Foreign Policy Blogs

Photo Credit: World Hindu Struggle Committee

Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi has declared that it is time for the world to act against the systematic destruction of Hindu homes.

The late Elie Wiesel once proclaimed, “There may be times when we are powerless to prevent injustice but there must never be a time when we fail to protest.” In recent days in Bangladesh, Hindu homes have been attacked and vandalized. According to Shipan Kumer Basu, the President of the World Hindu Struggle Committee, the Bangladeshi government systematically encourages the destruction of Hindu property and blames the wanton act of violence on its political opponents. Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi called upon the world to stand up against this and to force the Bangladeshi government to stop permitting attacks on Hindu homes!

According to local reports, the Hindu homes that were attacked and vandalized recently occurred in the background of a local dispute. Following an arbitration meeting over the dispute, local sources reported that Chairman of Chatlarmi Sheikh Hizam Uddin and his people attacked the Hindus during the meeting. These reports claim that after the Hindus came out of the meeting, Uddin ordered two to three hundred people including Awami League leader Kishore Majumder and Rajat Roy to attack and vandalize the Hindu homes. Following the incident, Uddin denied the allegations against him and blamed the incident upon local UP member Paroshosh Mandal.

In another instance, local sources reported that a family home was looted in Shimoli. During the incident, they claim that an entire family was kidnapped and all of the valuables in their home were robbed including gold ornaments and money. The stolen goods were supposedly worth 36 taka and it took them two truckloads to take everything away. The abductors did not stop there. Later on, according to the report, they tried to kill Mihir Biswas by strangling him with something like a telephone cable around his neck. They beat him heavily and dragged him out of his home. They then proceeded to break a statue of Kali and left the broken part of the statue lying on the floor.

Not too long ago, local sources reported that another Hindu from Jaleshwar village was found dead with his legs and hands tied up. His home was vandalized as well. In addition, a Hindu home in Sarankhola was burned to the ground. Furthermore, a Hindu temple in Sirajdikhan was attacked and two idols were desecrated. According to the president of the temple, metal and copper plates, dishes, glasses, gold chains and other goods worth tens of thousands of dollars were looted. A temple is a spiritual home and yet in Bangladesh, local sources noted that holy places belonging to minorities are under attack.

While the culprits hate Hindus, they have not spared poor animals belonging to Hindus. According to local sources, two goats recently were burned to death in Hindu areas. In addition, there are reports of cows being burned. Radical Muslims in Bangladesh often burn cows due to the sanctity of this animal in the Hindu faith. It is reported that the homes of the dead are not even spared from these cruelties. According to local sources, the Kali Puja Cemetery was attacked recently. According to these sources, during the attack, the assailants started to harass a group of Hindu girls and then proceeded to beat up a grandmother before destroying the tools of a temple and vandalizing a house on the premises of the cemetery.

Basu is demanding that this cruel phenomenon of minority oppression come to an end in his country: “We cannot tolerate the vandalism of our homes, holy places and cemeteries in Bangladesh. We mourn over the plight of the wounded gods and goddesses as well as the desecration of our homes and the destruction of our property.”

Basu blames the Bangladeshi government for the recent atrocities: “While the Bangladeshi government likes to blame their political adversities or local Islamists, in reality, ISIS is the culprit and the Bangladeshi government has given them freedom of action to operate in. ISIS recently murdered a Hindu monk yet the Bangladeshi government denies that ISIS is active in Bangladesh. But we know better than to believe a government that recently arrested the main opposition leader Khaleda Zia, who just got HC bail and who is working to cleanse Hindus and other minorities from the country. It is time for the international community to pull in the reigns on Sheikh Hasina’s dictatorial rule. It is time for this grave injustice against the Hindu community to come to an end!” As Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi stressed: “It is our obligation in the free world to stand against anyone who stands up against the Hindu minority.”

The post Israeli Druze diplomat: Time to protest the destruction of Hindu homes! appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

There’s a scene in the 2007 film Charlie Wilson’s War when the titular character, a congressman played by Tom Hanks, tries to make a case to his congressional peers. He wants to allocate one million dollars toward building a school in Afghanistan, as a way for the United States to combat Soviet propaganda in the country. In response, one of his colleagues asks: “Afghanistan? Is that still going on?” seconds later, another quip follows: “We’re a little busy now reorganizing Eastern Europe, don’t you think?”

The film takes place in the 1980s, at the height of the Cold War. But even today, a similar scenario of political amnesia is playing out. In 2008, the entire transatlantic community, including Brussels and Washington, condemned Russia’s invasion of Georgia. Senator John McCain, known for his blistering critique of the Kremlin, famously declared: “Today, we are all Georgians.” But now, 10 years on, a familiar sort of forgetting has left Georgia, a country of geopolitical importance, jammed in a state of development limbo—one that actors neither inside nor outside the country seem to be in much of a hurry to remedy any time soon.

How to pluck out the heart of this particular mystery? In a sense, the current reality shouldn’t be all that surprising. After all, the West itself is facing challenges of the magnitude it hasn’t seen since the end of the Cold War. Its political, economic and even philosophical underpinnings seem to be losing legitimacy. Understandably, it’s in no mood to be a political cheerleader for a seemingly obscure country like Georgia.

Indeed, gone are the days of unfettered democracy promotion and calls for  NATO membership, even though Brussels, with support from Washington, had allowed for some progress in its relationship with Georgia. The issue isn’t necessarily the level of global support for Georgia, critical as it may be. Rather, it’s the carte blanche the West has traditionally given to Georgian governments. Which is to say: Western support for Georgia on the international stage might now be diluted by internal dynamics, ones unique to the long history of Sovietization of Georgia’s socio-political culture.

This domestic development has, in turn, cleaved Georgia into two entities: a pro-Western country on the one hand, and a post-Soviet one on the other. Yet the West has largely ignored this duality, fueling a mood of forgetfulness that in ways mirrors the one that came to beleaguer Afghanistan. (And the consequences have been severe: As the journalist Remy Tumin recently reported for The New York Times, “a truce was ostensibly called in 2008, but… ask any Georgian in the area and they will insist the conflict never really ended.”)

Yet this isn’t to point the finger of blame for Georgia’s glacial modernization solely at foreign powers. When it comes to Georgia’s relations with Russia, old habits appear to die hard. More specifically, the country hasn’t seemed to learn from the mistakes of its second and third presidents: Eduard Shevardnadze and Mikhail Saakashvili, respectively. During their tenure as president—Shevardnadze between 1995 and 2003, and Saakashvili between 2003 and 2012—both men transferred strategic economic assets to clandestine Russian-Georgian business groups. On top of that, Washington had to interfere to prevent the sale of the main Georgian oil pipeline to Gazprom, a large Russian company. What was perhaps most disturbing, however, was that Saakashvili—the great modernizer, and a tireless fighter against Putin’s regime—sold off almost the entirety of Georgia’s economy. Far from modernizing these sectors, Russian businesses drove them into the ground.

Today, these sectors languish in inefficiency, and they’re run by what’s been dubbed by the literature as “red directors.” They’re also drowning in dilettantism, raising questions about favoritism and corruption. It seems that over seven decades of Soviet dictatorship have eroded some people’s ability to distinguish between adversaries and friends.

Other internal actors have derailed Georgia’s development, too. For one, billionaire oligarch Bidzina Ivanishvili, who made his money in Russia, has decided to maintain the status quo. The political environment he’s created has worsened the investment climate in the country. Ivanishvili was previously prime minister of Georgia, but stepped down after only one year in office. (The political party he financed with his money, the Georgian Dream party (GD), beat Saakashvili in parliamentary elections in 2012, effectively removing him from power.) While in office, he summoned the heads of Georgian companies and publicly scolded them for distorting the rules of the game in their favor. But that was merely a PR stunt, and it was the extent to which he cared to address Georgia’s clandestine, post-Soviet business landscape.

Now, as a private citizen, Ivanishvili is widely believed to be an unofficial ruler of the country, working through a network comprised of his relatives, members of the GD, and popular support he receives from those social elites who are beholden to him (mainly because he still pays their salaries and serves as a sort of arbiter of their professional careers). More startling, he also arguably wields the real power behind current Prime Minister Giorgi Kvirikashvili, though he still falls miserably short on his promises to develop a vibrant civil society and bolster human rights.

A decade after Georgia captured international attention, its development seems to be on no one’s mind—neither on the minds of international actors, nor on the minds of most domestic actors, who seem to care more about keeping their hands on the levers of power.

