Diplomacy & Crisis News

Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon today called Adam Barrow, the President-elect of Gambia, to congratulate him on his electoral victory and to reiterate the commitment of the United Nations to support a peaceful, timely, and orderly transfer of power.

The United Nations relief wing today voiced deep concern at the resurgence of attacks against humanitarian workers in crisis-gripped Central African Republic (CAR).

Jan Eliasson took up the job of Deputy Secretary-General of the United Nations in July 2012, and while the post has been challenging, it has not proved daunting for the Swedish national – a veteran of international affairs, with decades of diplomatic experience in world capitals and conflicts.

A recently completed United Nations study indicates that during 2016, Israeli authorities demolished or seized 1,089 Palestinian-owned structures throughout the West Bank – including East Jerusalem – thus displacing 1,593 Palestinians and impacting the livelihoods of another 7,101.

The United Nations envoy for Syria has welcomed the announcement of a nationwide ceasefire between the Government and armed opposition groups that would come into effect at midnight tonight.

Two United Nations human rights experts welcomed a decision by the United States to dismantle a national registry program targeting people visiting from countries that are home to active terrorist groups, a program that the experts labelled “discriminatory and ineffective.”

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’hiver de Politique étrangère (n°4/2016). Rémy Hémez propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Gilles Haberay et Hugues Perot, L’art de conduire une bataille  (Pierre de Taillac Editions, 2016, 238  pages).

Gilles Haberay et Hugues Perot, tous deux saint-cyriens, officiers de l’armée de Terre et fantassins, s’évertuent à transmettre leur passion de la tactique. Trop souvent, cette dernière est vue comme un objet d’étude secondaire, réservé aux seuls praticiens ou aux spécialistes d’histoire militaire. Il s’agit pourtant d’un art complexe qui mérite d’être analysé, car « si la bataille est, par essence, le moment du choc physique de deux armées, elle est aussi le résultat de l’affrontement de deux systèmes de planification, de conduite et de commandement, en vue d’atteindre un objectif tactique ». La tactique décide bien souvent du sort des batailles. Aussi une connaissance minimale de ses ressorts est-elle indispensable à tous ceux qui s’intéressent aux conflits. Cet ouvrage offre une excellente introduction aux problématiques tactiques à la lumière de l’histoire. Il ne nécessite pas de connaissances préalables pour que l’on puisse l’apprécier et en tirer des fruits.

Le livre se compose de l’étude de 26 batailles. Les cas choisis couvrent une très vaste période allant de l’Antiquité à la guerre du Golfe (1991). Ils comprennent aussi bien des classiques comme la bataille de Cannes (216 av. J.-C.) ou celle de Cambrai (1917), que des choix plus audacieux à l’image des batailles de La Kalka – qui voit Russes et Polovtses affronter les Mongols en 1223 – ou de Cuito Cuanavale – combats en Angola en 1987-1988 entre d’un côté les Forces armées de libération populaire (FAPLA) et leurs « conseillers » cubains, et de l’autre l’Union nationale pour l’indépendance totale de l’Angola (UNITA) et des troupes sud-africaines. Chaque cas d’espèce est présenté selon un plan traditionnel et efficace : d’abord une description de la situation générale, puis une analyse des forces en présence et des intentions ; viennent ensuite une présentation du déroulement de la bataille et, enfin, une synthèse des enseignements tactiques. L’idée n’est pas d’offrir une vision complète et définitive de chaque bataille évoquée, mais bien de replacer chacune d’entre elles dans la perspective plus vaste de la tactique et de susciter des pistes de réflexion.

Les batailles ne sont pas retracées en ordre chronologique mais réparties intelligemment en 11 thématiques tactiques – les plus efficaces pour vaincre – qui regroupent chacune deux ou trois études de cas : « épuiser l’attaque ennemie », « tendre une embuscade », « créer la surprise », « disloquer par le choc », « percer les défenses », « contre-attaquer au bon moment », « alterner ses efforts », etc. Ce classement permet de croiser plus facilement les enseignements des batailles et aide le lecteur à avoir une approche problématisée.

Comme beaucoup d’ouvrages édités par Pierre de Taillac, ce livre a fait l’objet d’un travail éditorial soigné. Il bénéficie d’une présentation agréable et d’illustrations cartographiques de qualité. Il est pourtant dommage que la bibliographie ne soit pas plus étoffée et que l’on ne puisse aisément identifier des ouvrages permettant d’aller plus loin dans l’étude des cas historiques exposés.

Rémy Hémez

Abonnez vous ici et profitez de l’offre exceptionnelle de fin d’année !

We see images of them all the time: running up from the shoreline after disembarking, walking in large groups across a dusty road, sleeping in clumps in a refugee shelter tent. These are Syrian refugees fleeing a five-year civil war, but look just like images from the 1970s and 1980s when Vietnamese refugees fled a decade-long war.

President Barack Obama announced in September 2015 that the United States would accept 10,000 Syrian refugees over the course of a year. Governors of 31 out of the 52 U.S. states responded to Obama’s resettlement plan by denying Syrian refugees a place in their state.

Nevertheless, the 10,000th refugee successfully reached the U.S. at the end of August 2016. There have been no announcements to increase American assistance. With Donald Trump assuming office on January 20, 2017, it’s unlikely the United States will welcome anyone.

Forty years ago, almost two million Vietnamese refugees resettled in the United States, with no strong reactions to those refugees by local communities. Foreign Policy Association spoke to three Vietnamese-Americans to learn about their journey to the United States and what could have happened to the American sentiment towards refugees from the Vietnam War to the Syrian War. Their statements have been edited for clarity.

Trong Nong, professor at University of Houston

Being the captain of the boat with 22 people is what makes me the most proud in my life. I learned to navigate by using math from school to chart the course. We escaped Vietnam in a fishing boat to Thailand and then we were moved to the Philippines to a refugee processing center. I left Vietnam in February 1980 and arrived in the U.S. by November of that year.

