his assessment that the primary threat to global security, “… is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based.” The President called for international action against three bad actors in particular- North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, noting that the governments in each of those three nations fostered horrible outcomes both for their own people and for the international community.

In a similar way, President Trump slammed Iran for, “speak(ing) openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, (and) destruction of Israel.” He also criticized the Iranian regime as a, “corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of democracy” that sponsored terror groups that destabilize the Middle East in particular and the entire world more generally. After arguing the case that Iran is a bad actor and destabilizing force in the world, Mr. Trump castigated the Iran nuclear deal as, “an embarrassment to the United States”, and insisted that we would be hearing about the deal’s fate under his administration in short order.

While the case for collective action appears strong in the instance of North Korea and Iran, the call for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela seems to be at odds with the President’s message of sovereignty.  Make no doubt- socialism is a failed ideology, and President Trump rightly targeted the economic system as one that has spread poverty and oppression everywhere that it has been implemented. Mr. Trump also accurately suggested that it is in large part a consequence of this attempt to collectivize Venezuela’s economy that the nation’s democracy has collapsed into an increasingly dictatorial state of affairs.

Those arguments are separate, however, from the notion that Venezuela is a threat to the international order as a consequence of its economic mismanagement. To the extent that Venezuela made a genuine democratic choice to go down the path of socialism by electing Hugo Chavez to the nation’s top office in 1999, it seems suspect to violate that nation’s sovereignty on the grounds that such a decision has proven to have devastating consequences for the Venezuelan people.  While President Trump held back from again mentioning a military option in the Latin American nation, he did mark a return to full democracy as a key objective for the United Nations to pursue. Depending on the form that this objective takes, it could prove to be one of the more troubling policies put forth by the Trump administration.

In addition to his comments on the immediate state of international affairs, President Trump commented on the state of the United Nations as an institution. Against the backdrop of praise for the body’s potential to do good in the world, Mr. Trump highlighted that, “… the United Nations must reform if it is to be an effective partner in confronting threats to sovereignty, security, and prosperity”, and that, “too often the focus of (the United Nations) has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process.” On top of these reforms, the President noted that, “The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22% of the entire budget”, and that as a consequence of the United Nations’ failures on some of President Trump’s ambitions, the United States is getting out far less than it puts into the international body.

It is also worth noting that despite the strong rhetoric directed at some trouble makers, Trump refused to offer the same sort of harsh commentary towards China and Russia for their controversial foreign policies. The President only mentioned those two nations on a single occasion, when he expressed disappointment at Russian territorial expansion into Ukraine and China’s expansionism in the South China Sea. Along this same line of reasoning, Mr. Trump was quick to point to humanitarian failings by America’s rivals while refusing to extend that argument to Saudi Arabia and other American allies that have authoritarian governments with abysmal human rights records. This cognitive dissidence is troubling, especially in light of the President’s approach to collective action by sovereign mechanisms.

Taken as a whole, the value of President Trump’s speech at the United Nations is dependent on the extent to which other nations find themselves in agreement with the President’s preferred outcomes to today’s global security challenges. Mr. Trump called for collective action against rogue regimes, yet he highlighted the importance of each individual nation’s autonomy and sovereignty in a way that his recent predecessors would not have dared to endorse. This unique balance is, then, reliant on President Trump’s ability to bring other world leaders to his perspective- it will find success or failure on his ability to make a truly good deal for the American people on the world stage. “Our respect for sovereignty is also a call to action”, President Trump said towards the end of his remarks. That claim is uniquely capable of summarizing Mr. Trumps comments to the General Assembly, and the extent to which that assumption holds will play a substantial role in the future of the Trump Foreign policy.

—

Peter Scaturro- Assistant Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association

The post Our Respect for Sovereignty is also a Call to Action appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.