Foreign Policy Blogs

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released its annual 2017 World Press Freedom Index which revealed Taiwan as the top place among other Asian countries and ranks no. 45 in the world (nations in black are the least free). (RSF)

In the quest for geopolitical influence, soft power can often augment a nation’s traditional hard power resource of a strong military. The concept of soft power, often associated with Harvard professor Joseph Nye, has been defined as “a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence.” Nations have long used economic incentives or foreign aid to win friends internationally, and the widespread popularity of a nation’s culture, such as Hollywood movies and South Korean pop culture, can also contribute to positive images of a country.

While nations may seek positive images in the quest for soft power, oftentimes the opposite occurs, and nations lose soft power. Two recent examples include the U.S., where the new president has yet to gain the confidence of the majority of the public. According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% have confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs, and favorable views of the U.S. have fallen from 64% to 49%. Inside the U.S., 53% of voters disapprove of the job President Trump’s doing, according to a new Fox News Poll. 

Over in China, President Xi Jinping’s numbers are not much better, with a 28% of those world citizens polled believing Xi would do the right thing regarding world affairs. The reasons behind this low polling are varied, but are arguably influenced by the detention of human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, who called for political reforms and died on July 13 in custody.

 One nation which recently gained some soft power, whose status remains a bone of contention among Washington and Beijing, is Taiwan. The decision by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières) to open its first Asian regional headquarters in Taipei, is a stark departure from original plans to locate in Hong Kong. In explaining its decision, RSF (an advocate for press freedom) cited concerns over increasing media control in Hong Kong and potential infiltration by spies from mainland China.

According to RSF’s global rankings last year, Taiwan has now become the freest country on the Asian continent. At a news conference in Taipei last month, announcing the official launch of RSF, its secretary-general Christophe Deloire said “Taiwan is pure evidence that democracy and press freedom are possible in Chinese culture, and that is really one of the strongest arguments against claims by Beijing authorities their system is really adapted to Chinese culture.”

Soft power gains, such as the location of RSF to Taipei, can in part offset other losses (the recent loss of diplomatic recognition of Taiwan by countries like Panama), are often cost-effective compared to risky foreign investment, and should continue to be pursued as an effective tool in augmenting hard power.

The post Soft Power Gain for Taiwan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Photo Credit: KRG)

On this day, the international community marks the Yezidi genocide. On August 3, 2014, 40,000 Yezidis got stranded on Mount Sinjar. Since that date, horrific stories of sexual slavery, massacres and torture have emerged from the women who managed to escape from ISIS’ grip. On the first day of the genocide, 1,293 people were killed. From the first day of the genocide till the 15th of August, 2014, 6,470 people were kidnapped.

According to Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, who delivered a speech on the Yezidi Genocide Memorial Day, the Kidnapping Affairs Office (which is part of the Kurdistan’s Prime Minister’s Office) has managed to rescue 3,092 out of this number with 1,102 of them being women, 335 of them being men and 840 being girls under 18. Kharai Barzani, who represents the Yezidis in the Religious Affairs Ministry and supervises the Kidnappings Office, stressed that 1,600 Yezidi children were trained by ISIS in two ways. They received either ISIS Islamic instruction or military training. Nechirvan Barzani has succeeded to rescue some of them but others are still in ISIS captivity.

Kharai Barzani added that the Yezidi officials asked everyone to help them with the rescue efforts. Nechirvan Barzani opened up a case and that case became an office. Some Yezidis work there to rescue their kidnapped brethren: “We called everyone to help with the rescue efforts but no one came in the international community except Nechirvan Barzani, who has financed the rescue of Yezidis.” On the anniversary of the Yezidi Genocide, Barzani met with 30 girls in Duhok who were rescued by him in order to hear their stories and to ask about their needs.

Kharai Barzani blames the international community for not helping the Yezidis enough: “What happened to the Yezidis is genocide by all definitions. The international community did not do anything to rescue them. Even when Nechirvan Barzani rescues people, the international community does not come to help them. Sinjar is in our zone till now. The Shia militias are also there. Turkey also bombarded the place for the PKK is there. We call on the international community to help.”

However, the lack of response from the international community is not the only issue facing the Yezidis in their struggle to have their genocide recognized. Hussin Hassam is the Yezidi representative for the High Governmental Commission on the Yezidi Genocide that was established by Nechirvan Barzani: “Our commission visited the ICC and a lot of other international organizations to push the international community to recognize as genocide the crimes committed against the Yezidis. Unfortunately, we have been facing a lot of issues for the government in Baghdad is not cooperating with KRG in seeking global international justice for Iraq is not willing to bring groups to The Hague. We need to make a declaration to get the ICC to start a criminal case for these cases and that is why the Prime Minister has decided to do everything possible for the establishment of a special international court like in Rwanda.”

Because not all of the areas where ISIS committed crimes are under the KRG control presently and because the government in Baghdad is not cooperating, the KRG presently is forced to only begin a case regarding what happened in the southern side of the Sinjar Mountains: “This case is still open. We are trying to do our best to get a judicial ruling. We have gotten a lot of recognition of it as a genocide but so far, it was political for it was done by governments and international organizations. However, the KRG wants a judicial case.”

“The KRG still feels the pain of what happened three years ago,” Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said. “The KRG will do its best to reduce the pain of what happened to our beloved Yezidis. The acts of ISIS went beyond all cruelty.” Nechirvan Barzani emphasized that it was the Iraqi army that failed the Yezidis and other peoples of Nineveh in 2014 by running away instead of fighting ISIS: “It is clear to all that fighting terrorism and protection in Nineveh was the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. They had advanced weapons and all they needed. But when five Iraqi army divisions took off their uniform and ran away, they left behind the best and most advanced weapons to ISIS which they used to attack the Nineveh plains and the beloved Shingal region in particular.” The Prime Minister said that the arms Peshmerga had in possession were no match for the advanced weaponry ISIS had just seized from the Iraqi army: “When ISIS came with those weapons, they were more advanced than our Peshmerga. And with the old weapons they had in their hands, there was no way the Peshmerga could defend Shingal.”

According to Mahma Khalil, the PKK is inhibiting the rebuilding of the Sinjar Region today, stressing that some people cannot go back to their lands due to the PKK creating issues for them. Khalil emphasized that some people are also afraid since the PKK kidnaps children and trains them to join their group. For this reason, between the Shia Militias and the PKK, the Yezidi people in Mount Sinjar are not able to rebuild their lives in their ancestral homeland.

The post Remembering the Yezidi genocide appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On the road of corruption, there must often be a mechanism or legal shield in order to protect past crimes by individuals, parties or governments that have had their hands in the public purse for their personal gain or that of their party.

Silence may not protect high ranking politicians and corrupt community leaders from prosecution if public outrage and activist judicial authorities are able to break through the barrier of silence and power and find those who have committed crimes against the public interest. Brazil is an example where the powerful have been tied to corrupt practices, and while not a perfect and wholly agreed upon solution, moves towards de-legitimizing corruption in Brazil has begun.

Often the concentration of power to one individual or party comes with the presentation of actions that will improve the public good. Altering an election system to make individual votes more balanced is something that any citizen of any country would approve of, but when it installs one party and one President or Prime Minister indefinitely by legal means, it de-legitimizes the law and assures that a small cabal of powerful people has almost total control of the society with no effective means to remove them from power. In many cases, these actions come on the heels of issues linked to corruption or are formalized in a manner that protects powerful politicians from being subject to transparency.

Another abuse of power that often follows this normalization of corruption is that opposition to the government change in policy is labelled and ostracized so they lose legitimacy in their perspective, or in some cases are outright arrested for working against the state itself.

There are no true international mechanisms to assure that elections will not install corrupt governments when the national legal framework is changed to suit the powerful few over the public. An international standard of legal alterations that would avoid the absolute corruption of a legal and political system would be useful, but would require unified and legitimate political will.

Venezuela as a case in point has legalized a committee that will change their constitution to make it into one that permits a concentration of power into a one party state. Protests have been met with violence, and with the current government’s stockpile of advanced weapons over the last twelve years, there is a good chance that Venezuela will resemble the 2009 mass protests in Iran, with their own Neda and silence from the international community. In 2017, it seems as if international crimes and the natural response to promote justice are limited by illegitimate legal power in places like Venezuela, and silence from most international media while local media is threatened and imprisoned.

This combination guarantees that the worst elements of dictatorships almost always succeed in our current generation.

The post Venezuela is on the Road to a One Party State appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

North Korea has proven  its determination once again to fulfill its aspiration as a self-proclaimed Nuclear Power State with a new ballistic test on July 27th. These tests marked the 64th anniversary of the signing of the Korean armistice. According to the US Department of Defense, an intermediate-range missile Hwasong-14 traveled 620 miles from a Jagang base before landing into the Sea of Japan, within Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

This test represents a new challenge to Washington, after Pyongyang conducted its first successful ICBM test last July 1st, which proved that the regime has now reached a new and dreadful stage in the acquisition of preemptive first strike capabilities. Despite the initial predictions, under Kim Jong-un’s leadership, the quest for nuclear weapons has achieved significant breakthroughs. The regime has reached an unprecedented level of sophistication in a number of vital areas, including the development of solid-duel rocket engines and the expansion of mobile launch capabilities.

While Pyongyang has made important progress in the acceleration of its intercontinental range ballistic missile program, North Korea’s regime pushes towards the acquisition of the miniaturization technology considered critical to arm a nuclear warhead. The nation could plausibly achieve this milestone in early 2018 as reported by an anonymous CNN source.

Many observers consider this new test additional evidence about Pyongyang’s determination to deliver a “stern warning to Washington in response to any attempt to alter the peninsula status quo”. North Korea’s warmongering to annihilate the U.S. could now be more than an empty threat since it appears that Pyongyang has acquired the capabilities to hit major cities beyond the West Coast. There is the possibility that the range of the North Korean missile could potentially reach New York City and Washington DC, fostering concerns over Pyongyang’s aggressive intentions.

In the aftermath of the recent missile test, two B-1B Bomber Jets have been deployed to the Korean peninsula, joining Japanese and South Korean fighter jets for training exercise purposes. The United States have also tested the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in Alaska by launching a mock ballistic missile in the Pacific Ocean to prove their ability to repel any incoming threat, and to inspire its allies over Washington’s adamant commitment to contrast any further expansion of Pyongyang’s nuclear threat.

The U.S. Pacific Air Forces Commander, Gen. O’Shaughnessy has warned North Korea that the U.S. may “respond with rapid, lethal and overwhelming force at a time and place of our choosing”, highlights that the defiant regime is getting close to Washington’s redline. Meanwhile, UN Ambassador Haley has stressed that the U.S. could pursue a different pact, including the deployment of “consistent military forces”, rather than relying on the UN Security Council to consider further actions. Washington has expressed its frustration several times for its inability to produce consistent results through conventional diplomatic tools to rein in Pyongyang, even acknowledging two decades of failed attempts to denuclearize North Korea.

Over the years, North Korea’s militaristic propaganda has several times made threats to Washington about serious military retaliations in response to any incoming threat to the survival of the Kim’s dynasty. Amid the growing tensions in the Korean peninsula, Pyongyang has further stressed and justified its path toward the acquisition of nuclear capabilities as a tool to achieve the natural vocation of the DPRK as a nuclear power nation as enshrined in its Constitution. The ultimate strategy is to further consolidate its position and eventually force Washington to normalize relations.