I just saw my life slipping away, since there was no future in the jungle. My family had been forced into a new economic zone and our property and wealth were confiscated. My father was a high-ranking military officer for the South, so he was the enemy of the people. We were put in the jungle and I had to lead my brothers in cultivating the land. My father spent 15 years in a reeducation camp along with all the other officers.

We were lucky to be accepted by the US. A church in North Carolina sponsored me. Others weren’t accepted and had to stay in a refugee camp until they returned to Vietnam. The American policy was to find a sponsor to take in the Vietnamese refugees, not through the government, but through an NGO, usually a church. The refugees had to find churches to take us in, orient us, help us settle, and get us shots. The church that took me in was founded by Vietnamese-Americans in 1975.

I was baptized after I arrived. My family had no religious affiliations, so none of us had any problem converting to Christianity. The people in North Carolina were very friendly. They had fresh memories of the Vietnam War, so they were sympathetic. The Americans who welcomed me probably felt they had a debt to repay because the U.S. just left Vietnam so suddenly. Actually, my supervisor at my first job was a Vietnam War veteran. He understood me.

Since this country is a country of immigrants and refugees, the U.S. should accept Syrians. But there must be a process of doing things, like we had with the sponsoring churches. Having a clear plan would ease the angst in American people. The main difference between the resettlement of Vietnamese and of Syrians is religion. Vietnamese are Buddhist or ancestor worshippers, so we had no problem accepting Christian values. Muslim Syrians might have more trouble.

Tram Ho, internal medicine internist

I was captured when I was ten years old and put in prison because my dad was in the South Vietnam military, so we were singled out and targeted. I was separated from my parents and stayed with my three younger brothers in a cell with close to 70 or 80 other people. We were allowed one hour to breathe fresh air and to shower. There was nothing in the cell except a small toilet and concrete floor. I was in prison for two weeks until my parents paid to get me out.

We were discriminated against and couldn’t advance in society because of the stigma of being the children of the traitor or American ally. My father was put in a reeducation camp after April 30, 1975, like many other military personnel. After he was released, we planned to escape by boat.

I was thirteen when I managed to escape with my father and five siblings. My mother and one sibling stayed behind. After six days and five nights, we made it to Hong Kong and stayed there for six months to fill out paperwork. A Catholic nonprofit organization, USCC, or United States Catholic Conference, sponsored us and I arrived in 1982. We were settled into a halfway house for shelter. There were 50 other people there already, the majority from Vietnam. Two months later, my dad was able to find a job as an auto mechanic and we moved out to our own apartment with two other families.

I had pretty neutral responses from neighbors when I moved to the U.S. I don’t recall whether anybody had negative feelings towards us. We basically stayed home by ourselves and my dad worked two jobs, so we didn’t really interact with Americans anyway. When I started eighth grade, no one teased me or anything, but I also didn’t really talk to anybody because everything was so new. As a teenager, I was uncomfortable and scared.

Refusing refugees is not a new problem and that’s why the wave of the boat people stopped. The Vietnamese refugee wave stopped in early 1985 because the U.S. stopped accepting refugees too. My mom wouldn’t have made it if we weren’t already here. All the camps in Southeast Asia closed and didn’t accept any more Vietnamese escaping.

I feel for the Syrian refugees. Most of them are very nice people running away from hardship and war. But I understand that with the current situation now and the problem of terrorists disguising themselves as refugees, Americans can’t have open arms like they had with the Vietnamese refugees.

Trish Nguyen, senior branch manager at Boat People SOS

My dad worked for an American company and when the communists took over the South, they saw that my family supported the Americans and we were shunned. My dad didn’t work for a political company, so they put him in jail for six months. He was lucky. They kept a log of what our family did and kept tracking us.

We lived in a small town and we were very poor when I was young. We went to the field every day and tried to find something to eat for that day.

My aunt was American and brought my uncle back to the U.S. and we connected 17 years later. They sponsored our family in 1993. The first year when I came to the U.S., I was just trying to survive. I had to start over. I couldn’t go to school because I was working hard to have money for an apartment. My parents never worked and can’t speak English or drive. They live with me and I take care of them. My brother is still in Vietnam and when he asks me to visit, I say I’ll think about it, but I don’t think I’ll ever go back. It’s just bad memories there.

I graduated and am now the branch manager at Boat People SOS Houston. My wish came true and now I can help the people who were once in my situation. BP SOS helps with cases of domestic violence, elderly aid, welfare, human trafficking, et cetera.

There was a language barrier, but I worked hard, studied hard, and learned English. The Americans I met had good hearts, maybe because they had experience already with Chinese immigrants and others. In my opinion, I don’t think the U.S. will close their doors because this country has always welcomed refugees. There’s no reason to reject them. Other governments have never allowed foreigners in the way the U.S. does. God bless America—I can say that.

Kimberly Cooper, Children’s Ministry Coordinator at Trinity Episcopal Church

Trinity Episcopal Church is helping resettle a Syrian family now, actually. They’ve been waiting since 1998. In the early 80s, the church helped a Vietnamese family and again in the 90s. The congregation at the time was very supportive and eager to help. Outside the church, the community is still very comfortable.

I’ve been working in some way with the U.S. refugee program for almost 20 years and I’ve met some of my best friends through that program. I mean, they’ve even babysat my kids. These are Muslims and I trust them.

People are really just confused about the religion of Islam and there is a lot of lumping everyone into one bad corner. I haven’t heard a negative comment, but quite a few people have contacted me genuinely asking me about why I’m comfortable having Muslims here.

A local person running for office in Texas wrote a campaign comment about how it’s not okay to bring more Muslims into the country when the ones that are here aren’t assimilated. And I’m like, what do you mean by assimilation? What do you want to happen? Do you want them to all be white Christians? That’s not really an appropriate request for all Americans.