Both Brussels and Washington ought to use their political clout to reduce the crippling legacy of Soviet influence, which any wily person can mold to boost himself above institutions, creating a personal brood of followers. At the same time, it’s Georgia’s government that must ultimately do the grunt work of cleaning up its backyard. In the private sector, the government must create greater transparency of key economic sectors. It must also carve out a sense of social and political fairness (to see why, look at how Ivanishvili’s feud with the current Georgian president, Giorgi Margvelashvili, speaks to how he’s willing to place himself above his office; he’s yet to forgive Margvelashvili for allegedly disobeying directives, and has accused him of selling out to the opposition party).

Georgia’s political elites will likely avoid scrutiny from the West, but they’d be wise to remember that their fellow Georgians have a penchant for elevating politicians to the status of a deity—only to condemn them later with an equal and opposite intensity.

Giorgi Lasha Kasradze is an analyst focusing on political risk and a graduate of the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy.

The post Georgia on No One’s Mind appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The National People’s Congress meeting that kicked off on March 5 has ushered in some revolutionary stances . From the constitutional amendment to the two-term limit that was proposed by the Communist party on February 25 , the prospect of the abolition of the term limits looms large on the horizon. This indicates that the Chinese President Xi Jinping could stay on indefinitely beyond the expiration of his term in 2023. Such an act entails the continuity of Xi Jinping’s leadership which gives him greater control over the levers of power and money that underscores Xi’s standing as China’s most dominant political figure in decades . The move represents a dramatic departure from the rules and norms that nudges the country towards a kind of centralisation of power where China’s state-controlled media have sought to justify the move as one that guarantees stable leadership as China enters a period which Xi has identified as crucial in his vision to restore the country to its rightful place as a global power.’

The removal of term limits that was long the topic of speculation in the lead up to the 19th Party Congress is nevertheless audacious . From having his thought enshrined in the Constitution in a way that was only done by Mao Zedong previously , his failure to identify a successor at the 19th party Congress in October ,Xi Jinping believes that there is no other leader who is capable of pushing and achieving his vison . Recognising the imperative to reform the Party and state institutions which forms an integral part of the socialist system with Chinese characteristics the Politburo maintained that reforms should be implemented to strengthen the Party leadership and fulfil the requirements of the new era .In this sense the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) set forward the agenda where the text mentions that the proposed two-term limit will be conducive to safeguarding the authority and the unified leadership of the CCP Central Committee with Comrade Xi Jinping as the core  and strengthen the leadership as China realised its major economic and social development goals under Jinping over the past five years .  This marks an end to institutionalised leadership that was put in place under Deng Xiaoping and makes all the talk about the rule of law under the party at the 18th Party Congress ‘ fourth plenum somewhat quaint in retrospect.

A recap of the past

Deng Xiaoping enacted China’s term limit in 1982 during his tenure as China’s paramount leader in the 80’s as part of his effort to ensure that China was never  again subjected to a crushing dictatorship like that of Chairman Mao and the turmoil it occasioned. Breaking from the West ‘s system of governance which constituted epithets like balance and checks, Deng instituted a form of governance with Chinese characteristics designed to prevent the recurrence of a cultish like obedience that was shown towards Mao during that time.

Jinping’s quest to firm up China’s presence in the world

 Prior to the elimination of the term limits the approval of the enshrining of Mr. Xi’s eponymous political theory  Xi Jinping Thought for the New Era of Socialism with Chinese Special Characteristics  as a new component of the party’s guide for action signifies that Xi is put on a doctrinal pedestal along with Mao and Deng which reaffirms that his reign would be supreme. Xi Jinping became the leader of China in 2012 where he espoused his Chinese doctrine of national rejuvenation. Since he assumed the mantle of leadership Jinping demonstrated that he is someone who does not shy away from breaking conventions . From methodically purging his potential rivals including Sun Zhengcai and Bo Xilai through anti-corruption campaign to assuming prominent positions related to military and national security Jinping is undertaking stronger stances to reframe the domestic structure of the country which reflects his overarching ambition to firm up his presence in the Communist Party. An appropriate instance includes Xi’s attitude to use his first term in office to monopolize an array of leadership positions reflected in the creation of several so-called leading groups which he heads to drive policies across a range of areas including finance, cybersecurity and relations with Taiwan . Although Mr. Xi was already provided the title  guojiya zhuxi which can be translated as state chairman , it is clear through Xi’s intention that he considers himself as  a transformational figure leading China and the party into new era when the Communist party conferred upon him the designation lingxiu or   China’s core leader that placed him on the same pedestal as Mao, Deng Xioping and Jiang Zemin . This is commensurate with Jinping’s position where he believes that it is only through attaining domestic stability and subsequently a stable relationship would be possible for China to reclaim its rightful place as a global power.

Apropos to Jinpin’s political theory his ardent desire to restore China’s eminence as a global power in the international arena got adequately reflected in  his statement at the historic 19th Communist Party Congress meeting. Outlining  two broader goals for China where first it will build a moderately prosperous society by 2020 and second  it will become a fully developed rich and powerful nation by 2050 , Jinping heralded the dawn of the new era of Chinese politics and power where the world witnessed Xi’s waxing poetic about the priorities of rejuvenating Chinese power and realising the Chinese dream . Although Jinping majorly stressed on domestic achievements , goals and challenges but for any foreign policy geek with an insight into present Chinese policy making will understand that his speech provides crucial insights into how China’s strongman leader seeks to advance his country’s role in the world.

A major takeaway for global community is Xi is extremely confident in China’s growing national power that has major implications for global politics . This was succinctly captured in Xi’s statement where he proclaimed that our Party, our country , our forces and our nation have changed in ways without precedent. The Chinese nation with an entirely new posture now stands tall and firm in the East . Against this backdrop of growing Chinese interest under Jinping’s leadership the assessment stands that the international community will face an increasingly assertive China . As was stated by a Beijing based political analyst right after the move to end term limits where he disclosed that  if we ‘ re beginning to see a much more aggressive international posture by china , expect more of that , turned upto 11  .

 The Chinese juggernaut rolls on

A corollary  of Jinping’s fervent commitment to establish Chinese prominence is the retrenchment of the US noticeable through Mr . Trump’s promise to Make America Great Again that smacks of a retreat into unilateralism which spells trouble for the fraying international liberal order. Two major instances in this regard include the evolving  Chinese maritime strategy where it has shifted from conducting coastal defense and near seas operations to far seas protection that underlie the expansion of China’s naval capabilities through deployment and berthing facilities under its String of Pearls strategy in the Indo-Pacific and secondly its colossal One belt one road ‘ global infrastructure initiative.

A stark reminder of the China’s increasingly expansive international agenda comprises of the recent phenomena of conclusion of the construction of the contested Spratly islands as part of its land reclamation activities . Through a host of installations which includes a ‘ 3 km long runway, large naval -grade berthing facilities and a range of military defences such as anti-aircraft guns and close -in weapons system (CIWS) ‘ reports on the built-up infrastructure in the islands suggest that the China has reclaimed almost seven  of the islands which houses surveillance measures. The reclaimed islands in the Spratleys are not merely fortified flag markers for China’s claim for sovereignty in the disputed South china sea but  they serve as a network of platform that strengthens Chinese military capabilities and  significantly enhances China’s projection of military power in the region.

Further on another accord through its Belt and Road initiative China under the garb of serving to enhance economic interconnectivity and facilitating development across regions including Eurasia, East Africa and more than 60 partner countries it is pursuing what analysts in the US has termed as a predatory economics. Through aggressively employing economic tools to advance its strategic interests Beijing has extended huge loans to financially weak states and ensnared in vicious debt traps that enhances its leverage . To exemplify of the 68 countries identified as potential borrowers in the BRI  23 were found to be  already at a quite high risk of debt distress  according to the Washington-based Centre for Global Development (CGD), a think tank. Moreover the report also determined that eight of those 23 countries would potentially face difficulties in servicing their debt because of future financing related to BRI projects that includes countries such as Djibouti, Kyrgyzstan, Laos , the Maldives, Mongolia, Montenegro, Pakistan and Tajikistan . This not  solely increases Beijing’s economic clout in International politics but gives a clear signal about the principle that is guiding China’s rise in global politics which is buying friendship through its economic heft. In other words co-opting countries to expand its sphere of influence both in Asia and the world .

What to do ?