During the Obama Administration, Pyongyang offered a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War in return for Washington’s commitment to renounce the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, a de facto recognition of Pyongyang’s nuclear power status. Such a proposal was promptly rejected by Washington, urging for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula as a prerequisite for restarting any new negotiation.

North Korea has become one of the most pressing priorities for the Trump Administration. Its resolution to tame the belligerent regime under the auspices of Beijing has so far produced little results. Trump’s Administration has also expressed its regrets for China’s limited efforts to curb North Korea’s nuclear program, calling for a more radical engagement in restraining Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Since the Trump Administration took office, regular promises to“take care” of the North Korea issue have characterized the very last days of the previous “strategic patience” strategy.

Trump Administration’s initial entente with China and its attempts to convince Beijing to fully recalibrate its North Korean policy have not produced the expected results, raising tensions culminated in the recent threats of waging a trade war against China. Despite this, Beijing has expressed its frustration for not being able to regain control of the former communist ally, the Chinese leadership remains committed to preventing the collapse of the North Korean regime and the marked geo-strategic alteration that could emerge from the ashes of the hermit kingdom under the auspices of Washington.

Due to the increasing level of North Korea’s nuclear assertiveness, the discussion over a military intervention in the Korean Peninsula has become a recurring topic. The consequence of a military action would certainly expose Washington and its close allies to major retaliation, not to mention the disruption of the fragile balance of the regional security architecture.

Kim Jong-un’s decision to pursue nuclear development along with economic expansion has characterized his personal agenda (byungjin policy) leaves no doubts that the international sanctions and diplomatic pressure from China would not alter the direction taken by the North Korean leadership. North Korean leadership considers itself constantly exposed to foreign attack or internal coup that could destitute Kim’s family sharing the fate of other authoritarian regimes such as Ghaddafi’s Libya in the wake of his decision to abandon the nuclear program in return of expected economic aids under  Washington’s pressure.

North Korea’s regime is now one of the most immediate threats to US national security and also an additional challenge for the Trump Administration, constantly engaged in redefining the contours of American strategic architecture in the Asia-Pacific region. Albeit, Washington remains adamant in instilling faith in its closer allies towards its strategic commitment in the region while confronting the growing threat represented by the North Korean regime, the risk of igniting a conflict in the region, whose catastrophic effects could far outweigh the removal of Kim’s dynastic rule, must be avoided.

The post North Korea’s ICBM Test Jeopardizes Regional Balance of Power appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff/Flickr

As President of France, Emmanuel Macron has revived the “Grande Nation” more quickly than even he could have imagined: France was recently declared the world’s top soft power for 2017, outranking both the US and the UK for the first time.

After Donald Trump’s recent visit to join Macron for the French National Day celebrations in Paris, the ranking is not too surprising. Less than two months after the handshake heard ‘round the world, Macron’s flattering reception of his American counterpart was apparently enough to paper over the rift the French president himself opened in previous meetings. Having asserted his independence for the sake of his domestic audience, Macron treated Trump (who is easily impressed by displays of military power) to the annual parade on the Champs-Élysées and dinner atop the Eiffel Tower.

Macron has a reputation for deft political maneuvering, and inviting Trump to Paris was the latest example. During the visit, Trump not only retracted his earlier Paris-bashing but even suggested that “something could happen” on the Paris climate agreement. What is that something? For now, only Trump knows. More important is the fact Macron has turned Paris into Washington’s primary European point of contact… all while re-elevating the role of France in global affairs.

Macron’s nascent relationship with Trump, however, comes at the expense of other traditional American partners in Europe and most especially the UK. The success of Macron’s overtures has surely come as a slap in the face to Theresa May. After all, the British prime minister has invested considerable time and political capital on forging a relationship since well before Macron even became president.

Those efforts started well before Trump’s inauguration, when May responded to Trump’s victory with unequivocal congratulations to the President-elect. Just days after he took office, May became the first world leader to visit President Trump at the White House in Washington. May has repeatedly hitched her wagon to Trump’s by insisting that the US & UK can “lead, together, again.”

As of now, she has very little to show for it. Because the prospect of his coming to London has been met with hostility from the British public, Trump has written off any state visit to the UK until next year at the earliest. Trump upped the ante after leaving Paris by reportedly refusing to come until Theresa May can assure him a similarly warm welcome in the UK.

That Trump can so easily shift his affinities between Britain and France, at the very moment contentious negotiations over the Brexit he supported get underway, is a jarring reminder to Downing Street that Trump is both fickle and unreliable in his priorities. Trump’s constantly changing views on a UK-US trade deal, a cornerstone of the British government’s post-Brexit planning, should be most worrying.

In April, Trump’s commerce secretary indicated a trade deal with the UK was a low priority for the administration and argued that a deal with the EU was more important. This month, Trump himself reversed course and opined that a trade deal with the UK would be completed “very, very quickly”. On Tuesday, he promised that the US-UK special relationship would be “even better” – in between tweets attacking his own Attorney General and joking that his young son would soon be testifying in the Russia investigations.

And yet, despite her American counterpart’s constant unpredictability, May keeps putting high hopes in Trump and puts her own credibility on the line to defend his erratic behavior. Embroiled in the intricacies of Brexit, there is a real danger of Theresa May getting herself “stuck in the pending tray.” With Trump distracted by his troubles at home, she would be better off not counting on a UK-US FTA any time soon. Her best move (at least as far as life after Brexit is concerned) would be to focus on the UK’s alternative options.

It’s fortunate that she has several to choose from. Following extensive visits by UK government officials to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), GCC states and major British trade partners like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have reacted positively to the idea of forming free trade agreements with the UK. Both countries are looking for investments to realize deep economic restructuring, and annual exports from Britain to the GCC already total about £30 billion.

As the largest member of the bloc, Saudi Arabia is at the forefront of British attention to the region. The Saudis welcomed Theresa May to Riyadh in April to talk trade and the upcoming IPO of Saudi Aramco (in London, if May has her way). London recently published new rules to facilitate the listing of foreign state-owned firms at the London Stock Exchange as part of its bid for Aramco’s public offering. Both May and Cabinet officials like Liam Fox have endorsed Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 economic program, of which the Aramco IPO is a significant component.

Besides the Gulf states, former British colonies like Australia and India have also been much more consistent in quickly reaching agreements once the UK is outside the European Union. Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull used a joint press conference with May two weeks ago to tell reporters he is ready to sign a free trade agreement with London “as quickly as the UK is able to move” after Brexit. India has hinted that an ongoing visa issue for qualified workers needs to be resolved for negotiations to take off in earnest, but Narendra Modi is still a much more straightforward interlocutor than Donald Trump.

As Brexit negotiations get dicey, Theresa May and her government will need to be able to point to tangible steps forward. The current political climate in the US is hardly amenable to “quickly” coming to terms on a US-UK FTA – at least for now. May needs to focus on serious partners from other parts of the globe, at least until the instability in Washington comes to an end.

The post Theresa May’s Misplaced Bet on Donald Trump appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin, 2011 (RBC)

As CNN reports, U.S. “companies from the oil, energy, banking, aerospace, auto and heavy manufacturing industries” have been lobbying against the new Russia sanctions legislation currently making its way through Congress, arguing that it could harm their business interests. Since the Trump administration’s efforts at weakening the bill appear to have failed, Russia is now pinning its hopes on opposition from U.S. corporations and from the European Union to avoid tightened U.S. sanctions.

In addition to new sanctions aimed at punishing Russia for its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, human rights violations, and aggression toward Russia’s neighbors, the bill limits the president’s ability to ease sanctions without congressional approval. This sets up a tough choice for Trump: Sign the bill and accept limitations on his authority to control U.S. policy regarding Russia, or veto it and risk accusations that he is doing the Kremlin’s bidding. The “Trump-proof” sanctions bill has strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and a Trump veto would further risk a humiliating override vote in Congress.

Russia views the bill “extremely negatively,” and Russian media have been quick to grasp at U.S. corporate opposition to tightened sanctions. For international audiences, corporate opposition to the bill has been reported in English at Pravda, Sputnik, and RT, emphasizing its potential harm to U.S. and international business interests. As these reports note, U.S. corporations opposing or seeking changes in the bill include ExxonMobil, General Electric, Boeing, Ford, Dow Chemical, Citigroup, Visa, and MasterCard.

ExxonMobil, incidentally, was recently fined $2 million by the U.S. Treasury Department for violating sanctions on Russia while current U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was the company’s CEO. While at ExxonMobil Tillerson met with Russian President Vladimir Putin numerous times following their first meeting in 1999, and condemned U.S. sanctions on Russia following Russia’s attack on Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. Tillerson’s former role at ExxonMobil and his relationship with Russia have raised conflict of interest concerns regarding his current role as Secretary of State. Tillerson has been vocal in his criticism of the current sanctions bill.

Reports in English from Russian media also note European Union concerns and warnings that “unintended consequences” may result from “unilateral tightening of Russia sanctions.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quoted calling the sanctions “a peculiar move” by the United States. Concerned particularly that tightened sanctions on Russia might impact Europe’s energy sector, the EU has indeed expressed alarm at the bill, urging the United States to coordinate sanctions with its European partners. EU opposition to tightened U.S. sanctions on Russia comes despite evident Russian interference in European as well as U.S. elections.

U.S. corporate opposition to tightened sanctions on Russia has also been widely reported in Russian-language media for domestic audiences. American industrialists are “tired of the persecution of Russia,” says Pravda TV, “and demand that their own business interests be protected.” Pravda TV also notes EU corporate opposition to tightened U.S. sanctions on Russia: “The presence of these restrictions for most business people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is a major headache. Business seeks to resolve this issue and return to traditional business relations.”

Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election and suspicions regarding possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign have put considerable pressure on Congress and the White House to take strong measures against Russia. Both in Russia and in American and European corporate circles, however, the hope seems to be that multinational business interests will prevail over the interests of American democracy and national security.

The post Russia Pins Hopes on U.S. Corporations to Ease Sanctions appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Dilma Rousseff was impeached last year as the elected President of Brazil. The divide between her supporters and her opponents led to some of the largest political demonstrations in the country’s history. Michel Temer, who replaced President Rousseff, was suspected of being complicit in corrupt practices as well, and has recently been investigated and charged but still holds his position as President. Former popular President Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva who was set to run again for Rousseff’s PT party was convicted recently under a corruption probe, and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Actions against corrupt practices coming out of the Petrobras scandal have placed many of Brazil’s political class under legal review. The judicial activists who had the courage and ability to go after corruption in the country have exposed the structural and institutional infestation of corruption in Brazil. While Brazil is not unique in being mired in corruption, the actions by some in its judiciary and government came from the anger of the people and the desire to end waste that had consistently burdened the citizens of Brazil.

The character of corruption is that once it takes hold, it is almost impossible to get rid of in any meaningful way. Because deep corruption is often embedded in the top tier of an organization, the practices to get ahead and be successful permeates the entire administrative structure from the top down. This makes it impossible to grow as an honest agent in that structure without acquiescing in some way to the new infected culture. Working against those practices often means coming from the outside and pairing with internal agents.