The post How the U.S. Sentiment Towards Refugees Shifted appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As the media focuses on the many crises in the Middle East, Jordan’s capacity to endure the instability next door is noteworthy. Yet the Hashemite Kingdom faces tough challenges at home and abroad that make its future precarious.

Despite regional turmoil testing Jordan’s borders and population, the Hashemite Kingdom has remained remarkably stable. The resource-deprived country has largely weathered Iraq and Syria’s instability to the north, Israel and Palestine’s tensions to the west, and Egypt’s restive Sinai Peninsula to the south. Under the leadership of King Abdullah al-Thani, Jordan has also endured the domestic dangers of a swelling refugee population as well as growing political and economic volatility.

Security reigns supreme

Central to Jordan’s stability is its exceptionally sophisticated national security enterprise. With a $1.5 billion military budget underwritten by Western aid, the Kingdom boasts some of the most elite special forces and counterterrorism units in the region. All this is bolstered by the Kingdom’s extensive mukhabarat, which identifies foreign and domestic threats by carefully monitoring the country’s regional situation while penetrating the deepest levels of Jordanian society.

Jordan’s security establishment has effectively deterred most of the region’s unrest from spilling over into its borders. The Kingdom plays a pivotal role in preventing foreign jihadists from entering or exiting the Syrian conflict through Jordanian territory, and leverages its military might as part of the U.S.-led coalition against ISIS and its affiliates in Iraq and Syria.

As instability has increased in the Middle East in recent years, U.S. military and police assistance to Jordan has grown accordingly, peaking at $662 million in 2016. The growing threat of ISIS and its affiliates also prompted a Pentagon-funded, $100 million program between Jordan and the U.S. defense contractor Raytheon to improve security along the Kingdom’s northern border.

King Abdullah of Jordan shakes hands with former U.S. Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Adm. Mike Mullen

Although these measures have strengthened Jordan, they also have coincided with an intensifying threat environment. In June 2016, two terrorist attacks linked to ISIS were carried out near Syrian refugee camps in Baqa’a and al-Rukban, killing five Jordanian intelligence personnel and six Jordanian military members respectively. In December, gunmen presumably affiliated with al-Qaeda or ISIS also killed seven Jordanian policemen and two civilians in the southern city of Karak. The success of these attacks despite Jordan’s comparative advantages suggests that the Kingdom will face an increasingly fragile security situation in the short to medium term. This is more likely as ISIS and its affiliates’ priorities shift from holding territory to performing more traditional terrorist operations.

Containing the refugee crisis

Jordan has shouldered a swelling refugee population. The country plays host to 1.27 million Syrian refugees, which compose nearly 13% of Jordan’s population. Lack of resources and available opportunities in refugee camps have disadvantaged many Syrians, forcing them to find employment in criminal networks, militias fighting in Syria, or terrorist groups. This creates high rates of violence and sexual abuse in refugee camps, and further threatens Jordan’s security from within.

The refugee population also burdens the Kingdom’s already struggling economy. Jordan’s debt-to-GDP ratio is over 90%, and unemployment is around 16% with youth unemployment nearly double that. The refugee influx has further increased youth unemployment by 30% and has grown demand for basic commodities by 40%. The security risks linked to disenfranchised refugees have also shrunk Jordan’s vital revenue streams like tourism and external remittances.

The Kingdom has consequently depended on humanitarian aid from the United States, Gulf countries, and international agencies: the United States alone provided nearly $800 million for refugee assistance in 2015. While the combined aid flows have enabled Jordan to meet existing refugee-related costs to date, it will be increasingly difficult to meet the needs of  the country’s growing refugee numbers.

King Abdullah has continually stressed that job creation and foreign investment in Jordan can benefit the economy and the refugee situation more than direct aid. One promising initiative along these lines is a recent trade arrangement that incentivizes foreign companies to invest in Jordan and export products to Europe tariff-free if those companies derive at least 15% of their labor from Syrian refugees.

Another risk posed by the refugee crisis is that it has facilitated Jordan’s continuing reliance on short-term surges in foreign aid and investment, preventing the Kingdom from engaging in long-term, structural economic reform. As the country edges towards insolvency, Jordan must trim deficit-enabling redundancies in government, gradually wane unsustainable commodity subsidies, and improve ease-of-business measures for small-to-medium sized Jordanian enterprises—which make up 95% of Jordan’s private sector but are typically ignored by the government’s focus on initiatives for large and multinational enterprises.

Preserving power

Although Jordanian’s anxieties about their safety and finances are intensifying, the political system is fairly stable. The royal family is well-regarded, and the monarchy’s position is bolstered by the knowledge that the United States, Britain, and others need Jordan more than ever in a region wracked by various crises. King Abdullah has also maintained a firm grip on power since the 2011 Arab uprisings. Part of this is due to the monarchy’s clientelism; the King has recruited Bedouin leaders into military leadership and offered them monopolies on parts of the tourism trade. This has helped solidify tribal loyalty and maintain security in rural areas outside Amman.

Another source of the monarchy’s stability is the parliament. Most government power resides with the King, yet many Jordanians fault their elected officials for their economic gripes instead. In one recent survey, 87% of polled Jordanians were unable to name single positive achievement of the last parliament. The monarchy can accordingly deflect blame from itself, and even dissolve the parliament and call for elections to satisfy calls for political change—as it did in May 2016.

Yet politics is breeding unpredictability. Young Jordanians’ lack of economic opportunities and dissatisfaction with government has been repeatedly linked to support for Islamism in addition to Salafi-jihadism. Over a thousand Jordanians are estimated to be fighting for ISIS or al-Qaeda’s affiliate Jabhat Fateh al-Sham in Syria. Law enforcement’s strict crackdown on those who simply praise ISIS on social media further breeds an antagonistic relationship with government among Jordan’s disenfranchised youth.