Although reigning between the established superpower predominantly the US and rising power like China has not led to a full scale war yet the recent constitutional amendment poses an inflection point for liberal nations. From broadening its core interests by asserting sovereignty claims contrary to international law, continuing with its military expansive tendencies in the Indo-Pacific region , pursuing a predatory form of economics and colonial type exploitative policies in dealing with developing nations that are clear manifestations of Xi’s growing thirst for power has raised the chance of devastating instability. A takeaway in regard to China’s rise under Jining that despite there have been concerted attempts by nations in global platform to present initiatives like the Quad but to counteract the China’s increasing belligerence both within Asia and the world the current trajectory shows that it is going to be a long winding road before these come to fruition .

Sreeja Kundu is presently a researcher working at the Strategic Studies Program in the Observer Research Foundation, a think tank based in New Delhi, India. She has graduated with an M.Sc in International Relations from the University of Bristol in November 2016. She tweets @SreejaKundu

The post The ascent of the dragon continues – Implications for global politics appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Allow me to make two observations before I turn to my remarks. The Mission statement of the Forum’s website asks that we be honest and direct.  And so, although I do not wish to appear overly harsh in my observations, nevertheless I am obliged to be frank and open.  Otherwise, why have a conference such as this at all?  Also, I want to emphasize that when I speak about the “West”, or use the term “we”, I do not at all include the people in this room who are not from Ukraine, and who know and understand far more than the general citizenry of the countries that they represent.  They and their institutions have labored tremendously on the very issues that we are so concerned about, and deserve much credit.

“Why Putin Likes the West” may seem to be an anomalous title for my remarks.  After all, what we incessantly hear is that Putin is blaming the West for everything.  We hear about Russia’s “lost pride,” that it is “humiliated,” “embittered,” “insulted,” “lost,” “confused.”  One of the advisors to Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders in the last presidential campaign said, “Putin has been trying hard to find love, appreciation and recognition.”

The demonstrable facts are opposite.  Fiona Hill is formerly from the Brookings Institution, a well-recognized think tank in Washington, and is now with the National Security Council in the White House. She is recognized in many circles as a Russia and Putin expert. A few years ago, she wrote a book about Putin where she said that Putin is “unable to understand the mindset of Americans and Europeans and their political dynamics.”

For someone who doesn’t understand us, however, Putin has done quite well. Let’s just take one example. We have his money in our bank.  We hold the key. Yet he brazenly expands his aggression.  Russia–one country–taunts, menaces, intimidates, and threatens with nuclear war the collective of Western democracy.  And Putin doesn’t in the least feel that his money is at risk. Why not? Where does he get his self-assurance from?  We gave it to him.

Putin is not brilliant. But he knows and understand very well the hundred-year history of relations with the West. He has identified patterns of Western behavior, thinking and emotions that are clear, predictable, and reliable.  His conclusions, based on those patterns, are also themselves predictable.  He sees repeated strategic blunders by the West, squandered opportunities, and an inability and absence of political will to think and act strategically, in an affirmative, and not a reactive, manner. But how can this possibly be the case if, as we tell ourselves, it was the West that “won the Cold War”? We’ll return to that question later.

What is the history that Putin sees? In 1918, Ukraine declared independence, was recognized by Lenin and was promptly invaded. Ukraine turned to the West, requesting aid in the form of surplus WWI equipment and medication. Ukraine was denied. Ukraine warned that in a generation the West would be confronted directly by Russia. Ukraine was ignored. Moscow of course conquered and occupied Ukraine, and its control of Ukraine was pivotal to the formation and viability of the Soviet Union.

In 1933, the United States extended diplomatic recognition to the Soviet Union at the same time that Moscow was using starvation to break the back of Ukrainian resistance, thereby ensuring the regime’s survival. In the eyes of the world, recognition represented America’s legitimization, acceptance and approval of Stalin’s murderous regime. Furthermore, this was legitimization, acceptance and approval by America, the devil of the capitalist world, the intended victim of the very regime that had declared itself the leader in the world campaign to destroy capitalist America.  How should Putin assess our strategic sense?

In World War II, the West liberated Europe, but only part of it. We facilitated one tyrant, Hitler’s partner, replacing the other.  The West in effect measured the dimensions of the Iron Curtain.  America’s Lend/Lease program delivered to the Kremlin far more equipment and material, both in type and quantity, than necessary for military needs. Unfortunately, Moscow used the “Made in America” label to crush the underground resistance movements in Ukraine and in the Baltics, and also the uprisings in the GULag in the early 1950’s.

From the late 1940’s and for 40 years, the West–essentially the United States–pursued a policy of containment, seeking to contain Soviet expansionism. Containment, however, did not contain.  Compare the relative position of the United States and the Soviet Union after WWII, and then 40 years later.  For all the treasure spent and precious lives lost on “containment”, there was a dramatic shift, with the Soviet Union massively increasing its global influence and military capacity as America retreated.

The problem with containment was that it was exclusively reactive, with no sense of the West undertaking any affirmative measures to bring about the dissolution of the USSR.  We surrendered situational control to the Kremlin. We concluded that the only way to deal with a pyromaniac was to build a very expensive, very large and very mobile fire department that would run around the world, putting out fires that were set by the Kremlin, at its choice of time, place and intensity.  Containment was based on hope.  But if hope is not a policy or strategy for the stock market, how can it be the basis for national security?  Not surprisingly, the prominent American journalist at the time, Walter Lippmann, described containment not as a strategy, but as a “strategic monstrosity.”

But containment’s most fundamental flaw was that it didn’t recognize, in the least, the multi-national structure of the Soviet Union, that it was a colonial empire.  Containment perpetuated the “Russia”/”Soviet Union” equivalence that distorted Western thinking from the very first days of the Soviet Union. This was a massive and continuing blunder, one that helped Moscow’s repression of the submerged nations of the Soviet Union.  Today, a full generation after the fall of the USSR precisely because it was not simply “Russia,” US government officials at the very highest levels often repeat that same “Russia”/”Soviet Union” equivalence.

The Reagan Administration broke the mold, and went beyond the purely reactive restrictions of containment.  He undertook affirmative measures to cause the dissolution of the USSR.  After the election of George Bush, Sr., however, the US reversed.  Astonishingly, we worked to preserve the USSR intact. Jack Matlock, the US ambassador to the Soviet Union at the time, said directly: “The common assumption that the West forced the collapse of the Soviet Union and thus won the Cold War is wrong. The breakup of the USSR into 15 separate countries was not something the United States caused or wanted.”  As we know, Ukraine ignored Washington, declared independence, and the rest is history. So, if “winning the Cold War” meant the collapse of the Soviet Union, did that occur because of, or in spite of, America’s containment policy?

What happened after the fall of the USSR? We never implemented or even conceived of establishing a “Marshall Plan” to secure the independence and security of the former captive nations as a bulwark against Russia. We did not do what we did with the Marshall Plan in Europe in WWII, even though the necessity for doing so after the fall of the Soviet Union was ten times greater.  Unlike the devastated economy and military capacity of Germany, the Soviet economy, though in poor shape, was intact. And its military capability was very much intact as well. But most critically, while Germany came to terms with its past, and admitted, apologized for its crimes, Moscow accelerated in the opposite direction.  It celebrates its crimes.

Why were we so passive? Because, again, we simply “hoped” that things would change.  How, why? What, exactly, did we think the millions in the KGB, in the nomenklatura, would do, where would they go?  They would somehow become democrats overnight?  Why? How? What about the secret people making secret poisons in secret laboratories in secret cities?  How could we possible consider that that vast repressive system, with such a bloody history, would simply suddenly change?  Again, we simply “hoped” that it would. This total lack of responsibility by Western democracies for their very own security, the passivity and refusal to face reality and anticipate the future, is startling.  Unfortunately, it was not the first time.

History is another name for experience, and experience is another name for a book of lessons.  What lessons does Putin draw from all this?  His first conclusion is that the West itself has learned no lasting lessons.  We have not learned from our experience, and therefore have no predictive capacity.  Our experience was never sufficiently painful to leave a lasting imprint on our societal memory or political institutions.  Thus, for example, President Obama came into office wholly innocent about Moscow, but at the end he was hopefully at least somewhat more aware. But the revolving door in politics prevented the solidification of lessons to be learned. What conclusions do we expect Putin to reach?

Furthermore, Putin knows that we don’t have any understanding that Russia is a predator state.  We have no conception of the Soviet system, and cannot grasp the significance of Putin’s background, his resurrection of Stalin, and its implications for the West.  We don’t bat an eyelash over the fact that there is a “KGB Bar” in New York City, or that Jay Kearney, President Obama’s press secretary, has Soviet propaganda posters in his home, and splashed on the pages of a major Washington magazine with no objection by anyone.