Such individuals often assume a great risk to their career in exposing the problems within their organization, and in most cases those whistle-blowers lose in the greater scheme of repairing or replacing corrupt agents in those organizations. Embedded corruption, often one that came with the creation of an agency is even more of a challenge, as the institutions and structures within are formed around a tradition of corrupt practices. When analyzing the challenge the judicial activists in Brazil had to confront in institutions that were built on generations of corrupt practices, it was shown that issues were present in most established control structures with many politicians and business leaders from many political parties in Brazil being found linked in their investigations.

Brazilians in many ways had no choice but to demand accountability, and it was evident that most of their political leaders were not in the moral position to pursue change. Fighting against corrupt practices was the only way to turn power and just policies back towards helping the average person in Brazil. Voting for political parties that have been tarnished by corrupt practices is the worst approach as it institutionalizes and legitimizes their illegal activity.

With no political betters, the courage and strength of Brazil’s judicial inquirers were placed in the position to investigate and apply legal solutions when most Brazilians likely assumed this possibility did not exist. Beyond abrupt revolutionary movements, removing corrupt practices is almost impossible. Even some of the least corrupt societies have trouble challenging institutionalized corrupt practices.

Brazil may just be fortunate to have a few who are able to change their country by reducing corruption via a positive and legitimate judicial approach, perhaps for the first time in their history.

The post Judicial Activism and the Fight Against Institutionalized Corruption appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Indonesian navy crew (right) check one of seven fishing boats destroyed in Batam, Kepulauan Riau province on February 22, 2016 (AFP Photo/Sei Ratifa)

With its announcement at a United Nations conference last month, Indonesia became the first nation to commit to publish the exact location and activity of its commercial fishing fleet.  The decision was announced at a U.N. conference on the ocean, and calls for Indonesia to publish Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data on the mapping platform of Global Fishing Watch,  an independent 501c3 organization founded and supported by Oceana, SkyTruth, and Google.

Solely a tool of transparency, Global Fishing Watch allows citizens, journalists, researchers, commercial interests and governments to track some 60,000 fishing vessels in near real time, using satellite systems and publicly broadcast Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals from ships at sea.   AIS signals cover the majority of all industrial-sized commercial fishing vessels (those exceeding a capacity of 100 Gross Tons which average around 24 meters).  Smaller vessels are not required to carry AIS, though can be tracked using government-owned VMS data.

Indonesia’s announcement follows concerns over increased illegal fishing activity in the South China Sea, and several incidents of ramming between fishing vessels and coast guard vessels of various nations.  Indonesia, the second largest producer of wild-caught seafood in the world, will add some 5,000 vessels to the database of Global Fishing Watch.

Since Beijing claims some 90% of the South China Sea, many Chinese fishing boats operate in the exclusive economic zones of other countries with the support of Beijing.  Chinese officials often argue its fishing fleets are operating in “traditional Chinese fishing grounds,” a position which was recently refuted by an international court in The Hague under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) signed by China.

This position often draws the ire of countries such as Indonesia, which has been particularly tough on illegal fishing, following the appointment of Susi Pudjiastuti as Minister of Fisheries and Marine Affairs.  Susi has drawn widespread support from Indonesians for her crackdowns on illegal fishing, after years of the government downplaying incidents (especially  in 2010 and 2013) over concerns Beijing could cut investment in Indonesia.  

The decision by Indonesian authorities to support better fishing transparency may help prevent confusion over incidents such as last year’s ramming of an Indonesian Ministry of Fishery and Marine Affairs patrol ship by a Chinese coast guard vessel in March 2016.  According to media reports, a 300-ton Chinese fishing vessel had been illegally fishing about 4 kilometres off Indonesia’s Natuna island chain.  The Indonesian patrol ship confronted the Chinese fishing vessel, detained its crew, and proceeded to tow it to Indonesian shores.  Before they reached shore, a Chinese coast guard vessel came to the rescue, ramming the Chinese fishing boat, and eventually prying it free, boarding it, and sailing it away.  The Chinese Foreign Ministry argued the incident occurred within “traditional Chinese fishing grounds” and the Chinese coast guard ship assisted the seized Chinese fishing boat without entering Indonesian territorial waters.

Beijing is not expected to publish the location and activity of its commercial fishing fleet anytime soon, but other nations’ efforts toward greater transparency of their own fleets may help protect their fishermen when operating in their exclusive economic zones.  Indonesia’s intention to map its own fleet is an effort toward much-needed transparency, and by working with an independent organization, Jakarta could effectively set the standard in the South China Sea and shame any further efforts by Beijing to claim “traditional fishing grounds”.

The post Indonesia Leads the Way on Mapping Fishermen appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo Credit: Hindu Struggle Committee

In an exclusive interview, Shipan Kumer Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, described the ascent of ISIS in Bangladesh and how it poses a threat to the Hindu community.

Shipan Kumer Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, stated in an exclusive interview that ISIS is on the ascent in Bangladesh and he blames the Bangladeshi government for this reality: “Many of the people who have gone to fight the Coalition Forces have returned. How many of them have been arrested by Sheikh Hasina’s government? Only a handful. These people are nurtured, protected and backed by Sheikh Hasina. They are used to spread terror and fear among the minorities.”

According to Basu, Sheikh Majubur Rehman, the father of Sheikh Hasina, always despised the minorities and Sheikh Hasina has vowed to follow in her father’s footsteps when she came into power: “So, her policy is to make Bangladesh free of the minorities. She has used ISIS in a very veiled and clandestine way. Although the US has time and again pointed out ISIS’s presence in Bangladesh, the government denies it. Within a few days of the denial, a police constable was murdered and ISIS claimed responsibility on their website. Another incident was of a person spreading leaflets of ISIS propaganda in the Bangladeshi capital city of Dhaka. Many ISIS members are from reputable families in the party leadership so there is no suspicion against them.”

Basu related that the attack upon a Dhaka café in July 2016, which left 28 people dead after hostages were held for 12 hours, permitted the truth to come out into the open. During that attack, local Islamists were the culprits: “How many has the government arrested or put behind bars? How many training camps are in Sheikh Hasina’s own Gopalguni district, where Hindus are now in a state of horror? I want to call upon the international community to prepare a report on the plight of Hindus in her district. The state has become a killing field for the minorities. With the government supporting terrorists and jihadists, Muslim fanatics have risen their ugly faces.”

“ISIS has forced Hindus to flee from their ancestral homeland,” he stressed. “There is massive land grabbing, torture, rape, murder, the destruction of Hindu temples and gods, the threatening of Hindu priests and even the killing of Hindu priests. It is all the handiwork of ISIS jihadists. Forced conversion is another ploy to diminish the minorities. Forcefully, they have converted many Hindu women and girls.”

Basu emphasized that the modus operandi of ISIS in Bangladesh has changed: “They have now merged with local operatives because ISIS was declared an international terror organization. So, all of their activities are covert. They camouflage themselves with the ruling parties rank and file and Islamic extremist groups. Due to this, they have kept up their dreadful activities at ease. Even if an arrest is made, it is classified as a local minor incident and small charges are made against the terrorist. No stringent anti-terror law is applied. Dr. Abul Barakat, a Dhaka University Professor, said that if the cleansing of minorities continue in the present way, there will be no more Hindu minorities left in Bangladesh in 30 years.”

The post Hindu rights activist: “Bangladesh is now infested with ISIS” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

U.S. President Donald Trump meets with South Korean President Moon Jae-in (left) at the White House in Washington, DC on June 29. (Yonhap)

U.S. President, Donald Trump and South Korean President, Moon Jae-in, wearing similar-tone-bearing blue ties reaffirmed their ‘ironclad’ commitments to the U.S.–ROK ‘blood alliance’. During a joint press conference, held in the White House Rose Garden on June 30, the leaders affirmed their bond regarding a unified assertion against North Korea’s existential treats. They agreed on the fact that North Korea’s ballistic and nuclear weapons development has reached a tipping point, where ‘maximum pressure’ needs to replace ‘strategic patience’ in a bid to curb North Korea’s evolving errant behavior.

Nonetheless, the two leaders showed a hint of flexibility regarding the extent of strategic choices under consideration, by underlining that their utmost priority is to keep the Korean peninsula peaceful. In this sense, the White House respected Moon’s pursuance of a ‘two-track’ strategy, by acknowledging the importance of initiating a dialogue with North Korea ‘under the right circumstances’. Although the nature of such circumstances remains open to subjective interpretation, the U.S.–ROK alliance has adamantly emphasized that the measures of UN sanctions should be heightened, unless North Korea fulfills its basic obligations to denuclearize itself as a responsible member of international society. In the meantime, the alliance has occasionally softened its tone by making it clear that it does not seek regime change or regime collapse in North Korea. The summit, held for the first time following Moon’s  restoration of presidential powers in South Korea, shared the common goal of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula in a peaceful manner, and re-appreciating South Korea’s leadership role in moving the process toward peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula.

President Moon Jae-in lays a wreath at the memorial to the Battle of Chosin Reservoir at the National Museum of the Marine Corps, in Virginia, June 28. (Blue House photo pool)

Moon began his four-day trip to the White House by attending the dedication ceremony for the Chosin Few Battle Monument on June 28. Surprisingly, Moon’s own parents were among the refugees saved by U.S. Marines from Chinese attack during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. At the dedication ceremony, Moon sincerely demonstrated his gratitude in his speech toward the U.S. veterans gathered at the event. He confessed his personal indebtedness to them as follows: “If it hadn’t been for those who fought in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, if the operation to evacuate the port of Hungnam hadn’t been successful, my life would probably have never begun, and I would not be here today”. He also added how the veterans’ sacrifices had not been forgotten by the nation, either: “The Republic of Korea remembers your and your parents’ sacrifice and dedication. Its memory of gratitude and respect will continue forever”.

Such efforts on Moon’s part to revalorize the U.S.–ROK blood alliance were revealed as even more resolute in his trade gift. Leading South Korean conglomerates that accompanied Moon as part of his business delegation announced constructive job-creating investment plans on American soil. Samsung Electronics will invest $1.8 billion in home appliances and semiconductor plant facilities in South Carolina and Texas. Likewise, LG Electronics will spend $550 million on washing machine plants in Tennessee and New Jersey. SK Group and GS Group will begin importing American shale-gas in a few years, while Hanjin Group will purchase 50 additional planes from Boeing over the next seven years. These investments plans were, however, unfortunately not enough to appease Trump’s appetite for the ‘America First’ doctrine. Trump addressed the trade imbalance issue between the two countries in his statement, prognosticating renegotiation of the U.S.–Korea Free Trade Agreement, or KORUS FTA.

In the greater scheme, however, this trade imbalance is not a major point for the U.S–ROK alliance. There are still many issues that the two countries need to seek agreement on, based on close mutual trust. In this regard, the summit successfully regularized a 2 + 2 ministerial meeting, as well as a high level Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group under the common purpose of strengthening extended deterrence against the Kim Jung-un’s threats.

Bad Omen for the Future of Two-Track Policy?