King Abdullah seemed to consider this in the September 2016 parliamentary elections. These elections returned to bloc voting (last used in 1989), where voters could select lists of candidates prepared by political parties instead of having one vote per one candidate. The hope was that empowering political parties will make Jordan’s parliament more technocratic and less of a hostage to patronage and tribal ties.

The September elections also allowed Islamists to run, particularly from the political arm of the outlawed Muslim Brotherhood – the Islamist Action Front. Unlike past Brotherhood messaging, the Islamist Action Front pushed a reformist brand instead of the standard, ‘Islam is the solution’ line. It also fielded contenders alongside women, Christian and minority candidates. This perhaps hints at coinciding goals for Jordan’s monarchy and Islamists. For Islamists, liberalizing their message could appeal broadly to a restive population and gain acceptance from Jordan’s leadership. For the monarchy, allowing Islamists in politics could generate legitimacy from disenfranchised refugees and the millions of devout Palestinians living in financial strain, all while tempering the more extreme Islamist ideologies among them.

Jordan will stay stable in 2017, but greater risks are present

Yet the election’s actual results were largely uneventful. Voter turnout was 37% compared to over 50% in 2013. Islamist candidates gained 15% of parliament’s lower house seats, but the legislature is still dominated by individuals with tribal affiliations or loyal to the monarchy.

While the monarchy could view the election results as a sign of stability, high voter apathy may also indicate widespread anti-establishment sentiment and signal greater political risk. Many young Jordanians—which make up 70% of the population—have been mobilizing and openly challenging the Kingdom’s political system. Deployed by a restive youth, these ideas—alongside emergent Islamism—could generate political volatility in the short to medium term.

While Jordan’s outlook remains optimistic, its situation looks increasingly risky for the coming year. As ISIS and its affiliates disperse through the region, the Kingdom’s deteriorating economic climate and testy political environment will produce an atmosphere that breeds insecurity from within the country’s borders. Containing these risks while addressing their causes will continue to be paramount.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by  Azhar Unwala, an analyst for government and corporate clients based in Washington, D.C.

The post Despite a Neighborhood on Fire, Jordan Remains Stable appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Japan Times, 2016)

Much noise has been made about U.S. president-elect Donald J. Trump’s recent telephone conversation with Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen and about Trump’s challenge to the “one-China policy” that Beijing unilaterally considers “the cornerstone of Sino-U.S. relations.”

While state-run mainland Chinese media arrogantly declared that the “mainland must shape Taiwan’s future,” a cadre of professional China apologists in the United States attacked Trump for “provoking China,” and the current U.S. administration rushed to reassure Beijing that America still respected its precious “one-China policy.”

The one thing we mustn’t ever, ever do, according to much of the foreign policy establishment, is anything that might upset or offend mainland Chinese dictators. Above all, we must be sensitive to China’s easily-hurt feelings regarding its unilateral claim of sovereignty over Taiwan (aka the “one-China policy” to which all the world is expected to kowtow). However it may bully its neighbors and abuse the human rights of its own citizens, we must always keep China a happy panda.

More recently, China lodged “stern representations” against content in the U.S. National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2017 including a plan to conduct high-level military exchanges with Taiwan. According to a December 26 editorial in People’s Daily, U.S. military cooperation with Taiwan “clearly violates the one-China principle, interferes in China’s internal affairs, infringes upon China’s sovereignty, endangers China’s national security, undermines peace and stability across the Taiwan Strait, and treats the Taiwan issue as a card to play against China.”

(Cagle Cartoons, 2016)

Let’s get real: Taiwan has never been a part of the People’s Republic of China. Taiwan is officially the one remaining part of the Republic of China that did not fall to communist rule in 1949. Previously, Taiwan was a colony of Japan from 1895 to 1945. Of the more than 120 years since Japan occupied Taiwan in 1895, the island has spent only four years (1945-1949) as part of a unified China.

While mainland China self-destructed under Mao, slaughtered its own young on Tiananmen Square, imprisoned dissidents, and constructed the world’s most extensive system of internet censorship, Taiwan underwent a normal course of development into the modern democracy and free society that it is today. Taiwan therefore has a very different history and a very different national identity from mainland China.

Nor do most of Taiwan’s 23 million citizens have any interest in being part of the People’s Republic of China. In every recent public opinion poll on the question, the vast majority of the island’s citizens are opposed to “reunification” with mainland China and consider themselves to be of “Taiwanese” rather than “Chinese” nationality. Tsai Ing-wen’s landslide electoral victory in early 2016 was furthermore a “clear call to remain separate from China.” Increasingly even the official name, “Republic of China,” is being rejected by independence-minded Taiwanese in favor of “Republic of Taiwan” to signify a complete break from China.

None of this matters to authoritarian Beijing, which insists that “Taiwan society ought to understand and attach importance to the feelings of the 1.37 billion residents of the mainland.” Funny how the opinions of the mainland’s 1.37 billion residents seem to matter to Beijing only when they can be turned against a smaller population that it wishes to subjugate. Like self-entitled brats, state-run mainland Chinese media have declared that “it’s Beijing who has the final say between peace and war on cross-Straits relations, not Taiwan or the U.S.”

(Sakura Jade House, 2016)

Mainland China is a one-party dictatorship, a human rights disaster area, and a clear adversary of the United States. Taiwan is a modern democracy with a positive record of respect for human rights and, at least potentially, a valuable U.S. ally in a region where the United States is losing allies almost by the day. While autocratic mainland China is rewarded for its bad behavior with full diplomatic recognition and full membership in the international community, however, democratic Taiwan is punished with diplomatic isolation.

For a nation such as the United States that considers itself a beacon of democracy and human rights, it doesn’t get much more ass-backwards than that. Beijing’s “one-China policy” is not merely a polite “diplomatic fiction“: It is an authoritarian absurdity, and continued U.S. obeisance to it is an insult to American values.