In 1999, Putin celebrated Stalin’s birthday. In that year, we also saw the Moscow’s false flag operations in the Moscow apartment bombings, serving as a pretext for Moscow war against Chechnya.   His so-called Millennium Speech at the end of that year was an unmistakable blueprint for his future.  Only months later, in 2000, Condoleezza Rice was asked at a conference in the US what was the key issue that would indicate to her what kind of person Putin was, if he would be the kind of person that the US “could work with”. She replied that it would depend on what kind of tax reforms he would undertake.

Later that year, we saw no significance in Putin’s celebration of Felix Dzerzhinsky’s birthday, the notorious founder of the Cheka, precursor to the NKVD and KGB.  And that was on 9/11, the day of the destruction of the World Trade Center towers.  In February 2002, at the Winter Olympics in Salt Lake City, Utah, Putin, in his typically probing manner, tested a “light” version of Soviet symbolism. No reaction by the West. In the following year, in 2003, Michael McFaul, President Obama’s future ambassador to Russia, published a book predicting that Russia was no longer a threat to the West. By April 2005, when Putin lamented that the fall of the Soviet Union as a “tragedy”, he had already for six years been celebrating its bloody past.  The West ignored it all.  Today, Che Guevara remains a fashion statement.

Putin sees the West in a historically self-imposed requirement “not to offend” or “not to antagonize the Russians.”  On July 2, 1934, the British Foreign Office received an inquiry from the House of Commons about Moscow’s starvation of Ukraine.  The internal memo circulated within the Foreign Office read: “We do not want to make it [information about the Ukrainian genocide] public, because the Soviet Government would resent it and our relations with them would be prejudiced. We cannot give this explanation in public.”

George Orwell’s Animal Farm was rejected by 14 publishers because they “didn’t want to offend the Russians.”

In the 1970’s and 80’s, Western intelligence knew that the Kremlin was organizing, directing and financing Middle East terrorism against the West under the name of “Arab Nationalism”.  Later it also extended to terrorism by local actors in Germany, Italy and Ireland. Yet Western politicians wanted to keep this quiet, not wanting to “offend the Russians.”

The United States, in particular, seems to be particularly compelled to “make nice.”  “Can’t we just get along and be friends?” President Truman is generally recognized as having been more hard headed than President Roosevelt, but even Truman wrote in his diary, after the war was over and when it was already clear that Stalin had deceived the West about Eastern Europe: “I’m not afraid of Russia.  They’ve always been our friends, and I don’t see why they shouldn’t always be . . . so let’s just get along.” The same approach we see repeated by Presidents Carter, Bush and Obama.  Only months after Putin invaded Georgia, President Obama initiated his infamous “reset” with Russia.  How can it be that it is we who made the overture to Putin, and not the other way around?

Putin sees us trying to transfer our commercial genetic code and our deal making culture to our relations with the Kremlin.  That does not work.  The words “stability” and “management” appear endlessly in Western writing and commentary about Russia.  That is what “doing business” requires.  But that has never been the way that the Kremlin operates.  It thrives, needs and therefore creates instability.  It is always on the offensive. It exerts a hydraulic pressure of pushing, accusing, blaming, distorting, demanding and attacking. Relentlessly. The West, on the other hand, is reactive only, perpetually responding from one crisis to another to another.  We are Pavlovian.

And, of course, doing business means entering into agreements.  In our psyche, an agreement is a roadmap to resolving a problem. Agreements with Russia do work, but in the very opposite direction and with the opposite result that the agreements are meant to achieve. We scrupulously comply with agreements.  Russia scrupulously does not. Indeed, the one exception to our trying to superimpose our commercial heritage in dealing with Russia is that we tolerate and encourage the very kind of behavior that we would never tolerate in a business setting–endless breaches of agreements by the other side of the table.  The only exception to our lack of predictive capacity that I mentioned earlier is that we have superb predictive capacity about Moscow’s breach of the very next agreement. Inexplicably, we simply ignore the breaches, always coming back for more. After WWII, the US was #1 in the world, the sole superpower, economically and militarily.  Only the US had the atomic bomb.  After forty years of containment and dozens of agreements with Moscow, what was the result?  The USSR immeasurably expanded its global influence, and its military/nuclear capacity had at least reached parity with the US.  So much for agreements.

And finally, there is the question of money. During the course of a century, Western democracies were the source of untold amounts in economic value to Moscow, whether in forms of credits, technology, know how, or other direct or indirect economic benefit. Without the West having economically propped up the Soviet Union it would have collapsed much, much earlier.  The other side of it is that today it is we who are captive to Russia’s money, and not the other way around. In 2006, a British citizen was assassinated by a miniature nuclear device in the front yard of Buckingham Palace, so to speak.  Alexander Litvinenko, a British citizen, was the victim of nuclear warfare on British territory. What did three successive British Prime Ministers do?  Nothing. Russian money purchased London.

So, what are the consequences when the West has such a character profile? We are hugely susceptible to what I call “strategic deception”.  George Orwell called it “reality control.”  The late historian, Robert Conquest, was more direct and call it simply “mind slaughter.”  When dezinformatsia, maskirovka, provokatsia, kompromat, agitatsia combine together and superimpose a total disorientation, a false perception, whether upon a person or upon an entire nation, it creates not just an alternative reality.  It creates total reality reversal.  It’s doubly dangerous, because it’s in our subconsciousness.  I sometimes give the example of your waking up in the middle of the night and finding yourself in the wilderness.  You look for the bright star in the sky, the North star, in order to get your bearings.  You see the star, or you think you do.  However, you do not realize that while you were asleep you were transported to the Southern Hemisphere. All of your decisions and actions are correct, based on the assumption of that bright star that you see is what you assume it is– the North Star.  But it’s not.  You wind up walking in the opposite direction. You don’t even think about questioning the accuracy of the assumption because you’re not even aware of it.

What is the first reality reversal that confronts us?  That Russia is merely being “defensive.”  You’ve heard it all before, and I know that no one here shares that view.  Nevertheless, it remains an enormously powerful one, regardless of the fact that Russia’s most recent intrusion into the electoral processes in Europe and the US.  You all know the litany–that Russia has “security needs,” that it requires “spheres of influence,” that it is “afraid of NATO encirclement”, that it has “legitimate interests” and “historic claims,” that it feels “victimized” by World War II, that it needs a “buffer,” etc.

This is nothing new.  President Roosevelt assured us: “Stalin doesn’t want anything but security for his country, and I think that if I give him everything I possibly can and ask nothing from him in return, he won’t try to annex anything and will work with me for a world of democracy and peace.”  That, obviously, was during the war. But after WWII, and similar to what President Truman had said, Secretary of State Dean Acheson added: “To have friendly governments along her borders is essential both for the security of the Soviet Union and the peace of the world.”

Much credit is due to Mitt Romney and his advisers, when during the first presidential debate with President Obama Romney identified Russia as America’s primary geopolitical foe.  Unfortunately, Mr. Romney later wrote an article in The Wall Street Journal that America should give the Kremlin assurances that we wouldn’t threaten Russia’s influence in Kyiv. This is reality reversal.

“Russia’s immense contribution in World War II is part of their proud history of standing up to imperialist powers.”  This is in the introduction of an extended speech that US Ambassador to the UN, Samantha Power, gave in January of this year.  I was pleased to hear that, in the balance of the speech, and after many years Ambassador Power had begun to understand some of the hard reality about Russia, but her statement at the beginning is inexcusable. In the 1890’s, the Russian General Staff conducted a study of military campaigns between 1700 and 1870.  Russia waged thirty-eight wars. Two were defensive.  How else do you become the largest empire, and also the largest country, in the world, encompassing an entire one-third of Asia and much of the European sub-continent?  You do not do so by being “defensive.”

When we participate in such reality reversal we become multipliers in the denial of history, in the denial of the victimization of entire nations, and in the applause of the perpetrator. Why don’t they have the right to exist?  It is the victim nations that the Kremlin has persecuted for generations, and in many instances for centuries, that have the right to feel secure, who have “historic claims” against Russia, who need “spheres of influence,” and who require a “buffer.” And it was the failure of the West to recognize this that has led to the situation that now confronts us.

Part of that same “defensive” deception is Russia’s re-engineering of World War II. “Had it not been for the colossal sacrifices made by the Soviet Union in WWII–in which they lost more than 20 million people, many times more than any other nation, friend or foe–the war would have dragged on much longer.”  Again, this is Ambassador Power speaking on that same occasion. And note that Power again equates “Russia” with the “Soviet Union,” and even describes the Soviet Union as a “nation.” It was not.  It was an empire.  A quarter of century after the fall of the USSR, far too many Western politician and commentator continue to speak and think in precisely the same terms.  This is inexcusable, and again illustrates that we have never grasped the very essence of the USSR, or the meaning of Putin’s celebration of it.