The U.S.­–ROK summit approved Moon’s two-track policy, offering the Kim Jung-un an opportunity to exit from its current escalation phase. However, Kim Jung-un dynasty refused to do so, at least initially, speaking instead of its intention to directly play the game with U.S . On the eve of Independence Day, the Kim dynasty tested Hwaseong 14 ICBM, the country’s leader calling the event a “package of gifts” for Americans. The Kim dynasty’s such test since the Moon administration took power overshadowed Moon’s July 6 ‘Berlin Declaration’, which was intended to solemnly manifest the revival of the Kim Dae-jung administration’s inter-Korean rapprochement approach.

In a coordinated response, the U.S., South Korea and Japan swiftly released a joint statement in the middle of the annual G-20 meeting hosted by Germany, calling again for newer and tougher UN sanctions against Kim Jung-un’s provocation, as well as China’s greater role in restraining Kim Jung-un. U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Hailey, at a UN Security Council meeting called Kim’s unexpected gift “a clear and sharp military escalation” and further stated that “we will work with China…but we will not repeat the inadequate approaches [of] the past”. South Korean Foreign Affairs Minister, Kang Kyung Hwa, seemed to concur with these remarks when she told the National Assembly on July 9 that she is in the process of discussing secondary boycotts with the U.S.

As Kim Jung-un’s provocations evolve into a new phase, some analysts suggest that a nuclear freeze in exchange for the suspension of annual U.S.­–ROK military exercises is the only viable solution to the problem. Nevertheless, latest developments testify that the time is not yet right. Perhaps Kim Jung-un’s greed to maximize his negotiation leverage has grown too immense for the carrot-oriented Moon-shine policy  to properly work.

The post The ‘Blood Alliance’s Future Knotted with Blue Ties appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

How Will We Manage When They Know They Can Hit Us?

North Korea’s July 4 launch of an ICBM pushes us to a full reckoning with our motives, values, and national existence. In columnist Charles Krauthammer’s words, for “25 years and five administrations, we have kicked the North Korean can down the road. We are now out of road.” North Korea has put enough “facts on the ground” to present us with a stark choice, between military action or acquiescence to their intercontinental nuclear capacity. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s explicit public reference to U.S. military power suggests that U.S. policy makers do not see other options.

Our influence in the world and our security have diminished. We must note that every administration since 1994 paved the road to today; faults and errors are bipartisan and often very human. Regardless, events and arguments will raise questions that portend even greater dangers. We must prepare for a long game, and start by reorienting our foreign policy to America’s basic precepts.

Our reaction to the July 4 test implies that our highest priority is to avoid the threat of nuclear attack. But North Korea will likely gain their nuclear capable ICBMs.  When they do, will we be comforted that  a nuclear attack on the US would be suicide? What if they demand concessions from South Korea or Japan, thinking that we are deterred from striking them? If we only brandish our own military power now that they can hit us, how confident will our allies be in our protection in the future?

North Korea’s operating style will surely confront us with those questions sooner rather than later. The wrong answers will trigger a cascade of losses and doubts. If we show our security commitments to be malleable, allies will disappear. Second, such wavering calls America’s motives into question. Our rhetoric, to protect peace and stability, promote prosperity, and encourage democracy, will look cavalier, or like a cynical cover for raw power. Third, if a nation founded on freedom’s principles will not take risks for others’ freedom, perhaps no one really cares about freedom. Perhaps America’s founding principles are delusional. Fourth, our holding of those principles mark our national identity. If their “self evident” truth is discredited, so will be America’s legitimacy.

The  administration is fashioning responses to the latest launches, and the commentariat is abuzz with attempts to find new angles.  All acknowledge that military action will trigger disastrous counterstrikes, and no one sees Kim Jong Un making compromises.  None can avoid ex-diplomat Evans Revere’s cogently point, that every option for policy toward North Korea leads to outcomes that are beyond bad.  He also notes that any policy will demand skillful diplomacy with many countries, which may not work anyway.  No policy today will avoid the ugly questions, which could discredit America dangerously.

America must turn its focus to reversing any cascade of doubts, into one of affirmation of our nature and goals. Only from affirmation and clear resolve can we build leverage over North Korea or other regimes of its ilk, and it will need time to take effect. Getting to that point requires that we play the long game, with a clear and firm focus.

America’s true bottom line has always been validation of our founding creed, of unalienable rights and government serving to secure them. If we re-voice our policy goals in these terms, we exhibit our true motives, and address the worst possibility of the dystopian cascade.

Our creed need not alienate us from what Freedom House calls “partly free” regimes. Some afford their people more welfare and freedom than others; some are raising those levels and some lowering them. China, though still a one-party state, has a government that knows its public obligations and aims to better the condition of its citizens. We will not be friends as we are with Denmark, but we share some values, as well as common interests. We can see degrees of compatibility,with our ethos as the yardstick.  Using it to calibrate our relationships, we assert our values.  Our global scope for diplomatic collaboration will expand.

A growing understanding of our goals will tip countries like China to focus, more and more over time, on the compatibilities with us.  North Korea will stand out, more and more over time, as an abhorrent outlier, any interest in supporting them less and less worth the cost.

While we should build a new policy base regardless of their threat, we could then point out to North Korea how we adapt to degrees of friendship and enmity — and their weapons, belligerence, and inhumanity put them at the bottom of the ladder. If they feel that Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow proves their need for a nuclear arsenal, they can be reminded of an arsenal’s failure to save the Soviet Union, and we view their regime as more reprehensible than the Soviets’.

The world ultimately shares our values, which are genuinely the root of our animosity to North Korea. If America aligns our policies by that priority, more will see North Korea as we do – confronting them with a choice between better conduct and the Soviets’ fate.  More importantly, we restore our global influence, in the name of rights and freedom. But it will take time.  We should start as soon as possible.

The post North Korea: Push Comes to Shove appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Natalia Veselnitskaya (Facebook via Talking Points Memo/Kurir)

President Donald Trump’s Russia problems have multiplied with recent reports that his son, Donald Trump Jr., met with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign after he was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton and told that this information was “part of a Russian government effort” to help his father in winning the presidency. These revelations are the clearest indication yet of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere in the election.

The meeting took place at Trump Tower in New York on June 9, 2016. Initial reports were that the meeting included Trump Jr., the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the Russian lawyer, Natalia (or Natalya) Veselnitskaya (Наталия [or Наталья] Весельницкая). It was later learned that the meeting also included Russian American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin (Ринат Ахметшин), thought to be a former Soviet intelligence agent; Russian American translator Anatoli Samochornov (Анатолий Самочернов), who has previously worked with Veselnitskaya; and Irakly “Ike” Kaveladze (Ираклий Кавеладзе), a U.S. citizen born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The meeting was arranged by publicist Rob Goldstone at the request of his client, Azerbaijani-Russian pop star and businessman Emin Agalarov (Эмин Агаларов). Trump Sr. previously met Emin and his father Aras Agalarov (Араз Агаларов) at the 2013 Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas and Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, both owned by Trump, and in which Goldstone was also involved. A Russian blogger posted numerous photos of Trump, Goldstone, and the Agalarovs meeting in Las Vegas. Goldstone is also thought to have been present at the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower.

Emin Agalarov, Donald Trump, and Aras Agalarov (Life.ru)

Rob Goldstone with Emin Agalarov and Donald Trump (Facebook via The Stern Facts)

Aras and Emin Agalarov are respectively the president and first vice-president of Crocus Group (Крокус Групп), a real estate and property development company based in Moscow. Irakli Kaveladze is identified as a vice-president of “Crocus International” (Крокус Интернэшнл) residing in the United States, and was a subject in a 2000 U.S. government investigation into Russian money laundering in the United States.

Sometimes called the “Trump of Russia” and frequently described as a “Russian oligarch,” Aras Agalarov is one of the wealthiest men in Russia and a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2013 he was awarded the prestigious Order of Honor of the Russian Federation by Putin himself. Agalarov also owns a mansion in Alpine, New Jersey currently valued at just under $7 million, which he recently put up for sale.

Vladimir Putin and Aras Agalarov (Minval.az)

A former prosecutor, Veselnitskaya is currently listed as the “general director” or “managing partner” of a law firm in the Moscow suburbs called Kamerton Consulting (Камертон Консалтин), founded in 2003 by Veselnitskaya and her husband (or ex-husband) Alexander Mitusov (Александр Митусов). A former Moscow Region deputy chief prosecutor and deputy minister of transport, Mitusov is now vice-president of corporate and legal affairs for SG-Trans (СГ-транс), a leading provider of transportation services for petroleum and gas products throughout Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union.

Veselnitskaya’s business in the United States stems from her attorney-client relationship with Russian businessman Denis Katsyv (Денис Кацыв) and his father Petr (or Pyotr) Katsyv (Петр Кацыв), who as Moscow Region minister of transport was the direct superior of Veselnitskaya’s husband Alexander Mitusov. In 2013, Denis Katsyv and his company, Cyprus-based Prevezon Holdings Ltd., were accused of money laundering in the United States in connection with the U.S. Magnitsky Act, enacted in 2012 to counter Russian corruption and human rights abuse. A case was filed against Prevezon in September 2013 by then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York.

On behalf of Katsyv and the Russian government, Veselnitskya has been a leading figure in Russian lobbying efforts against the Magnitsky Act. “She was probably the most aggressive person I’ve ever encountered in all my conflicts with Russians,” says Veselnitskaya’s legal opponent Bill Browder, a former investor in Russia and a major proponent of the Magnitsky Act, “She is vindictive and ruthless and unrelenting.”

Veselnitskaya is also a close associate of Yury Chayka (or Yuri Chaika; Юрий Чайка), the Putin-appointed Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (roughly equivalent to the U.S. Attorney General), noted with Veselnitskaya in Russian media for his opposition to the Magnitsky Act. Chayka seems to play a far more political and ideological role in Russia than his title would suggest. In addition to opposing the Magnitsky Act, he accused the pro-democracy opposition group Open Russia (Открытая Россия) of being a front organization for the U.S. State Department. Veselnitskaya confirmed to The Wall Street Journal that she has been in regular contact with Chayka on matters related to the Magnitsky Act.

Vladimir Putin and Yury Chayka (Current Time)

A 2015 documentary in Russian and English by the Anti-Corruption Foundation (Фонд борьбы с коррупцией) details corruption and abuse of power by Chayka, his family, and their associates throughout the Russian prosecutorate, including ties to Russian organized crime. Following release of the documentary, Aras Agalarov publicly defended Chayka in an op-ed to the Russian newspaper Kommersant. Russian opposition leader and founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation Alexei Navalny (Алексей Навальный) criticized Agalarov’s defense of Chayka, noting Agalarov’s own corrupt practices and ties to the Putin regime. Veselnitskaya is also connected to Agalarov through her Moscow Region legal practice.

Rob Goldstone’s emails to Donald Trump Jr. initiating the meeting with Veselnitskaya named the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” as the source of the damaging information on Hillary Clinton that the Trump campaign would receive through Veselnitskaya. Since there is no such title as “Crown prosecutor” in Russia, it is believed that Goldstone was referring to Prosecutor General Yury Chayka. Chayka’s office has denied any involvement in the meeting.