The post Beijing’s ‘One-China Policy’ is an Authoritarian Absurdity appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro d’hiver de Politique étrangère (n°4/2016). Sébastien Abis propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Vandana Shiva, Who Really Feeds the World?  (Zed Books, 2016, 176  pages).

Si la perspective de 10 milliards d’habitants dans le monde se précise pour l’horizon 2050, il semble difficile de contourner la nécessaire augmentation de la production agricole, estimée à 60 % du niveau actuel par l’Organisation des Nations unies pour l’alimentation et l’agriculture (FAO). Est-il préférable d’améliorer les rendements sur les terres agricoles déjà cultivées et présentant de bonnes conditions pédoclimatiques, à l’instar de l’Europe, ou convient-il d’étendre les espaces dédiés à l’agriculture dans le monde, en exploitant les terres arables qui restent disponibles et se situent majoritairement en Amérique latine et en Afrique subsaharienne ?

Un autre enjeu évident tient à l’inégale répartition des richesses sur la planète, tant d’un point de vue économique qu’agronomique. Le monde présente un potentiel agricole solide, capable de subvenir aux besoins alimentaires, dans une vision idéale systémique où chacun se contenterait des produits locaux de proximité (tant en quantité qu’en qualité) et dans laquelle les relations internationales ne se fonderaient pas prioritairement sur des jeux d’intérêts. La réalité est tout autre. Depuis des millénaires, le commerce joue un rôle fondamental pour rapprocher l’offre des besoins, précisément parce que les dotations géographiques sur le globe sont très hétérogènes. En outre, bien qu’il soit possible de réduire les pertes et les gaspillages tout au long de la chaîne alimentaire, il apparaît que l’augmentation des rendements en agriculture représente un levier important pour renforcer l’état de la sécurité alimentaire mondiale.

À ce propos, le livre de Vandana Shiva, militante écologiste de renom, pose des questions légitimes. Elle interroge les modes de production intensive pour promouvoir l’agro-écologie ; remet en cause le poids colossal de firmes multinationales qui, de l’agro-chimesterie à la distribution en passant par le négoce, n’auraient que le profit pour ambition ; rappelle que 70 % de la production alimentaire mondiale vient de petits producteurs et d’exploitations familiales essentielles pour nourrir les populations locales ; et insiste sur la préservation des savoir-faire traditionnels et des connaissances adaptées à chaque terroir, pour critiquer les solutions technologiques, le recours aux intrants et les effets de la globalisation alimentaire.

Dans un monde qui souffre encore de la faim, avec près d’un habitant sur huit toujours concerné par une insécurité alimentaire prononcée au quotidien, les arguments présentés par Vandana Shiva ne manquent pas de robustesse. Toutefois, ils paraissent trop souvent déconnectés d’une géopolitique mondiale où les stratégies de puissance dominent le paysage, et où les inégalités agricoles se creusent entre des régions qui peuvent produire plus et celles où les possibilités sont limitées par les contraintes climatiques et par les instabilités sociopolitiques (en Afrique notamment). Auteur de plusieurs livres dénonçant les OGM et défendant l’agriculture biologique, Vandana Shiva insiste sur les relations parfois contrariées entre science et progrès, et contribue à faire avancer le scénario d’une agriculture mondiale capable de produire mieux. Si elle émet de sérieux doutes sur la nécessité de produire plus, nous devons aussi nous demander quelles seraient les conséquences géostratégiques d’une production stable alors que la démographie continue à croître, ou, plus risqué encore, d’une orientation radicale prônant la décroissance de la production agricole.

Sébastien Abis

Abonnez vous ici et profitez de l’offre exceptionnelle de fin d’année !

Découvrez cette semaine un autre texte marquant de la revue Politique étrangère, écrit par Abdou Diouf : « Afrique : l’intégration régionale face à la mondialisation », publié dans le numéro d’hiver 2006 (n°4/2006).

Abdou Diouf a commencé sa carrière politique au Sénégal. Il a été directeur de cabinet de Léopold Sédar Senghor puis Secrétaire général de la Présidence de la République. En 1970, il est nommé Premier ministre. En 1981, il est élu président de la République, fonction qu’il occupe jusqu’en 2000. De 2003 à 2014, il est secrétaire général de l’Organisation internationale de la francophonie (OIF).

« Bon gré mal gré, l’Afrique doit aujourd’hui vivre, comme l’ensemble de notre planète, à l’heure de ce que l’on appelle la mondialisation. Mais, contrairement à d’autres régions du Sud, elle demeure mal outillée pour, à la fois, affronter ses contraintes et profiter de ses opportunités. Une des raisons de cette fragilité réside dans son extrême fragmentation, dans sa « balkanisation » comme on l’a souvent dit. À l’heure où les autres régions du monde s’organisent en espaces intégrés – économiques, géopolitiques ou culturels –, elle semble échapper à cette tendance, même si elle tente désormais de l’infléchir.

L’Afrique se compose d’une cinquantaine d’États, dont une vingtaine comptent moins de 10 millions d’habitants, et près d’une dizaine moins d’un million. Que pèse chacun d’eux face aux grands ensembles qui occupent aujourd’hui la scène mondiale ? D’un côté la Chine et l’Inde, États unifiés les plus peuplés du monde, qui entendent bien en devenir des puissances centrales ; de l’autre, des unions régionales de natures différentes, à la construction plus ou moins rapide et plus ou moins harmonieuse, mais dont l’un au moins des objectifs est de peser sur une scène internationale où prévalent les logiques de la globalisation : l’Union européenne (UE), qui s’est donné pour vocation de regrouper l’ensemble de l’Europe, l’Accord de libre-échange nord-américain (ALENA), le Marché commun du Sud (Mercado Comun del Sur, Mercosur) en Amérique du Sud, l’Association des nations du Sud-Est asiatique (Association of Southeast Asian Nations, ASEAN). Du côté africain en revanche, une infinité de sigles qui, jusqu’à présent, ne reflètent pour la plupart que des regroupements virtuels.