As to World War II, itself, let’s be clear that Stalin and Hitler were not simply allies.  They were equal partners, joint venturers.  When Hitler was appointed Chancellor in January 1933, thanks to the Soviet Union the German armaments industry was already far along the path toward being rebuilt. Under the Treaty of Rapallo with Germany, in the 1920’s Moscow provided critical resources for the rebuilding of Germany’s military capability, much of it plundered, ironically, from Ukraine.  German military maneuvers took place on Soviet territory.  Tours of the growing GULag were provided. And this was at the same time that Western, particularly American, industrial assistance was flowing to the Soviet Union. How does Putin assess our strategic acumen?

How many decades have passed since the end of World War II?  Why don’t we ever hear about Hitler’s purpose for the war?  It was to colonize Ukraine. Only during this past summer did Yale’s Professor Timothy Snyder address the German Bundestag reminding Germany of its history.  It’s an astonishing distortion when Germany feels guilt about WWII and “Russland”, when it was “Russland” that started the war together with Germany, and when it was not “Russland” but Ukraine that was Germany’s target and greatest victim.  The number of Allied troops that invaded Normandy was 132,000.  The number of Wehrmacht and other troops that invaded the Soviet Union in Operation Barbarossa on June 22, 1941, was 3.2 million.  And that did not just include Germany troops, but Hungarian, Rumanian, Slovakian, Finnish, and Italian troops as well. Do we refer to those countries today as “Nazi”?  It’s no wonder that Ukraine suffered more than any other country during World War II, whether measured in terms of loss of humanity or physical destruction.  Four times more Ukrainian civilians were killed in World War II than the combined military deaths of the United States, France, Italy, Great Britain, Canada. Millions more Ukrainians were killed serving in the military and taken as slave laborers to Germany.  Ukrainians are Nazis? It’s another massive reality reversal, another strategic deception.

Yet another example in the strategic deception that Russia is merely being “defensive” is the drumbeat of NATO “encirclement”. First, I suggest we look at a map. How many NATO countries border Russia? “Encirclement” is a geographic impossibility. And even if it were possible, we are to somehow feel guilty about it?  Second, Putin knows that NATO is defensive. He knows there that is no chance, whatsoever, that NATO will invade Russia.  Stalin knew about NATO and its purpose before it even formally existed. Third, we never exhibited the psychology of affirmative, “take the offensive” thinking about Russia during the last 100 years even where there was never any military component. Fourth, if there was ever a time for fear of an invasion, it was during WWII and immediately thereafter.  That never happened, and could not have, given the absence in the West of any understanding of Moscow’s threat.  Fifth, how, exactly, will more than two dozen nations be coordinated?  For what purpose?  To achieve what?  Finally, for us to believe that “NATO encirclement” is something that Putin in fact fears would also require that we simply ignore the hard, demonstrable reality that he knows and understands our political dynamics better than we do.  He has proven that.  Does anyone here in the room really think that public panic (due to what, exactly?) in the West about Russia will rise to the level that it translates into political decisions for a coordinated military invasion of Russia? This is nonsense.  Putin and Lavrov may beat that drum for domestic and foreign consumption, but they know reality well enough.  So should we.

The second example of reality reversal is Western talk about “engaging” Russia in fighting ISIS.  Where is the logic of that, however, when the roots of ISIS and Al Qaeda reach back to the genetic code for “Arab nationalism” that the Kremlin created in the 1970’s and ’80’s at Patrice Lumumba University in Moscow and the surrounding KGB training camps?   Today, Moscow does not have to be directing or controlling ISIS. It simply receives the benefit of a weakened, disoriented, disheartened and dispirited West.  Furthermore, consider the “genius” that it took for Moscow to be able to turn the Middle East against the West a generation or more ago.  First, the Soviet Union was an atheistic state.  Second, it –and before that, the Russian Empire–had a violent history of suppressing the Muslim nations of the Caucasus and Central Asia. And yet the Kremlin prevailed, and a Nobel Prize was awarded to its creation, Yasser Arafat. Truly, a remarkable achievement.

Finally, Ukraine.  I know there are those present for whom Ukraine is not on the mental map as are other “traditional” countries of Europe, such as Poland or Italy, for example, even though Ukraine’s now international recognized status is not questioned.  I will not get into the distortions of Russian historiography that were put in place in the 18th and 19th centuries, and will only mention that Russian historiographers who emigrated to the West after the Bolshevik coup d’état established the foundation of so- called “Russian studies” in the West.  Though the historiographers may not have been supportive of the Bolshevik regime, they nevertheless transplanted to the West the imperial history that they themselves fashioned and absorbed.

We’ve all heard the assertions: “Russia traces its 1000 year history to its beginnings in Kiev”, “Ukraine is a historic part of Russia,” “Kievan Russia was the beginning of modern Russia,” “a thousand years of Russian Christianity.” As a result, as Putin whispered in President Bush’s ear, Ukraine does not exist. Neither did it for Hitler, who identified Ukrainians in the camps as either Russians or Poles.

So let’s examine the reality reversal, the strategic deception that is grounded in the anomaly of the periphery of the Kyivan Rus’ state, Russia, pre-empting and laying claim to the center, Kyiv.  And remember, at that time the amount of Russian territory that was part of the Kyivan Rus’ empire was only some 3% or so of Russia that we know today.

Firstly, I know of no other instance in history or geography where the creation of an artificial 1000 year pedigree is used to justify war, invasion and terrorism today and accepted so totally uncritically by the West. Indeed, it is more logically and intellectually consistent to justify Kyiv’s “historic claim” to Russia, as part of Kyiv’s former empire.

Secondly, even if we accept the “1000 year history” argument, then what is the result?  Because of the Viking influence in the establishment of the Kyivan Rus’ state, Ukraine today can claim Oslo, Stockholm or Copenhagen as the beginnings of Ukraine?  Norwegians, Swedes and Danes are “really” Ukrainians”, or “Little Ukrainians” or “younger brothers”? The same holds true with the influence of Byzantium on Kyivan Rus’, complete with the Cyrillic alphabet and religion. Ukraine “really” began in Byzantium/Istanbul? Today’s France, as Spain, Germany and Israel, were part of the Roman Empire, as was part of Russia a part of the Kyivan Rus’ state. Does that mean that France can claim that Rome is “really” French, and that Italians are Frenchmen?  And what of Romania, which appropriated even the name of Rome, as Russia did with “Rus'”? What is the German word for France?  Frankreich.  Land of the Franks, a Germanic tribe.  What are we to conclude from that?  France has a claim to Germany, or is it the other way around?  I will not belabor the point.  Ignorance of history, and the lack of critical thinking on something that is not very deep, makes the West, again, a prime target for such reality reversal.

So why does Putin like the West?  First, the West does not understand how and why it finds itself in the situation that it is in today.  One country, with nothing to offer to the world, has managed to put the Western democracies on the ropes. How, why, is any of this possible?  And why are we suddenly so very surprised?  But where do we see any self-examination? Second, Western attention to Ukraine has historically been at the opposite end of the spectrum compared to Moscow’s razor focus. Even today, Western concern doesn’t even begin to approach the degree of seriousness that is necessary, given that Ukraine drove the nail into the coffin of the USSR, and in a very real sense saving the world from it.  In addition, as we know Ukraine surrendered its nuclear arsenal, in large part to its historic persecutor.   What do we think that Putin makes of all this?  What conclusions does he draw about our strategic sense? His money is safe with us, and existing sanctions are and will remain inconsequential in impacting the situation on the ground.

I suggest that in the next two days we seek to benefit from the Forum so that we can return to our respective countries in order, ultimately, to work for their national security interests. And that is achieved by anchoring the security and independence of Ukraine as the best chance we have of turning Russia inward. We must think strategically and escape from the perpetual defensive, reactive position that we have frozen ourselves into.  And let there be no mistake. Only then will tyrants in the Middle East, China, and North Korea also understand that the West recognizes and has the will to act in its own self-interest.

L’VIV SECURITY FORUM, L’viv, Ukraine

28 November 2017

Victor Rud is the Chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the Ukrainian American Bar Association. He has been practicing law for 40 years and has spoken before various audiences on Russia/US/Ukraine relations. Some of his more recent commentary was carried by Forbes and The Kyiv Post. The above is the keynote speech delivered at the dinner reception for the L’viv Security Forum, on November 28, 2017.  Mr. Rud holds an undergraduate degree in international affairs from Harvard College, and law degree from Duke University School of Law. 