Veselnitskaya and Denis Katsyv are also linked to Russian American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translator Anatoli Samochornov through their collaboration in lobbying against the Magnitsky Act with a group called the “Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation” (HRAGIF). Akhmetshin has been called a Russian “gun for hire” in Washington’s lobbying world, and HRAGIF has been the subject of complaints for likely violations of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) over its unregistered work on behalf of Russian interests.

Casting further suspicion on the Trump administration for its Russian ties is the dismissal in May of the federal money-laundering case against Denis Katsyv and Prevezon Holdings, represented by Veselnitskaya. As noted, the case was formerly handled by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by Trump in March. In May his Trump-appointed successor abruptly settled the $230 million case with Prevezon for only $5.9 million and no admission of guilt just two days before the case was scheduled to go to trial. On July 12 following reports on Trump Jr.’s meeting with Veselnitskaya, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “demand answers” on the settlement.

Veselnitskaya denies any connections with the Russian government, and told NBC News that she neither had nor offered damaging information on Clinton to Donald Trump Jr. or others associated with the Trump campaign. Rather, she said, it was Trump Jr. and associates who solicited information from her. She added that she knows Emin Agalarov took part in arranging the meeting, but denied ever meeting him in person. For its part, the Kremlin claimed to have “no information” on Veselnitskaya nor knowledge of who she is.

The Agalarovs have also denied any involvement in Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election. The Agalarovs’ U.S. attorney, Scott Balber, told CNN that Veselnitskaya previously worked for the Agalarovs in her capacity as a Moscow-area real estate lawyer. Balber’s previous clients include Donald Trump and Russian uranium company Tenex in a 2015 case involving violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Rob Goldstone has also hired a lawyer, Bob Gage, “to handle Russia-related inquiries.” Donald Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, is being paid from Trump Sr.’s campaign fund.

The post Connecting the Dots Between Trump and Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

What Will The Department of State Become?

The State Department issued the report on an internal “listening survey” on July 5. The report is not public, but reports indicate that its first recommendation is to define a mission for the Department of State. It also addresses a host of other concerns, and current and past State personnel complain that the Department is being gutted, among other things. But the Department has had no continuity in its mission since the Cold War. In and of itself, the “Listening Report’s” first recommendation addresses the key question of U.S. diplomacy and foreign relations.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, tight cohesion around Containment gave way to issue-by-issue policy-making. Without that doctrine, FSOs became subject to office-chiefs’ parochial priorities, and their stances would inevitably contradict each others’ — and their previous work as they moved from post to post. Today not even the anti-terrorism mission gives clear guidance.

There are two special challenges to setting a State mission. First, today any person in the world might be the next hacker, dictator, suicide bomber – inventor or artist. Second, the definition of diplomacy, the Department’s expected expertise, analogous to Defense’s in the use of arms, is itself indistinct. State needs a clear function, in which it can even reach individuals, through today’s chaotic world.

A U.S. foreign policy mission will only endure if it rests on a nuanced knowledge of the tenets, nuances, and implications (including philosophical, political, and strategic) of our Declaration of Independence. This specialized knowledge should lie at the heart of a common professional identity, personally held by each U.S. diplomat. It could be imparted by a single institutional move — to shape new formative training for diplomats.

The Declaration is the base on which diplomacy works for Americans. Training must also provide a common grounding in world affairs disciplines, including military, economic, historical, and cultural, plus exposure to a broad range of American realities. But it now must impart fluency in our founding tenets as the bedrock capacity.

An analysis of the diplomats’ function, extracted from Jeremy Black’s History of Diplomacy, shows diplomats’ performance hinging on an understanding of their leader. To represent their nation, report on trends in their host country, and as needed negotiate or facilitate, they needed to know the person (for most of history, be it monarch or dictator) who embodied the nation. U.S. diplomats need to know 300 million people, all with unalienable rights.

America’s fundamental common feature is our explicit, deliberate founding on principle, which binds us regardless of complexity and disruption. The principle — of unalienable rights and government dedicated to secure them — is abstract and dualistic, so understanding requires reflection as well as recitation. But that passage is the focal point: it forms our founding civic creed. The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights follow it, and refer to its terms. Our history can be seen as revolving around it. It created America’s nationality and defines the basis of our national interest.

Our diplomats must project the narrative of America’s founding creed, to governments and individuals, in all channels of discourse and in our policy formulation. Much as a major league pitcher can snap off a curveball or slider as needed, diplomats will need a mental “muscle memory,” to discuss, in direct response on any given case, how our principles apply, why they are valid, or how they benefit humanity. Diplomats who have internalized our narrative as professional reflex can voice and shape policy in its spirit, to set others’ perceptions by our lights.

Infusing this expertise in diplomats’ formative training will push it down to the lowest levels. The junior officer will have the same compass as an ambassador, so even improvised responses to unexpected issues will naturally fit our grand interest. Each diplomat will likewise share an innate sense of the essentials for reporting to Washington. In inter-agency processes, State representatives will be equipped to voice and apply America’s fundamental values for any policy decision.

Steeping our diplomats in our founding creed, and simultaneously imparting topical skills, will marry policy knowledge with America’s nature in a professional cadre. Such operational norms could give Americans comfort that our foreign policy reflects our nature. All Americans, whether they study the creed or not, share its values, so a mission based on it will respect any electoral mandate. State will take on an air of “America’s Desk,” our experts in the national interest.

Such a conception of U.S. diplomacy, carried by the diplomats themselves, would give clear orientation for policy and institutional arrangements.

U.S. foreign policy faces a new era that calls for new policies and practices. George Kennan, facing his own foreboding new era, made an observation I still find relevant: To survive, he said, the United States “need only measure up to its own best traditions.” Today, a new State embodying our founding tenets will ensure our best future.

The post The Department of State’s Listening Survey Calls For A Mission appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.

The words above were spoken by former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice in reference to Iraq’s purported possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to the Iraq War. With the latest allegations against Donald Trump being labelled by some as Russiagate’s “smoking gun” occurring simultaneously with the U.S.’ nuclear standoff with North Korea, Russia, and China, Rice’s quote is actually much more relevant and truthful now than when it was originally uttered. Washington’s Russiagate obsession not only exacerbates its increasing isolation on the world stage, but also, more crucially, its increasing isolation from its own citizenry.

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany to discuss a whole range of issues. Despite the exclusive nature of the meeting, Syria was apparently a priority issue as it was soon announced afterward that a Syrian ceasefire in the south of the country had been negotiated between the U.S. and Russia.

However, very shortly after this meeting, which ran for four times as long as originally scheduled, the latest allegations involving Donald Trump’s “collusion” with Russia during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election surfaced in the form of actions taken by his son, Donald Trump Jr.. Curiously, this is eerily reminiscent of an earlier Syrian ceasefire agreement negotiated by the previous U.S. administration and Russia which was undone by the mistaken U.S. bombing of Syrian military personnel.

Regarding North Korea, this state’s missile and nuclear tests continue to receive front page attention in the U.S., culminating in the recent North Korean ICBM test on the U.S.’ national holiday, the 4th of July. However, what receives far less attention is the perceived impact of the U.S.’ THAAD system on both Russia and China, both of whom may assist the U.S. on this issue only if it suits their own respective national interests.

With respect to Russian concerns, the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Syrian theaters of operation collectively represent more than enough opportunities for both the U.S. and Russia to miscalculate and underestimate each others’ resolve in dealing with vital national security interests and overlapping spheres of influence. However, none of these theaters rises to the nuclear level (yet). Conversely, merely the Russian perception that U.S. deployment of THAAD in South Korea will impact Russia’s ability to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons will more than likely just lead to Russia increasing its own first-strike nuclear capabilities in order to guarantee this deterrence capability for itself.

For China, the THAAD security dilemma is even more paramount than Russia’s as China’s known nuclear arsenal is much more limited than both Russia’s and the U.S.’. As with Russia, China is already in conflict with the U.S. on a range of issues and within differing geographical areas. These include, but are not limited to, the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, continued U.S. “freedom of navigation” maneuvers in the South China Sea, tacit U.S. encouragement of Indian cross-border military incursions, U.S. admonishment of China on human rights and trafficking, and U.S. sanctions on Chinese banks and individuals accused by the U.S. of assisting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

These tactics may be part of an increased high-pressure strategy by the U.S. to get China to assist it in resolving the North Korean Crisis. However, as a true “ally” (which Trump labelled China shortly after Mar-a-Lago), China’s inevitably going to ask the U.S., “What will China get in return from the U.S. as true allies who respect each other’s core interests?” China’s “double cancellation” proposal and insistence upon its “new model of great power relations” paradigm are both emblematic of this dilemma.

Fundamentally, the U.S. has no good coercive options with respect to North Korea, either in the form of a threatened military strike, or continued ineffective sanctions. Also, at this point, neither Russia nor China are in a powerful enough position to change North Korea’s calculus that nuclear weapons possession is the ultimate guarantor of regime survival. Bilateral negotiations between North Korea and the U.S. won’t work without some form of buy-in from China. Therefore, though difficult and time-consuming, the only viable option for the U.S. is to restart some form of the now-stalled Six Party Talks where the vital national interests of all concerned regional states are acknowledged. Without this, and without some form of regional economic engagement with Asia post-TPP, the U.S. risks further isolation in  Asia on this particular issue.

Domestically, Russiagate continues to insult the intelligence of many Americans. Due to a historical, isolationist strain in early American culture, many Americans to this day are far more cognizant of the domestic issues which directly impact their everyday lives, not international relations. Of course, this is changing everyday, but former President Clinton’s maxim of “It’s the economy, stupid.” still rings true today.

To suggest to large numbers of Americans residing outside Washington and between the U.S. coasts that somehow Russia reminded them of the importance of basic questions is quite…indigestible. These questions might include: “How am I going to put food on the table for my family and myself in this economy?”, “How am I going to pay off all this student debt while being underemployed in a stagnant economy?”,  “How am I going to ensure that life is better for my children than myself in this economy?”, and “How will I take care of my ageing parent(s) if I lose my job and my insurance in this economy?”

As with great power relations in geopolitics today, interests predominate in domestic affairs as well. While some in power may perceive it to be beneficial to use Russiagate as the bell from Pavlov’s dogs experiments, this utility is only temporary. Unless certain elements in Washington understand that by actually helping to answer their various constituents’ questions above, they serve their voters’ long-term interests as well as their own, then they will continue to erode their own actual power and legitimacy on a daily basis. As of this writing on Bastille Day, this is an important lesson to not only learn, but an even more important one not to forget.

The post “We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Contrary to certain claims, any objective analysis comparing former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki to Kurdish Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani illustrates that Kurdistan is not destined to be a failed state.

An article published in Newsweek claimed that an independent Kurdistan would be a failed state, stressing that disputes over water, borders and the existence of militias hinder the success of an independent Kurdistan. While I don’t try to minimize the difficulties that the Kurds face in solving water and border disputes as well as the obstacles posed by Turkish and Iranian opposition to Kurdish independence, the fact that they have these problems does not predetermine that Kurdistan will be a failed state. Indeed, the reality of life in Iraq under former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki versus life in Iraqi Kurdistan under Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani proves who truly will be the failed state.