L’Afrique peut-elle continuer à regarder, impuissante, l’évolution d’un monde sur lequel elle n’a pas prise ? Peut-elle continuer à se marginaliser alors qu’elle possède tous les outils d’une meilleure insertion dans le monde d’aujourd’hui : ressources naturelles, jeunesse et dynamisme de sa population, richesse de ses cultures, etc. ?

La question, en fait, n’est pas de savoir si l’Afrique – à l’exception de quelques-uns de ses États les plus importants – est insérée dans la mondialisation ou se situe en marge de ce processus. Aucun pays ne peut aujourd’hui évoluer en dehors de lui. Il s’agit plutôt de savoir pourquoi elle occupe une place si modeste dans le système mondial et pourquoi elle y participe sur un mode marginal. La nature de sa place dans l’économie globalisée fait qu’elle subit la mondialisation plus qu’elle n’y participe.

Il est temps qu’elle échappe à ce qui n’est pas un destin. Pour qu’elle puisse enfin se hisser à un niveau lui permettant de peser sur l’échiquier international, elle doit lutter davantage contre sa fragmentation, plus qu’elle ne l’a fait au cours du dernier demi-siècle.

L’Afrique est le continent de la planète qui compte le plus d’organisations continentales, régionales, sous-régionales, sectorielles et commerciales alors qu’elle est la région où les processus d’intégration et de régionalisation sont les plus embryonnaires. Il convient d’expliquer ce paradoxe, pour y remédier. […] »

Pour lire l’article en intégralité, cliquez ici.

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici.

Ignatian Family Teach-in for Justice, Washington, D.C., 2016.

President-Elect Donald J. Trump is following his iconoclastic campaign with an irregular and irreverent transition period. With a controversial nominee for Secretary of State (an oil executive decorated with an award by the Russian government), a renewed commitment to track Muslims, and tweets about “nukes,” the shaping of the future of U.S. foreign policy has been notable.

A distinction might be made, though, between the hard power of U.S. foreign policy and the soft power constructed daily from unofficial American foreign policy. Presidents make speeches, host summits, sign executive orders, and send troops into battle. But thousands of ordinary Americans serve as unofficial ambassadors of the United States—many counter, or oblivious to official policy.

Americans made over 73 million international trips in 2015. These included 12 million to Mexico, 12 million to Europe, 5 million to Asia, 2 million the Middle East, and more than 300,000 to Africa. Over 300,000 thousand American university students study abroad each year, including more than 10,000 in Africa, 30,000 in Asia, and nearly 50,000 in Latin America. More than 100,000 Americans serve overseas as Christian missionaries. Thousands more serve abroad in non-evangelical roles with organizations like the Jesuit Volunteer Corps. (And there are 7,000 active Peace Corps volunteers, a U.S. government agency but whose work in 60 countries far from the daily business of the State Department.)

Unofficial foreign policy is made with money, as well. U.S. companies held over $5 trillion in overseas direct foreign investment in 2015, including over $400 million in Ukraine, $90 billion in Mexico, and $2 billion in Libya. U.S. companies generated exports of $2.2 trillion in goods and services in 2015, and imports of $2.7 trillion. Migrant workers in the U.S. sent home over $60 billion in remittances in 2015. The U.S. Government’s foreign assistance budget is $34 billion, but American individuals and private organizations donated another $16 billion.

Together, American companies and individuals intentionally or unintentionally drive a tremendous amount of public diplomacy and the foreign policy agenda. Among the many competing interests, the message of one group of young people has stayed consistent for many years. Students and their Jesuit universities remain passionately committed to social justice, and the United States government’s unique obligations.

Their 18th annual conference met recently in Washington. Begun as a protest movement at the U.S. military’s School of the Americas (SOA), a Cold War-era training facility for Latin American anti-Communists, the 2016 Ignatian Family Teach-in for Justice brought together over 1,800 high school and college students on a range of social justice topics, especially immigration.

The origins of this emphasis are rooted in the civil wars in Central America in the 1980s, especially El Salvador. U.S. foreign policy at the time was driven by a worsening of the Cold War, supporting anti-government Contras against the Soviet-supported Nicaragua, and the military government of El Salvador against Soviet-supported guerrilla groups.

Salvadoran Archbishop Oscar Romero was assassinated while celebrating Mass, after persistently advocating a “preference for the poor,” and just one day after he called for Salvadoran soldiers to stop killing their fellow countrymen. At Romero’s funeral, dozens more were killed by gunshots and the subsequent stampede.

In 1989, six Jesuits priests at the University of Central America in San Salvador were killed by the government death squads. As one observer noted, “It is frankly difficult to imagine anything more likely to spur American Jesuits to action than the complicity of their own government in the violent death of their fellow Jesuits.” The presidents of Georgetown University and Fordham University led the charge, and Jesuit universities across the country strengthened their commitment to peace in Central America generally and to the cause of Central American immigration specifically.

Immigration reform has new urgency as the Trump administration takes shape. The 2016 Ignatian Family Teach-in for Justice took place just days after Trump’s victory. Students and their social justice mentors shared a shock and dismay at what the results might mean, especially those young beneficiaries of President Obama’s Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) program, or those with parents and friends without legal status in the United States.

The focus of these conferences leaves some questions. They seem to give more attention to undocumented aliens in the U.S. than to those trying to follow the system’s legal paths, and a precedence for Mexican and Central American immigrants over refugees from Syria, Iraq, Africa, or elsewhere.

But their commitment is not in doubt. Jesuit schools have been working with generations of students on these and related issues, like fair trade, the environment, and criminal justice reform. And not just for discernment—for action. After celebration and education on Saturday and Sunday, on Monday more than 1,000 students had appointments with Congressional staffs to express their political passions—and to begin to develop their political advocacy skills.