The post Why Putin Likes the West appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Dominik P. Jankowski & Liana Fix

To many who assumed that the Russian-Ukrainian conflict would calm down in 2018, the end of 2017 foretold quite the opposite. The conflict is back in motion, yet with some contradictory signals. On the plus side, the biggest swap of prisoners was held between Ukraine and the Russian-backed militants since the beginning of the war. This demonstrated that some progress on humanitarian issues is possible with the help of the Normandy format and the Trilateral Contact Group.

On the minus side, Russia withdrew its military personnel from the Joint Center for Control and Coordination (JCCC), a Russian-Ukrainian military body that helped to monitor the ceasefire and facilitated the withdrawal of heavy weapons. Not only did the JCCC provide a direct military channel of communication between Ukraine and Russia, it also reduced security risks for OSCE monitors. Immediately after Russia’s withdrawal, some of the worst fighting since February 2017 took place in eastern Ukraine.

Against this backdrop, Russian President Vladimir Putin again raised his proposal for a UN peacekeeping force, which he first tabled as a draft UN Security Council resolution in September 2017. Putin claimed at his end-of-year press conference that he is in principle not against a broader mandate for international peacekeepers in Donbas, but that a decision should be negotiated between Kyiv and the militants, which is—for good reasons—not acceptable to Ukraine and the West.

Nevertheless, Western allies redoubled their diplomatic efforts to find a workable solution for a UN mission with several parallel tracks of negotiations, including a direct U.S.-Russia channel between Kurt Volker, U.S. special representative for Ukraine negotiations, and his Russian counterpart, Vladislav Surkov. After a few months, there was little evidence of progress, which led the UN Secretariat to stall all preparations of an assessment mission to Ukraine. Despite that fact, German Foreign Minister Sigmar Gabriel called for a decision on a UN peacekeeping force to be taken before the Russian presidential election in March.

On paper, the Russian proposal seems to be a shift in posture. In reality, it is part of Russia’s strategy to backtrack from the political responsibility for the conflict and instead position Russia as a mediator within a new UN framework. Moscow proposed a limited, six-month mission, equipped with small arms, and with the exclusive mandate to ensure the security of the Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine (SMM) along the line of contact. A mission under such parameters would likely freeze the conflict; it is also hard to imagine how it could support the implementation of the Minsk agreements.

Therefore, any Western proposal for a UN mission in Ukraine must embrace three key elements. First, its mandate must cover the whole territory of the Luhansk and Donetsk oblasts, including the Russian-Ukrainian border—a precondition the Russian president has already agreed to during a phone conversation with the German chancellor. This is essential to ensuring an end to further rearmament of the militants by Russia. In practical terms, a UN mission should be deployed at once—or, at maximum, over no more than two phases—to prevent Russia from obstructing further deployments.

Second, a UN mission should reinforce—not replace—the operations of the OSCE mission on the ground. The UN lacks practical expertise in the Russian-Ukrainian conflict and has been recently involved in peacekeeping operations mostly outside of Europe. UN peacekeepers should help the OSCE SMM to maintain peace, including by monitoring the withdrawal of heavy weapons and forces, guarding arms and ammunition depots, and protecting civilians. A joint OSCE-UN mission should hence be seriously considered. To effectively deliver on these tasks, such a mission should involve around 20,000 peacekeepers, excluding Russian forces.

Third, a UN mission should support the implementation of the Minsk agreements and facilitate the return of areas not controlled by Kyiv to Ukrainian authority, including creating conditions for credible local elections. The UN Security Council could grant the mission executive powers to help oversee the implementation of the Minsk agreements. The mission could also assist with the selection of local officials and police, as well as their training at later stages, and might also facilitate the safe return of displaced persons. In sum, it would engage the whole “UN family”— with its many affiliated programs, funds, and specialized agencies—in the post-conflict Donbas reconstruction.

How could Russia agree to such a UN mission? Most importantly, a coordinated policy of carrots and sticks by the U.S. and European partners is needed. The U.S. administration’s approval of the largest sale of weapons to Ukraine since 2014 has boosted Ukrainian defensive capabilities. Politically, it could have been used as a stick towards Russia, if it had been coordinated with European allies. Instead, it has created additional rifts with Germany and France. On the other hand, the West has a serious incentive on hand: sanctions. A proper UN mission, with a robust mandate, can help fully implement the Minsk agreements—a precondition to lift Donbas-related sanctions.

The proposal for a UN mission to Ukraine is a small window of opportunity for diplomacy. Yet it is not a silver-bullet to solving the conflict. Political will on both sides remains a prerequisite for keeping peace.

This article was originally published by Carnegie Europe.

Dominik P. Jankowski is a security policy expert, diplomat, think tanker, and social media aficionado.

Liana Fix is the program director of the Körber Foundation’s International Affairs Department.

The views and opinions expressed here are the authors’ and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the institutions they represent.

The post A Chance for Peace in Ukraine? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Recently, the Trump Administration decided against nominating Victor D. Cha as Ambassador to South Korea due to his opposition to the “bloody nose” strategy against North Korea advocated by the White House. On the heels of this report, U.S. disarmament ambassador Robert Wood declared that North Korea stands only months away from the ability to hit U.S. territory with a nuclear weapon.

During such a time of uncertainty, it would stand to reason that appointing a qualified ambassador to a long-standing ally neighboring a nuclear-armed country that has threatened the United States would rank as a top priority for President Trump. Nevertheless, the United States is left without the diplomatic expertise of someone like Cha and armed instead with a Nuclear Posture Review (NPR) that promotes a greater use of nuclear weapons than ever before.

The “bloody nose” strategy, opposed by Cha but favored by National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster, argues for a preventative military strike against North Korea that would inevitably end in an untold number of causalities in South Korea and Japan—where combined more than 60,000 U.S. troops are stationed—as well as possibly in nearby China. This is not to mention the fate of U.S. coastal cities and territories such as Guam, who already has been threatened by the regime in Pyongyang partly as a result of bellicose, ignorant remarks by President Trump. There is far from any guarantee that North Korea would submit after an initial strike given Kim Jong Un’s erratic, unpredictable behavior, and with the recent NPR in hand, the United States could enter into a war with Pyongyang armed with even more readily deployable nuclear weapons.

The Trump Administration’s record thus far in handling nuclear threats and nonproliferation has only served to ratchet up tensions rather than make Americans any safer. In addition to provoking the regime in Pyongyang, President Trump has repeatedly threatened what’s commonly known as the Iran Deal. After “decertifying” it in October, he then only issued the waiver of key sanctions in January after saying it would be the last time.

The concerns behind these decisions—that the deal did not address Iran’s continued funding of terrorism, testing of ballistic missiles, and oppression of its citizens—are valid. The nuclear negotiations, however, were focused on removing nuclear weapons from Tehran with the understanding that further diplomacy would be required to address the other bad behavior. And currently, the deal is achieving what it set out to do: 17,000 centrifuges and 95 percent of Iran’s highly enriched uranium stockpile have been removed and Iran’s only plutonium reactor has been disabled. Plus, trust in Tehran’s word is not needed to verify these achievements because the best nuclear inspectors in the world are on the ground, watching Iran’s uranium from the mines to the laboratories.

Undermining this deal would only result in setting the United States on a path to war with Iran. So rather than continuing down that course, the Trump Administration should instead encourage the enforcement of bipartisan, smartly targeted sanctions against Iran that do not violate the terms of the agreement. After all, sanctions, when used correctly, can be a strong tool—as seen when crippling sanctions helped move Tehran towards the negotiating table in the first place.

Just as sanctions have a role with regard to Iran, so do they have a role in pressuring North Korea. Last week, Vice President Mike Pence stated that the administration will soon roll out “the toughest and most aggressive round of economic sanctions on North Korea ever.” Carefully targeted sanctions are a smart step towards what must be the end goal in North Korea: phased denuclearization. This next round of sanctions will follow one announced two weeks ago, and it would similarly be best geared against those individuals and entities who are allegedly financing Kim’s nuclear programs—but specific details have yet to emerge.

Such economic action is a much surer and safer path what the NPR encourages. The review called for developing new, expensive nuclear weapons and stated that nuclear weapons will only be used in “extreme circumstances,” which could include “non-nuclear strategic attacks” such as cyber attacks. For decades, the United States has led the global charge to reduce nuclear weapons, but now, it is reversing course with unnecessary nuclear weapons and a lower threshold to using them—making nuclear war all the more likely.