Under the rule of former Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Al Maliki, Sunnis were tortured, raped, abused and even ethnically cleansed. Baghdad went from being 45% Sunni in 2003 to 25% Sunni at the end of 2007. As a result, former Baathists launched a bloody insurgency that included suicide bombings, car bombings, kidnappings and other terror attacks. This led to a civil war that left tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis dead. In an American attempt at damage control, the US sought to have the Awakening Movement, which consisted of Sunni insurgents, to point their guns at Al Qaeda instead of US troops. However, Maliki did not deliver on his promises to them, which left them bitter, unemployed and susceptible to further radicalization. As a result, the Iraqi Army became a largely Shia militia and this worked to undermine Iraqi unity.

After Obama became US President and vowed to end US involvement in Iraq, Maliki began a systematic campaign to destroy the Iraqi state and to replace it with his own personal political party. Professional generals were sacked and replaced with party loyalists. Corruption was also rampant. According to the New Yorker, almost 220 billion dollars had been allocated for some 6,000 projects yet little or no work was done on them. About 70 billion dollars were handed out in government loans that have as of yet to be repaid. In 2010, the Iraqi people were fed up with Maliki’s corruption and he lost the elections to a moderate, pro-western coalition encompassing all of Iraq’s major ethnic groups.

However, even though he no longer had the largest party in parliament, the Obama administration supported him staying in power in violation of the Iraqi Constitution. To make matters worse, Iran offered to start backing Maliki in exchange for control over several government ministries and this sealed him staying in power. As a result, Maliki was given the first shot at forming a coalition, got American forces to leave Iraq on unfavorable terms and remained in power until 2014, which had devastating consequences.

As a result of the 2010 elections, Sunni Arabs, who joined in a coalition together with Christians, Turkmen, Shia Arabs disgruntled with Maliki and Kurds, were outraged that after they had fought against Al Qaeda and won the elections, they could not have a Sunni Prime Minister. And when US forces withdrew and stopped reigning in on Maliki’s excesses, Iran filled the void and Maliki ordered the arrest of Sunni Vice President Tariq Al Hashemi, which alienated Sunnis even more. Hashemi was forced to flee the country and was sentenced to death in absentia. He is in exile to date.

But Hashemi was not the only victim for in no time at all, Maliki was using his security forces in order to go after all of his rivals. Tens of thousands of Sunnis were rounded up and were held in prison for years without a trial. According to Human Rights Watch, some of the Sunni prisoners were even massacred. It is indisputable that the US backing Maliki staying in power even after his electoral defeat significantly contributed to the rise of ISIS in Iraq for the Sunnis felt persecuted and lost hope in the political process. This led to their radicalization. Thanks to Maliki, Iraq is truly a failed state today and will remain so despite the eviction of ISIS from Mosul for the sectarian conflict and corruption Maliki nourished still have of yet to be resolved.

In contrast, the Kurdistan Regional Government was thriving during the same period of time. Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nicharvan Barzani is the man who made the export of Kurdish oil to Turkey and Kurdish-Turkish rapprochement possible. In the beginning, when Barzani stated that he not only wanted to export Kurdish oil but to do it via Turkey, numerous people thought it was an unrealistic dream. But today, Iraqi Kurdistan is a major exporter of oil via Turkey and Barzani has a good working relationship with the Turks. Under his leadership, trade between Turkey and Iraqi Kurdistan amounted to $8 billion and a former foe of the Kurds was transformed into a business partner.

This happened for a number of reasons. For starters, Barzani prudently decided that he seeks to establish a state only in Iraqi Kurdistan. He does not seek Turkish territory. This helped to calm down the Turks. Secondly, Iraqi Kurdistan under his rule has much to offer the Turks. For example, the Kurdish oil industry has been so successful that numerous major companies like Exxon-Mobile and Chevron prefer to operate from the relatively safe Iraqi Kurdistan, even if it means they won’t be able to operate in Iraq. The fact that Barzani was able to ensure that his region of Iraq would remain the safest and would be free of sectarian strife helped to enable confidence in foreign investors including the Turks. And like everyone else, the Turks need oil and they prefer to obtain it by not operating in an area in the midst of a civil war.

In addition, Barzani’s development projects enriched the entire region and helped to build the foundations of a state, which the Kurds hope will be established after the referendum this fall. Barzani is also working in order to bring corruption to a halt and to bring back money that was wasted by the government. With the help of the UK, Germany and the US, he reformed the Peshmerga and is working to have a strong united army to protect the new state.

By building alliances, turning foes into business partners, ensuring safety for all, protecting minorities, avoiding sectarian strife, developing the region, fighting against corruption and uniting the Peshmerga, Barzani has demonstrated true leadership abilities. These qualities all demonstrate the marks of a statesman who knows how to deal with problems. If he has the will, determination and the skills, there is no reason why he won’t succeed, even if he faces numerous obstacles, such as Iran seeking to sabotage Kurdish independence, Turkish concerns over the referendum, border disputes, water issues, existence of militias, etc. So thus in conclusion, I think we should encourage the Kurds to continue to work hard to build a second Israel in the Middle East, who respects human rights, minority rights, women’s rights and gay rights. We should not predetermine that they will fail merely because they face real struggles.

The post Who will be the failed state, Iraq or Kurdistan? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Donald J. Trump grins widely with the Russians in private.

Did the Trump campaign collude with Russia? Did Russia’s action require collusion? And if not, might the Russians have had ulterior motives for the many open and clandestine meetings that occurred between Russia’s representatives and those of the campaign?

As the U.S. Intelligence Community announced last winter, Russian intelligence agencies actively interfered in the U.S. electoral process in 2016 to the advantage of Donald Trump. The impact of this interference on the outcome is difficult to determine. Some are quick to point out that Russia did not successfully tamper with the actual voting or vote-counting processes, which of course is a good thing. Harder to assess is the impact of various Russia-generated scandals on voters’ perceptions and attitudes, whether Russia’s actions changed people’s minds or made certain groups of voters more or less likely to turn out on Election Day.

While the fact of outside interference is a central issue, much of the debate has focused on whether the Trump campaign actively colluded with that interference. Trump and his associates—evidently, and perhaps understandably, focused on the consequences for themselves—seem to see the issue solely in terms of an attempt to undermine the legitimacy of his presidency. I do not mean to belittle the issue of collusion, it is indeed important, but we should not forget that the fact of interference is in itself a vital issue worthy of serious investigation regardless of whether collusion occurred.

In a sense, the most important collusion came not from the Trump campaign, but from the press and the pundits, which took every morsel of banality or gossip that was dished out by Russian hackers and treated it as a scandal revealed. As Joshua Foust, a former intelligence analyst, noted after reviewing the hacked DNC emails: “Moreover, these leaks don’t actually serve any public interest: they aren’t exposing corruption or illegal conduct. They are just gossip: who secretly hates whom, can-you-believe-this-brainstorm, stuff like that.” The biggest “scandal” to come out of the DNC hack was a couple of dirty tricks proposed by angry staffers (talking outside their areas of responsibility) that were never acted upon; and this was presented as proof that the primary-electoral process was rigged.

With regard to collusion by the Trump team, what seems most striking is that most of the Russians’ actions did not really require anyone’s cooperation (beyond that of the media).* The Russians stole emails and other documents from the DNC, DCCC, and Podesta archives; they gave them to WikiLeaks; no help needed, thank you. Yet we do have some evidence that (a) at least some Trump people were willing, even eager, to collude and (b) that a number of meetings were held between several Trump people and several Russian nationals who either worked for the Russian government or had past connections with it.

Regarding the eagerness, some Trump campaign aides—central ones, such as Michael Flynn, and peripheral one, such as Carter Page—were known to have pro-Russian sympathies. In July 2016, Trump, who generally spoke favorably of Russia while denying that it was helping him, publically called on the Russians to find and release Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails. (A Trump aide later said it was a joke.) Beyond that, we have Donald Trump, Jr.’s email chain from June 2016 in which he responded “if it’s what you say I love it” when offered “official documents and information that would incriminate Hillary,” which was being provided as “part of Russia and its government’s support of Mr. Trump.” We also have the less direct evidence from Peter W. Smith, a Republican donor, fund-raiser, and activist, who claimed a close connection to Trump’s foreign policy adviser Michael Flynn, knew a lot of inside information about the Trump campaign, and established an independent corporation to support the Trump campaign from the outside. Smith actively sought Hillary Clinton’s deleted emails, which he assumed the Russians must have hacked and would make available if asked. He hired his own hackers to make the connection with the Russians. It should be noted, though, that we do not know for sure that Smith’s activities were authorized by the Trump campaign. The fact that Smith was seeking a connection with Russia as late as September 2016 does not support the notion that the campaign had already been colluding with Russia since at least June (unless Smith was not considered important enough to tell and was acting on his own, which is certainly possible). So, it is clear that at least some Trump people were willing to collude, but we still lack solid evidence that actual collusion occurred.

If collusion was not necessary, then why did so many Russians hold personal meetings with so many Trump associates? Why would they expose themselves in this way? It is certainly possible that active collusion with a campaign might make the interference more effective, or that letting Trump know how much help Russia had provided (and how compromised his campaign had become) might make him more willing to do Russia favors in the future. These would in fact be consistent with past Russian intelligence practices. Yet I would like to offer an alternative possibility. The Russians might have been purposely planting seeds of suspicion in order to sow chaos and discord in U.S. politics after the election.

Remember that, according to the U.S. Intelligence Community’s assessment, the Russians’ original purpose was “to undermine faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.” Only with time were their goals seen as expanding to include “a clear preference for President-elect Trump.”** Now this preference for Trump could mean that they liked him, which seems to be the conclusion drawn by Trump (who appears to see personal relationships as the be-all and end-all of international politics). It could also simply be a function of the fact that he was the alternative to Clinton, whom Putin clearly did not like. Finally, depending on your view of Trump, his victory could be seen as a means for achieving the original purpose: undermining American government, especially if his victory was compromised.

What do we mean by compromised? Is there evidence that the Russians sought to taint a possible Trump victory? On the one hand, you have the Russian ambassador, Sergei Kislyak, constantly showing up at all sorts of public and private meetings with Trump associates, often with little evident reason for him to be there. As evidence of secret, or at least private, meetings emerges, however, we see much more.

• Ambassador Kislyak recommends that Jared Kushner meet with banker Sergei Gorkov. Presumably, he does not mention that the bank in question is under U.S. sanctions and that Gorkov’s résumé proudly lists the fact that he’s a graduate of the FSB (Secret Police and Intelligence) Academy.
• Ambassador Kislyak holds conversations with Michael Flynn—while Obama is still president and formulating sanctions against Russia—about undermining Obama’s policies toward Russia on a phone that the ambassador must know is bugged.
• Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov brings an “official photographer” who is also a photojournalist to a meeting with the president from which U.S. journalists have been excluded and then immediately publishes photos of Trump grinning widely with the Russians in private.
• The Russians have an email sent to Donald Trump, Jr., that openly says the Russian government supports the Trump campaign and wants to give it stolen documents that will incriminate Trump’s opponent. Who does that! It’s like James Bond knocking on the door and saying, “Excuse me, but I’m from British intelligence and I’m here on a secret mission.” Even if their purpose was to test the campaign’s receptiveness to collusion, it seems they could have thought of something a little subtler, something that would have left less physical evidence of said collusion.

Then, when Trump wins the election, you might expect the Russians to support their new, powerful ally at the pinnacle of the U.S. government. What happens?