The new President and Secretary of State will have a wide range of foreign policy issues to attend to, including immigration, trade, the environment, conflict, global poverty, and more. The professional diplomatic corps, lobbyists, and policy wonks will make their contributions. But millions of unofficial ambassadors—as students and scholars, business professionals, service volunteers, donors, and tourists—will help shape the image and expectations of America abroad, and the policies of the new administration.

The post America’s Other Foreign Policy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Here are some gifts from around the world, fit for even the most insatiable global affairs glutton.

President-elect Donald Trump's comments and actions since winning the U.S. presidential election in November offer new insights into the kind of Asia policy his administration may pursue after taking office in January.

Xi Jinping sees the Soviet Union as a cautionary tale. But Beijing is learning all the wrong lessons.

‘Reality Presidency’ and New Diplomacy

The recent public execution of ‘political correctness’ in the U.S. and other Western countries had an unintended consequence: it has removed the curtain of pretense and hypocrisy. This, needless to say, is one of the key factors that could help solve some of the most critical political, economic, and faith-based issues of our time.

However, this positive outcome might not be immediately experienced or appreciated since assertive ignorance and crude communication dominate the public space. President-elect’s supporters had this to offer for post-election consensus building: ‘Donald Trump is the President; deal with!’ And his Transitional Team and selected Cabinet had nothing substantive to add. So, we must deal with this world-changing reality.

And this makes the unpacking of these two concepts critical: ‘conspiracy theory’ and its less known archenemy ‘conspiracy realism’. Both are relevant to understand and to function with the new diplomacy.

The Theorists’ Dilemma

Everything in life is not organized by clandestine cabals, secret societies, or sinister groups driven to achieve political, economic or religious objectives. And everything does not always have a wicked, illegal, or immoral motive. And yes, there are people who always look at authorities with a relentless antipathy and distrust; people who are obsessed in finding the evil geniuses behind everything in ways that borderlines, if not indicates, mental disorder. The notorious killer cult leader, Charles Manson is an example.

Much of the issues in politics and economics are multidimensional and complex. As such, it is too difficult for the average people to wrap their minds around them. Especially during the seasons of heightened uncertainties due to wars, economic downfall and such, it is easy to seek meaning through professional conspiracy theorists. These influence-wielding individuals such as Alex Jones of InfoWars often have packaged explanations to everything.

They—seekers and providers—never change their minds or admit being wrong when new facts emerge and new evidences are unveiled. To them facts are nothing more than convenient covers- hence their offshoot or the creeping effect of fake news websites.

Undermined Reality

The perennial question that puzzled great minds throughout the ages (Is man innately good or innately evil?) has never been more relevant. Most of us may have strong opinions on this matter. As a Muslim, I believe that the human being is hard-wired with divine nobility—moral conscience—and is granted the free-will to disgrace him/herself to the lowest of the lows.

Is man not capable of connivingly conspire to immorally and illegally claim power beyond his rights and thus impose his will on others or commit sexual violence to please his lust? In that case, who is haplessly naïve- the one who believes that man never conspires to control and exploit or the one who thinks he does?

Before the WikiLeaks on government and corporate exploitation and misconduct, Snowden’s expose of intrusive ‘Big Brother’, any such claim would’ve been easily dismissed as a conspiracy theory. Throughout history man has lusted for exclusive advantage in order to control, manipulate or exploit. Yet, most people are still robotically inculcated to disassociate themselves with anything that suggests conspiracy; they are likely to resort to knee-jerk reaction in defense of status quo- whatever that may be. Those in power are often the main beneficiaries.

Politics of the Label

Not all conspiracy claims are driven by far-left or far-right nutty mobs that have an inventory of conspiratorial misgivings and fantasies.

Unless one is locked into state of absolute conformity to one’s own biases or denial, the Crusades, the Inquisition, the cleansing of Native Americans, slavery, colonialism, geopolitics, al-Qaida, ISIS, Shabaab and other such mortal enterprises would not have been possible without some form of conspiracy. And this should compel us to have a frank and sensible discourse on this ever-present human controversy.

Nowadays, any credible challenge to the official narrative of any serious issue, policy, or action is met with resistance from devout conformists or is shot-down by professionals who should be called the conspiracy police. This intellect-policing force needs not to present facts or establish any pattern of analytical discrepancies. All they need is to unleash cold-blooded ad hominem.

On the Receiving End

There are some who vehemently deny the notion that there is a synchronized effort to collectively demonize Muslims and other minority groups. The growing number of mainly far-right politicians who cunningly use “dog whistle politics” to give subtle marching orders. The political operatives, and well-funded media institutions with colorful personalities whose jobs are to incite religious intolerance and to whip people into crippling hysteria, therefore dependency.

In the U.S. and some parts of Europe, anti-Muslim partners foster uniformed propaganda led by hate-mongering “hipsters”. Their motto is: “All Muslims are not terrorists, but all terrorists are.” They insist that their motive is neither racist nor anti-Islamic. However, their thinly disguised racism falls apart as soon as one replaces “Muslims” with Jews, and “terrorists” with financial scammers. Was the latter not the malicious pretext that led to the holocaust?

In the current trend, Muslims are so demonized that individuals and mosques could be implicated arbitrarily and be condemned in the court of public opinion. And since neither media nor the law-enforcement is pressed to present evidence or establish clear trend before accusing any Muslim person or institution, whatever they present is often considered “the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth.”

Institutional Racism

In the spirit of conspiracy realism and trying out the new diplomacy, let me spread these cards on the table. There are mainly two phenomena that support the notion that Muslims are in political and economic crosshairs: First, geographical areas in which terrorists operate are almost always resource rich or are geopolitically important. Second, though terrorism presents real indiscriminate threat, all countries that succumb to political pressures to make counter-terrorism their principle domestic and foreign policies almost always grow more insecure. Are these random acts of nature or human intervention?