So as the Trump Administration continues to grapple with charting the path through current nuclear issues facing the United States, they must set aside the unnecessary and expensive expansion of nuclear weapons as encouraged by the NPR. As evidenced by the succeeding Iran Deal, diplomatic and economic action remains the best bet in dealing with hostile, nuclear armed nations. Any brash military action and a withdrawal from diplomacy will only spark a war on the Korean Peninsula or in the Middle East respectively, risking the lives of Americans at home, abroad, and in uniform.

Shannon Bugos is the Communications and Writing Coordinator at Truman National Security Project. She is a graduate of the University of Notre Dame. Views expressed are her own.

The post North Korea, Iran, and the Nuclear Posture Review appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The United States Embassy in Havana in October.  CreditYamil Lage/Agence France-Presse — Getty Images

On January 9, U.S. Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson opened a formal inquiry into mysterious “sonic attacks” purportedly damaging the health of U.S. diplomatic personnel stationed at the American Embassy in Cuba.  The first reports surfaced in December 2016, and since then 24 United States personnel have complained of sharp ear pain, dull headaches, tinnitus, vertigo, disorientation, nausea and extreme fatigue.  Another 19 Americans who traveled to Cuba have reported similar symptoms to the U.S. State Department.  Canada has also reported several Canadians have experienced similar symptoms to the U.S. diplomats.

While the Cuban government has denied responsibility for the attacks, an investigation is being conducted by the F.B.I., the State Department and top American medical authorities.  The evidence currently under review by the State Department’s Accountability Review Board is “confounding and conflicting”, according to a New York Times report.   Democratic Senator Tom Udall of New Mexico has called for caution, warning, “I think we should be careful not to jump to conclusions.”

However, after reports of the illnesses of the embassy staff members reached U.S. President Donald Trump, he expelled 15 Cuban diplomats from the United States.  More than half of personnel were pulled from the U.S. embassy back in September.  The diplomatic row reversing the trend toward friendlier relations instituted under former President Barack Obama, which made it easier for nearly 620,000 Americans to travel to Cuba in 2017.  “The idea that someone could put together some sort of action against them, 24 of them, and the Cuban government not know who did it, it’s just impossible,” Mr. Rubio said, while adding: “The Cuban government either did this or knows who did it.”  Francisco Palmieri, acting assistant secretary of state for Western Hemisphere Affairs, concurred: “Cuba is a security state, the Cuban government in general has a very tight lid on anything and everything that happens in that country.”  In light of the concerns, the latest U.S. Department of State travel advisory on Cuba, issued on January 10, has advised Americans urges to “reconsider travel to Cuba due to health attacks directed at U.S. Embassy Havana employees.”

Clearly, there are trade-offs when considering travel to Cuba.  Should we potentially risk our health to bring our tourist dollars, euros and pounds to Cuba, helping a people struggling with day-to-day shortages of goods and still recovering from the damage wrought by Hurricane Irma in September?  Or in so doing, will we just be adding to government coffers used to prop up another country which continues to repress dissent and punish public criticism and may be behind the mysterious health attacks?

The post Warnings Issued on Travel to Cuba appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The logo of Rabobank is seen at its headquarters in Utrecht, Netherlands, October 30, 2013. REUTERS/Michael Kooren/File Photo – RC167810E570

International banking has always been subject to laws and rules that apply where their head offices operate as well as via international rules and standards. For an international law to apply, it often has to be codified within a country, as even if the law is accepted and applied through international agreements or treaties, the enforcement of those laws are often only capably done by a country itself. In the banking industry where one large organisation is required to register and operate via the due diligence required in each region and state, norms and practices are often the best standard used by the bank as local laws can be weak and form an easily corrupted system. Larger countries often would make laws that may not be formally applied in smaller states, but act as a deterrent to illegal international banking operations if they did not operate in a legal or moral standard expected by the international community. American laws like Dodd-Frank have spurned on international regulatory standard for all international and local banks, many now operating with Compliance entities and AML departments as a permanent part of their organisations.

Policy approaches in dealing with issues of rogue state activities, money laundering and drug related financial transactions are applied to private financial institutions, and when HSBC was caught ignoring standards by providing financial services to Latin American cartels as well as accepting transactions from rogue states under sanction by the United States and many European countries, they were heavily fined $1.9 billion in 2012. Massive financial penalties have become the norm in cases were very large corporations commit illegal actions, stemming from one of the first European Union cases against Microsoft many years ago. Having a massive effect in a case of fraud, competition or money laundering decimates the profits of large corporations and has a lasting effect on the reputation and investors in those large corporate entities. Despite these severe measures, the penalties are often not applied to the degree where a large company would dissolve from the size of the penalty, as a loss of a major market player might cost more to the society via employment loss and a loss of tax revenue than compensating for the loss due to their actions.

With these standards in place, money laundering still occurs through international banks. Rabobank out of the Netherlands had their Mexican and Californian operations penalized when a US court fined them $369 million for laundering money linked to Mexican drug cartels. While these issues concern financial crimes, the real effect on cartel violence in Mexico has a wider criminal component. A Mexican national living in the Netherlands has taken the next step in applying international laws and standards to banks that are convicted of actions that violate international and local banking regulations. The funds that had been laundered through Rabobank may have contributed to other crimes by the cartel, and a legal precedent linking the bank to very severe crimes committed by the cartel would be an enormous shift in how financial violations are applied to larger crimes against populations, arms trading as well as financial supports linked to human rights atrocities. State or non-state actors who violate human rights can have their financial systems completely halted when rights violations and human rights atrocities are found to have occurred and been linked to international financial institutions. It would be a complicated development, and difficult to prove, but most likely a welcome policy change for victims of cartel violence, genocide survivors who are largely ignored by the international community as well as those who require a punishment to be applied in cases where power and justice have been lacking.

The post When Sanctions are Not Enough appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Ever since the 2014 sham elections in Bangladesh, it was a huge question mark whether Sheikh Hasina could still be considered a ruler of a democratic country or not. However, recent events have demonstrated that Sheikh Hasina is in fact no democrat but rather is an emerging Asian dictator who is aligned with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

According to recent reports, Bangladeshi Opposition Leader Khaleda Zia, who has been struggling with Sheikh Hasina to rule Bangladesh for decades, is set to get 5 years imprisonment on corruption charges. The implication of this decision is that during a critical election year in the South Asian country, the main opposition leader will not be able to run against ruling Prime Minister Sheikh Hasina during a time when the Awami League ruler’s popularity is at an all-time low and when Khaleda Zia as the widow of a former military ruler has gained increased prominence.

Given this reality, those who are associated with the Bangladeshi Opposition claim that the charges against Khaleda Zia are a sham specifically designed to undermine her ability to compete against Sheikh Hasina in the upcoming elections since Bangladeshi law bars someone who is sentenced to more than two years behind bars from running for office. Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi, the head of the Safadi Center for International Relations and Public Diplomacy, proclaimed following the conviction of Khaleda Zia: “It is true that there is an ideological gap between us and Khaleda Zia but we oppose the decision to stop her for the same reason that we oppose any other political arrest. Every citizen of the country has the right to conduct legal political activity and political activists must not be arrested because their views are contrary to the government’s position.”

“Many friends have been arrested because of their legitimate political activity,” Safadi added. “I myself have been persecuted for legitimate political activity for the sake of my people and for a good future for Bangladesh. We must not remain silent on the government’s oppression and should work for human rights, democracy and freedom in the country. The government of Sheikh Hasina violates all our rights. It uses oppression, terrorism and ethnic cleansing against minorities. It is time to stand up and to say we will not agree to this oppression. We want a fair leadership that respects us as citizens, even if we do not agree on the same ideology. Even if we are in the opposition, we have the right to conduct political activity.”

“After all of the human rights violations that occurred until the arrest of Opposition Leader Khaleda Zia, it seems like we have no choice but to go for mass demonstrations in the streets of Bangladesh, to lead a revolution against Sheikh Hasina’s government and to demand protection from the free world,” Safadi noted. “God bless the people of Bangladesh!”

Around the same period of time that Khaleda Zia was arrested, it has emerged that the Sheikh Hasina government is increasingly building up ties with Turkish Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdogan, another democratically elected leader who transformed his country into an unfree dictatorship. Last September, Turkish First Lady Emine Erdogan visited Rohinya Muslim refugees in Bangladesh. In addition, Turkey’s Foreign Minister Mevlut Cavusoglu invited Bangladesh to open up their doors to assist Muslim Rohinya refugees and even offered to pay for the expenses associated with such a gesture but Turkey offered no such humanitarian gesture to the Hindu Rohingya, who have been ethnically cleansed from their homes and live under horrendous conditions in Bangladesh presently.