• Two days after the election, Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov announces that Russian officials have been in contact with Trump’s immediate entourage throughout the campaign.
• When news of Kushner’s meeting with Gorkov emerges, Gorkov, contradicting Kushner, says they were discussing private business, implicating Kushner in a possible violation of U.S. law.
• When the meeting between Donald Trump, Jr., and Russian lawyer Natalia Veselnitskaya becomes known, Veselnitskaya confirms Trump’s story that she did not offer him damaging information about Hillary Clinton, but then she adds, “It’s quite possible they were looking for such information. They wanted it so badly.”
• Rinat Akhmetshin, a former Soviet counterintelligence operative and current pro-Russian lobbyist in Washington, volunteers that he, too, was at the Veselnitskaya meeting and that she did offer the younger Trump information on Clinton.

If the Trump team was colluding with the Russians, the Russians do not appear to be very grateful. It is possible that the Russians are showing their dissatisfaction with Trump for his failure to lift sanctions or otherwise improve the state of U.S.-Russian relations, although Ryabkov’s statement preceded any opportunity Trump might have had to do that. I suppose it is also possible that the Russians have real dirt on Trump and that these little gestures are just reminders of what they could reveal if he does not come through soon. I posit the possibility, however, that their purpose all along has been to undermine the U.S. government, to sow chaos and discord, to inflame suspicions, to turn American against American, and to erode the United States’ capacity to do anything at all, either at home or abroad, regardless of whether the Trump team actually collaborated or not. If so, they certainly found the perfect instrument in Donald J. Trump.

*A recent article posits that Jared Kushner’s digital team may have given the Russians information on which constituencies to target when distributing false or damaging stories about Hillary Clinton during the late stages of the campaign. While possible, this is still not proven. Even if Kushner’s database was the only possible source of such information, Russian hackers have shown some ability to acquire information from databases without having to ask for it.

**Of course, it would also be in keeping with past Russian practice if they had a range of possible objectives—ranging from minimum to maximum goals—depending on the receptiveness of the environment encountered.

The post Trump and the Russians: Collusion or Sowing Discord? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

At this critical juncture and in this particular ‘do or die’ moment in Somali history, objective assessment of new trends has an existential significance. Early this year when the previous Somali President was voted out of the office in favor of a more popular one, the euphoria was so contagious, and expectation so high. Sadly, that was eclipsed by leadership strategic errors and vicious strings of terrorist attacks and targeted assassinations.

With over 30 such attacks since February, the belligerence, frequency and lethal accuracy have set a new precedent. Ironically this came at a time when the new government launched a controversial campaign of what many—especially in Mogadishu—considered selective disarmament, declared an “all-out war” against al-Shabaab and promised to eradicate them within two years.

Naturally, almost all fingers are pointed at the usual suspects, al-Shabaab. And it is hard to dispute when they themselves continue to claim responsibility, though sometimes through spokespersons that are barely known to the public. However, to accept that never-changing narrative that there is only one actor who solely benefits out of conditions of insecurity is to naively assume that all other clandestine armies, scores of shadowy experts and deadbeat ‘security’ gangs across Somalia are there for shark-fin-gazing in the Indian Ocean.  In addition, there are the domestic profiteers of chaos who in the past three decades been investing heavily to defend the status quo by any ruthless means necessary.

Dyslexic Priorities

Whatever the end result, no one can accuse the new government of not trying. The government has launched initiatives such as cleaning the city, attending public events to boost public morale, and conducting random office inspections to keep ministers and staff on their toes. While these are good initiatives, there are more critical issues waiting for the government’s full attention. On some of these issues the government has already taken ill-advised approaches.

After declaring war against al-Shabaab, a stealth enemy that is part of the social fabric, and promising to eradicate them “in two years” the government launched a controversial disarmament campaign that many interpreted as a defanging process of certain clans and interest groups. Launching such initiative before any attempt was made toward confidence-building or managing perception would only make genuine conciliation facilitated by current government dead on arrival.

The government also declared war against corruption without providing comprehensive definition or what constitutes ‘corruption’, and without pushing through the Parliament all anti-corruption laws and the establishment of an independent commission to fight corruption; especially when clouds of suspicions hover over certain government officials. In clear conflict of interest, some ministers (and MPs) own private security companies that compete for projects. Both the President and the Prime Minister stated publicly that they and all their ministers will declare their individual assets for transparent public scrutiny. Several months into office, officials are yet to make good on those promises.

They also aggressively expanded the selective taxation that targets the likes of fruit venders and Tuk Tuk or Bajaj drivers (3 wheeled taxis) while exempting the conglomerate businesses such as money remittances and phone and internet services.

Private Security Branding

In a clever marketing strategy that exploits consumer biases, major manufacturing companies of household products commonly have several competing brands of the same products side by side in super markets. They even hire different brand managers to advance one product against another, though profits generated from all those products ultimately go to the same owners.

The private mercenary industry clearly duplicated the same strategic marketing, and nowhere is that more apparent than in The Horn.

Horn of Africa is a tough and a high volatile neighborhood. It’s only second to the Middle East where it, in fact, shares many traits- natural resource wealth, historical grievances and suspicions, and leaders with myopic vision and gluttonous appetite for corruption. With Donald Trump being in the White House and UAE establishing its intelligence network and loyal militia in Somalia, the stage is set for a new theater of lucrative clandestine operations. The current volatile political and security landscape could not have been more ideal for Erik Prince, founder of the infamous Blackwater, and companies. If it did not exist, they would’ve invented it.

Erik Prince and companies’ clandestine operations in Somalia began in 2010 when Saracen International appeared in Mogadishu and in Puntland regional administration. However, with Blackwater’s record of crimes against humanity, a loaded name (Saracen), and a good number of their mercenaries being remnants of Apartheid era enforcers, it didn’t take long to attract UN and other human rights groups’ attention. So, Saracen turned into Sterling Corporate Services.

Against that backdrop, the Prince-led Frontier Services Group Limited (aka The Company) comes to the scene to provide “security, insurance and logistics services for companies operating in frontier markets”. So, is it not within the realm of rational skepticism to question the good-faith of any Mafia group offering business protection services, life insurance, and luxury burial/cremation package for a price that you cannot refuse?

Modified Hegemony

In recent decades, Ethiopia has secured itself certain level of authority that made her the de facto hegemon of The Horn. With IGAD being a political rubberstamp where Ethiopia sets the agenda, decides the when and why of every meeting and which one of her concocted initiative gets mandated, it was not that hard.

The good news is with current government, Somalia is no longer entirely obedient to the marching orders of its hegemonic master. Moreover, the Oromo and Amhara peaceful insurgency has on the one hand exposed the repressive tendencies of the Ethiopian government; on the other, the vulnerability of its ethnic federalism. So, Ethiopia was compelled to re-strategize for its own survival. It has settled—at least for now—to remain low profile and calibrate its previous ambition to directly control a good number, if not all, of Somalia’s coveted ports and other resources.

As the de facto custodian of Somalia security that can stabilize or destabilize at will is the guarantor in each of the DP World deals. They are set to make 19 percent in Berbera seaport deal, maybe much more lucrative deals in the Bossasso and Barawe.

The X-Factor

Recently the US has removed Mukhtar Robow out of its terrorist list. This, needless to say, placed Robow on a dangerous stage and under a lethal spotlight. Robow was an enigma. He was considered the man who always gave credence to the narrative that al-Shabaab is not a terrorist organization driven by Somali issues but an organization driven by global ambition that has 700 plus foreign fighters.

Robow was also one of the last high profile Shabaab leaders to be added to the terrorist list. He also had very close relationship with warlords from his region who were loyal to Ethiopia. Days after he was taken out of the list he became under Shabaab attack. Oddly, the Somali government sent its army to defend Robow against his comrades. But this might make clear sense if, in the coming months, Robow and company flee to Barawe and settle there.

Dollars and Dysfunction

The Somali government must muster the courage to call the current international community sponsored and lead counterterrorism and stabilization system what it is: a failed system with a high price tag. Any foreign-driven reconciliation project intended to simply clear the anchorages for lucrative but controversial commercial (and military base) seaport deals in Berbera, Boosaaso, and Barawe will in due course fail. Make no mistake, without effective institutions of checks and balances and political stability, ‘foreign investment’ is euphemism for predatory exploitation or looting.

The new government either failed to understand al-Shabaab for what it truly is: a symptom of a number of root causes such as lack of reconciliation and trust, inept leadership and lack of national vision, chronic reliance on foreign security and funding.

All eyes are on President Mohamed Abdullahi Farmaajo. Somalia cannot afford another four years of sleepwalking into catastrophe- a reinvented web of political, social, economic and geopolitical problems. This nation direly needs a shock therapy.

Therefore, President Farmaajo must go to the Parliament to declare all foreign energy and security related agreements unilaterally signed by regional administrations as null and void. The current trajectory would not only keep Somalia in perpetual dependency but in perpetual violent conflicts.

On September 19th the UN General Assembly debates will open. President should articulate a new vision on that global platform and put pressure on the Security Council to convert AMISOM—minus frontline states and private securities—and other forces on the ground (US, UK, UAE, Turkey, etc.) into a U.N. peacekeeping mission. This may achieve three essential objectives: minimize the negative roles played by certain actors, control free flow of arms and centralize the command and control of all militaries on the ground. Equally important, it will sideline the frontline states and private military services.

The UN mission should last no longer than two years- a period long enough for a genuine, Somali-owned and sponsored reconciliation.

Wherever they operate, the latter abides to neither local nor international laws. They thrive in impunity and that is why they have a long atrocious record and that is why they constantly keep reinventing themselves.

Rest assured, in the court of public opinion, every bone they break and every person kill will be blamed on President Farmaajo, UAE and US for ‘ushering in’ these merchants of death and suicide deals.

Meanwhile, unless we change our thinking and attitude, things will remain the same or get worse. Streets will get cleaner for the next tragedy, and Somalia will remain the most attractive playground for zero-sum games, for quick riches, and for undermining political or geopolitical opponents. It is an ever-morphing dangerous environment where the hunter is being hunted.

The post Blackened Waters of Somalia appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Ibrahim Abdel Latif (Photo Credit: Dr. Marwa Abdel Lati)

In the United States and other free countries across the globe, any person who is born in that country is granted citizenship rights and basic human rights, such as access to healthcare. As the descendent of Sephardic Jewish refugees who fled the anti-Jewish violence that erupted in Greece in the period leading up to World War I, no one today in America would argue that I am not an American citizen but rather am a foreign Jewish refugee who should not receive equal access to medical treatment. However, the descendants of Palestinian refugees who live in Lebanon are not so fortunate.
The descendants of the Palestinian refugees who left their birth country during Israel’s War of Independence are still not granted Lebanese citizenship and basic human rights such as healthcare, despite the fact that all young Palestinians in Lebanon today were born and raised in the country for a couple of generations now. This reality has adversely affected the fate of Ibrahim Abdel Latif, a young man of Palestinian heritage in Lebanon who has been denied medical treatment merely because of where his grandparents came from.