Against that backdrop, the President-elect and his selected Cabinet raise a red flag; especially with regard to their naïve world view and reliance on ‘security experts’ who are blinded by their hate of Islam and Muslims. To what extent are they going to abuse the authority vested in them is open for debate.

The known factor is that governments strategically keep society fearful, senseless, and disoriented in order to create sense of dependency or pass controversial policies or decrees? This is not something that only dictators such as el-Sisi of Egypt would do. Certain intelligence and law enforcement agencies within democratic states such the U.S. have historically fabricated and staged fearful dramas in order to achieve specific political objectives.

Like many Muslims across U.S. and Europe, when some Somali-American activists complained of being discriminatively targeted in the Twin Cities, they were swiftly dismissed as ‘conspiracy theorists’, until recently when a staff whistleblower exposed that TSA was indeed discriminating and “treating Somalis as a community of suspects.

Positive Change Is Coming

Much of humanity, especially those who are digitally connected, is in state of trauma due to wars, economic uncertainty and excessive negativity.

Watching the Aleppo holocaust in real time and the empty political rhetoric of those who could end that horrific misery but would not act has exposed humanity’s corroding collective conscience. Mindful or not, most of humanity—those who are connected to the rest of the world—are suffering from collective trauma of different levels. Still we should not allow that to push us into a state of hopelessness where all we can sense are bloody spooks moving in the blinding darkness. The last thing humanity needs is reckless leaders to make situations more volatile.

Collective Responsibility of Objective Scrutiny

Anyone who accepts the premise that all political initiatives are the works of one interest group or another can comfortably accept the suspicion that his counterpart is engaging in a self-serving conspiracy; even if the counterpart were to deny.

A healthy dose of skepticism is good so long as one maintains a balance and not goes off the rails with it. Runaway skepticism leads to a dangerous state of mind- uncompromising cynicism. It is in that psychological state of profound fatalism where conspiracy theories and theorists thrive.

There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. The former is the obligation and moral duty of every professional journalist, law enforcement, and public official whereas the latter is an endless emotional wave of doubt, distrust, and pessimism.

In the course of the next four years, institutional attempts to derail or repress genuine discourse and debate on fault-line issues that could add fuel to a global burning fire is very likely. Here is where the non-conglomerate media could assume heroic roles. They should be loyal to the public and not the corporate interest or those in power.

Let us face it, it is not by sheer coincidence that man often performs his very best on stages and under spotlights, and his most vile in darkness or behind veils of secrecy. Keep the lights bright.

The post ‘Reality Presidency’ and New Diplomacy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

After a series of skirmishes, frantic deal making now looks to have brought about the surprise return to force of Libya in the oil export market.

However Libyan oil coming back online could jeopardize a fragile production cut deal orchestrated by producers cartel OPEC to rebalance the global supply glut driving down prices and squeezing the revenues of oil-dependent economies.

A spokesman from the Libyan Government of National Accord (GNA) has confirmed that Libya will be sharply increasing its oil output in the near future, raising its total production to 900,000 barrels of oil per day (bpd).

Prior to the 2011 death of long-time dictator Colonel Muammar Gaddafi, the north African country exported some 1.6m barrels per day of sweet crude that required only slight refining. Output collapsed after Libya lapsed into revolution and then civil war.

While the new production level remains significantly lower than during Gaddafi-era heights it still represents a significant increase in Libyan output, which had already doubled to about 600,000 bpd since September.

The latest rise in production comes after two of Libya’s warring factions agreed to cooperate to raise output. A group within Libya’s Petroleum Facilities Guard (PFG) agreed to lift two blockades on oil pipelines which have been in place since 2014 and 2015 respectively as they realign themselves with the Libyan National Army (LNA), one of Libya’s strongest militia groups.

The LNA had held onto two crucial oil ports during factional fighting with the PFG in September, which may have convinced breakaway PFG members to strike the new deal.

Libya’s state-run National Oil Corporation (NOC) has recently prepared to restart oil exports from these ports. With the end of the blockade on pipelines to Libya’s Sharara and El Feel oil fields, national oil officials believe they can add 365,000 bpd to Libya’s production, though they caution this is dependent on the agreement holding.

However the prospect of a Libyan production surge comes shortly after OPEC members finally managed to negotiate a reduction deal.

Despite being members of the cartel, both Libya and Nigeria have been exempted from OPEC’s recent agreements because of their ongoing security and economic problems. However a rapid increase in crude exporting from Libyan fields might change this calculus.

The reopening of the two blockaded pipelines could even bring Libya above its official 0.9m bpd target, potentially straining OPEC deals and the cartel’s willingness to allow Libya to continue producing at pace to get back on its feet.

“OPEC’s agreement granted a Libyan exemption despite this stated production target… but this exemption is not likely open-ended,” warns Jonathan Lang, an analyst for Global Risk Insights.

Production increases will likely only be gradual as Libya’s technical issues and tenuous security situation put a damper on production potential. But if production reaches or even exceeds Libya’s target they could begin to hear sharp protests from other oil producing countries, whose economies are feeling the strain of sustained low prices.

“Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Fali, after the conference with non-OPEC producers, gave a very strong statement to the effect that he was willing to cut the Kingdom’s production even more than agreed in order to restore market balance. If Libyan output does increase more, he may need to do that,” says Bryan Plamondon, Middle East and Africa  director at IHS Market Economics.

“A return of Libyan production to world oil markets…on a sustained basis would hamper OPEC’s plan to restore oil markets to equilibrium and move prices upward. It is a serious issue for the organization.”

This article originally appeared in the Financial Times’ This Is Africa service and reappears here with kind permission.

The post Libyan Oil: A Bittersweet Return? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

I have known Kelly for several years and have had the privilege of working with him and having him speak on several occasions at my day job.

The U.N. declares Israeli settlements illegal as United States defies its own past and calls from Trump and Netanyahu for a veto.