In an exclusive interview with Dr. Marwa Abdel Latif, Ibrahim’s sister, she related that the plight of Palestinians in Lebanon is horrific and this reality adversely affects her brother: “My brother dropped a good paying job just so he can get hired at this new job of his to be legal and to qualify for some work compensation insurance as he struggled in previous companies to get health coverage and the pay is always much lower for Palestinians anyways than their Lebanese colleagues with similar qualifications. So to start with, my brother is a Palestinian and he knows that most Lebanese companies do not hire Palestinians as they are considered foreigners. Most companies have a rule for 10% foreigner, which includes all other nationalities other than Lebanese. So my brother finally qualified for insurance as the company he works with is very decent and good with Palestinians but that is a preference for the company rather than the country.”

Nevertheless, despite the fact that Ibrahim managed to get health insurance unlike most other Palestinians, when he was run over from behind by a truck and needed urgent medical treatment, the Lebanese hospitals did not want to help him unless he got 100% coverage and his health insurance plan only covered 40%: “Lebanese hospitals usually do not allow you in unless you pay upfront or you have connections. My family does not belong to any organization or religious groups or any political party as we were raised to act independently of any party to assure ourselves that we are not blinded by their morals. The insurance was refusing to pay because the hospital is expensive to their standards but we had no choice of the hospital as the Red Cross took him there as it was the closest to the location of the accident and the other hospitals refused to take him in unless he redid all the paperwork and pay the entire coverage.”

Ibrahim’s family attempted to get local Lebanese charities to help them due to their situation and all of them refused to help them: “My family tried to reach out to many organizations, who simply insulted my parents and sisters. After they heard they are Palestinian, they pretty much told them that there is no help here for Palestinians. Only Lebanese should have access. We tried to call news reporters and they said that they don’t focus on Palestinian issues. My family is half Lebanese and we are just really hurt. It feels like my own blood has turned against me. I am a proud Lebanese Palestinian and I feel for both nations but seriously, this should be about human decency.”

“Palestinians are completely isolated and treated like a disease,” she stressed. “I think this really needs to change.” Dr. Abdul Latif is American educated and married an American so she lives in the US but until this, she was quiet about these issues in order to respect her family: “My family is living there and they are always worried so I kept my mouth shut. But I am done with this. Enough is enough. Something has to change.”

Dr. Abdel Latif emphasized that what her brother has endured is a good glimpse of the daily struggles of Palestinians in Lebanon: “I feel bad for the Lebanese but it is still not ok. My brother was about to get kicked out of the hospital because the insurance was refusing to pay. My parents are elderly and my dad was stopping them from throwing him outside with opened wounds and lungs bleeding in a tube into a bottle.” Dr. Abdul Latif claimed that the hospitals in Lebanon discriminate against the poor so much that they would even throw out a Lebanese person in a similar condition but the Lebanese got one advantage that a Palestinian does not: “The Lebanese belong to parties and commonly a call from an official could save someone’s life. But I don’t even know how to fix all of this. The Palestinians in the camps try to donate whatever they have which is very little to help each other out.”

Dr. Abdel Latif emphasized that Ibrahim is one of the best guys she knows and she proclaimed that she is not merely saying this because he is her brother. She stressed that he is super intelligent and hard-working, overcoming numerous obstacles in a hostile atmosphere where many turn to radical Islam in order to make it where he is today as an electric assistant engineer. In an area where others turned to terrorism, he chose to try and make a humble living, never giving up hope in improving the plight of himself and his family through civil and humane means. The banks denied him the option of buying a home for he did not earn enough money but he still never gave up his strong work ethic and his aspirations: “I wanted to help him come here because he has experience and is hard-working and a good guy but I could not. It is too much.”

Dr. Abdel Latif started a GoFundMe campaign to help save her brother’s life. So far, she has raised about $5,000 but is still $10,000 short of what she needs to save his life. Due to the social media campaign she started and the fact she started to raise some of the money, the Lebanese started to treat her brother but she is still waiting for them to operate on him. She asks every person with a heart to donate in order to help save her brother’s life.

In order to help save Ibrahim’s life, click here!

The post Palestinian in Lebanon denied medical treatment due to his nationality appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump meet at G20 Summit (Kremlin)

U.S. President Donald Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin July 7 on the sidelines of the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit in Hamburg, Germany. Intended to be a half-hour meeting, it went on for more than two hours. Present in addition to Trump and Putin were U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, and two translators. There were no note-takers or foreign policy experts representing the U.S. side, and the U.S. appeared to have done little in the way of preparation for the meeting.

Russia was pleased with the outcome of the meeting, reporting that Trump appeared to accept Putin’s denial on meddling in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. While the Trump administration insists that Trump did not believe Putin’s denial of election meddling, reviews of the meeting in the United States were not so good as in Russia. “The Russians just played the President,” former White House communications director and State Department spokeswoman Jen Psaki writes at CNN, highlighting the lack of preparation and foreign policy expertise on the U.S. side. “It was predictable. And [Trump] let it happen.”

Putin is, of course, a former intelligence officer who has led Russia alternately as president and prime minister for 18 years, and Lavrov is a seasoned diplomat with decades of experience. Trump and Tillerson, on the other hand, are political neophytes who have been in government for less than six months.

“The Trump-Putin bromance is back on,” writes John Cassidy at The New Yorker, and Putin appears to be the alpha-bro in the relationship. As Cassidy observes, Putin “got what he wanted from the meeting: a commitment from the U.S. to move on from the [2016 U.S. presidential] election controversy and normalize relations”; while Trump “could claim that he had raised the question of Russian interference [in the election], even if he did so only in the most perfunctory of fashions.” What the U.S. got other than superficial cover for Trump remains unclear.

“Trump handed Putin a stunning victory,” writes Molly McKew at Politico, “From his speech in Poland to his two-hour summit [with Putin] in Hamburg, the president seemed determined to promote Russia’s dark and illiberal view of the world.” As Anne Applebaum and Jonathan Capehart likewise note at The Washington Post, Trump’s speech in Warsaw seemed to affirm the authoritarian nationalism of the right-wing Polish government that gave Trump a “fawning reception” with government-sponsored “rent-a-crowds” bussed in from across the country. In what must have been music to Putin’s authoritarian ears, Trump’s speech contained no mention of democracy or human rights.

Then in Hamburg, Trump shared a chuckle at the expense of American news reporters with Putin, who is strongly suspected of having journalists and other critics killed in Russia. “Are these the ones who insulted you?” Putin asked, gesturing thuggishly at the reporters with his thumb as they were being ushered out of the room. “These are the ones,” Trump replied, chuckling with Putin, “You’re right about that.” Perhaps Trump also thinks that Putin is right in how he deals with troublesome journalists and political opponents (Recall that Trump once praised the Chinese government’s deadly crackdown on China’s 1989 democracy movement at Tiananmen Square as a “show of strength,” and called the peaceful democracy movement itself a “riot.”).

“Are these the ones who insulted you?” (Kremlin)

“The Russian-American relationship is no longer about Russia or America…,” writes Anne Applebaum at The Washington Post, “It is driven, rather, by the personal interests of the two main players,” Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump. Applebaum notes that there were “no aides, no advisers, no experts” present at the meeting and “nothing prepared in advance” to represent the interests of the American people. “Both [Putin and Trump] got what they wanted,” however: “Bragging rights for Putin; a new friend for Trump. As for the rest of us — it doesn’t matter what we think. In this relationship, only two people matter.”

Trump’s national security adviser, H.R. McMaster, had previously suggested as much when he said that there was “no specific agenda” for the meeting: “It’s really going to be whatever the president wants to talk about.” When have such important meetings between world leaders ever been about “whatever the president wants?” Just as the Russian presidency is all about Vladimir Putin, the U.S. presidency increasingly appears to be all about Donald Trump and his “absolute right” to do as he likes with the Russians or anyone else. No previous U.S. administration has spent as much time talking about the president’s “rights” and the president’s “unquestionable authority” as this administration has.

Despite the authoritarian tendencies Trump displays with his American critics, body language analysis indicated deference and supplication on Trump’s part with Putin and dominance on Putin’s part with Trump, clearly showing “who’s the boss” in the relationship between the two men. As Russia’s RT noted with pleasure, there was even a “House of Cards” moment, when Trump extended his hand to a haughty-looking Putin in a scene reminiscent of a meeting between fictional U.S. president Frank Underwood and Russian president Viktor Petrov in the Netflix series:

Putin-Trump House of Cards (Twitter)

If Trump hoped for a boost at home from his second overseas trip and first meeting with Putin as president, then he seems certain to be disappointed. If anything, the meeting with Putin has generated even greater suspicion regarding Trump’s strange fixation on cozying up with Russia.

The post Trump Confirms Authoritarian Bromance with Putin appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The first week in July in 2017 saw the launch of a medium range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile, or ICBM out of North Korea. The Hwasong-14 missile was launched from a mobile launcher, similar in function to that of the Russian Topol-M launch vehicle. While tested from a mobile platform, the test firing was based near the North Korean-Chinese border. The Hwasong-14 was launched towards the Sea of Japan, but estimated ranges for this new missile shows that it may be able to reach as far as Alaska and even may be able to target Hawaii. Reaction from international media and President Trump was swift, and hopes that relations with China will push North Korea towards a less aggressive stance seems to be the first policy position from most Western leaders and their allies in Asia.

The production of ICBMs usually comes with the belief that the sole possession of a weapon of mass destruction will give the country that possesses it leverage over adversaries when smaller conflicts arise. The question remains to whether or not the ones in control are rational actors, and have something to lose in a nuclear conflict. The theory during the Cold War that the Americans and NATO and the Soviets were rational, and therefore would not seek an open nuclear conflict was often wishful thinking in a complex situation. With smaller actors now starting to form nuclear weapons programs that can reach US territory and surely strike US allies, rationality and diplomacy might be the only barrier to saving millions of lives. Smaller nations with power concentrated with one person or a small group of individuals, armed with ICBMs is changing the global balance of power rapidly, and may permit chaos, a muted response and refused justice and the allowance of human rights abuses and genocides that would normally urge international assistance and cooperation. Rational small actors might be harder to come by, and the end result will be a less secure international order.

Strategies in handling those deemed irrational may give rise to policy approaches that lack nuance. The fear of a small state becoming nuclear ready may bring back Cuban Missile Crisis type stand offs or the undercover moves seen in the 1950s that permanently scarred regions like Latin America and the Middle East. Fear of a nuclear based attack as seen with Soviet allies in the Cold War may motivate ill-conceived policy approaches that will make moves like the installing of Pinochet and accusations like those exposed by Snowden more common place. Preventing small countries from obtaining ICBMs might be another option, but the desire for open conflict without a focus and determinable goal and end date may start with positive intentions, and end with another Syria, a conflict that has led to an international political mess, permitted mass genocide and has no end date. Full commitment to limiting ICBMs in the initial phases of the programs might be the best horrible option, otherwise containing those weapons away from regions where conventional weapons are in constant use is the only other option. Defense and new and refined technologies that can counter and kill ICBMs before hitting their targets will also become a growing industry and technology, made by many of the same researchers that produce the ICBM missile technology in the first place. Accepting dictatorial demands from minor strongmen and religious zealots do not seem to be a permanent option, so actions will be needed unfortunately with ICBMs at the bargaining table.

The post The Need for a New ICBM Strategy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.