Soon after Erdogan highlighted his humanitarian concern for the Muslim Rohingya but not the Hindu Rohingya in Bangladesh, Turkey proceeded to attack the Kurds in Afrin and the ancient Temple of Ain Dara. The attack was strongly condemned by Syria’s Archaeological Survey Office. Mamum Abdul Karim, a former Syrian antiquities official, said that tourists used to be attracted to visit the lion sculptures in the temple, emphasizing that the attack on Ain Dara was a major loss and was en par with the destruction of the Temple of Bel in Palmyra. The Temple of Ain Dara is considered a UNESCO world heritage site in danger. The ancient temple dates back to the times of King Solomon and was considered by archaeologists to be a living monument to how King Solomon’s Temple could have looked like.

“The damage to Ain Dara is tragic,” Brian Daniels, co-director of the Safeguarding the Heritage of Syria and Iraq Project, told Artnet News. “It does not strike me that there has been a particular lull in cultural destruction, only that it has been less reported and specifically less ISIS driven since the collapse of that group’s organization.”

Like Erdogan’s attack upon Ain Dara, Sheikh Hasina’s government is similarly not disturbed whenever historic Hindu temples are destroyed within her country. Shipan Kumer Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, related: “Every day, Hindu women are gang raped and Hindu homes are being burnt down. The present government has no qualms about that and also ensures that there is no news going out on the persecution of minorities within the country. If any journalist publishes news on this issue, he or she will be punished. We need help to ensure the future of the minorities of Bangladesh.”

The post Sheikh Hasina: An Emerging Dictator appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On January 27, Rodrigo Londoño began his campaign for president of Colombia. Will this move help the FARC achieve greater acceptance and further the peace process, despite the unlikelihood of a political victory?

Rodrigo Londoño is the leader of the FARC, which, in September 2017 became a political party in an attempt to vanquish a notorious guerilla past. The violent syndicate gave up arms in pursuit of political legitimization in a peace process that has moved mountains since its signing in November 2016.

Colombia’s elections in 2018 will demonstrate to the world just how far the Colombian peace process has progressed, and more importantly, if it can survive. Both the legislative elections in March as well as the campaign for president in May will bring the FARC into the media spotlight.

Despite the attention Londoño has garnered, the FARC’s 2018 political ambitions are destined to fail. A Polimétrica poll from November 2017 had 1% of voters pledging support for FARC candidates in March 2018. It is likely to take years, if not decades, for the FARC as a political party to gain any noteworthy support on the political podium. This is likely to cause mounting frustration among FARC sympathizers and perhaps lead to greater numbers of FARC defectors wanting to take up arms once more – an escalating issue since the FARC gave up their weapons in June 2017.

As part of the peace process, the FARC is guaranteed 10 seats in the upcoming legislative elections. It should be noted that the group’s ambitions shoot far beyond this. The group is fielding 74 candidates for the ballots in March. As pointed out in a recent GRI analysis, the FARC’s presence in Congress, as small as that of the 10 seats assured, will place a likely constraint on the ruling party’s efforts to form a governing coalition and to subsequently implement noteworthy legislation.

While this should preoccupy the attention of investors, faith in the peace process should remain of paramount importance. The campaign of Londoño and his party is of undeniable symbolism. The FARC’s political campaign will neither disrupt the political establishment nor the country’s institutions. What the FARC campaign can however achieve, intentionally or not, is the conveyance to other militant movements that a political road map to voicing concerns can be a viable alternative to violence.

In the summer of 2017, Londoño declared: “We will continue to exist as a movement of legal and democratic character, which will develop its ideological political organizational actions, and its propaganda, through legal methods.” Other groups such as the ELN – which have been the cause of major infrastructure damage – now find themselves at a crossroads, and will see the upcoming elections, and specifically the FARC campaign, as a drawing board for their own negotiations with the government.

The peace process has been an experiment in forgiveness which has, at least to a small extent, quashed security risks in many remote regions of the country. The hope is that the peace process will continue to encourage social stability and economic growth, not only in the short term, but in the medium and long term as well.

In January 2018, United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres met with Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos as an appeal for everyone to stand behind the peace process. However, as the FARC’s election campaign now gets under way, the promise of peace has become more brittle. On January 17, two former FARC militants wereassassinated by armed men in the Peque Municipality in Antioquia Department while promoting their newly formed party.

The UN has wholeheartedly condemned the attack and insisted that the government provide greater security protection for FARC leaders and militants. The risk of attacks on FARC members will increase considerably as the elections approach, testing the resolve of all sides. For Guterres, such attacks are extremely damaging to the success of the peace process as a whole.

The Colombian government is likely to respond in kind with increased military and police operations in rural areas.

A power vacuum opened up in 2017 after FARC members gave up arms as part of the compromise to forming a political party. This has allowed other powerful and violent syndicates such as Los Urabeños and the ELN to move into previously controlled FARC regions.

On October 2017, the ELN entered into a recently expired ceasefire with the government. Immediately following its cessation in January 2018, the ELN attacked the Caño Limón–Coveñas oil pipeline. This pipeline alone was bombed 62 times in 2017, causing millions of dollars in damages.

The pipeline has historically been a target of militant groups. It is estimated to have been out of service for 30 percent (10 ½ years) of its lifespan since 1986. Effectively integrating members of groups such as the FARC and the ELN into Colombian society will thus be the cause of considerable relief for both nationalized and private infrastructure.

To understand, at least in part, the failure so far in peace talks with the ELN, we must look closely at the progression of the peace process with the FARC. Negotiations extend much further than simply allowing the FARC to form a political party. Economic and social integration programs, as well as the advancement of development and agricultural projects in former FARC concentrated zones of the country, must be followed through and implemented. The extent to which these policies have been effectively carried out has been contested.

The government has instead focused extensively on militarized operations in a bid to crack down on FARC defectors and other violent groups in these regions. These operations have indeed had some immediate positive impacts on security. However, analysts predict that by not tackling core socio-economic issues, many more FARC members will dissent.

Private sector as well as civilian vilification of the FARC’s political campaign is not conducive country’s ongoing stability. The distrust towards the success of the peace process has been of ongoing concern for years, particularly because it disparages notions of investor safety.

However, as security concerns increase over the coming months, in particular with the proliferation and violence of other militant groups, distrust in the peace process will continue. Still, if the FARC continues to display trust in the political system, and the number of FARC defectors does not continue to grow, this distrust may begin to dissipate.

The signing of the November 2016 peace process provided the foundations for a bridge to ending decades of conflict. That bridge is far from built. Bringing attention to Londoño’s campaign is less important for the message his party produces, and more so for the possibility of both greater social and market stability in the long term.

–

This article first ran on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Anthony Tipping.

The post The importance of the FARC’s 2018 political campaign appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The New Year didn’t bring any respite for Albania’s beleaguered government as January saw the renewal of public protests with tens of thousands descending on capital Tirana, demanding the resignation of Prime Minister Edi Rama over his alleged links to organized crime.

The leader of the ruling Socialist Party has denied accusations of wrong-doing, although former minister Saimir Tahiri is currently under investigation for corruption and drug trafficking. Meanwhile, the opposition – led by the recently deposed, center-right Democratic Party – insists that cabinet members are exploiting their position for personal gain, while ordinary citizens struggle to survive on a few hundred euros a month in one of Europe’s poorest nations.

Unfortunately, the political elite’s tendency to benefit from corruption and collusion with organized crime groups is a pattern across the region – one that the EU has made clear it won’t ignore as it starts to devote renewed attention to the Western Balkans’ membership drive.  Indeed, just this week, the European Commission released a new regional strategy, saying that Montenegro and Serbia could be ready to join the bloc by 2025 and extending support to Albania and the three other aspiring members in the region. However, the Commission emphasized that lawmakers in all six countries will need to show real results in addressing persistent issues of crime, corruption, and patchy rule of law if they want to move forward.

Albania: Europe’s cannabis capital

The surging lawlessness in Albania was largely the result of the violent transition from Soviet state to self-ruling economy in the 1990s, which in turn led to the unchecked growth of organized crime groups. The country has since become a point of entry for drugs being smuggled into the EU and its home-grown, if illegal, cannabis trade has long been ignored by politicians who haven’t had the political will to tackle the gangs who profit from its continuance.

To be fair, the government can claim some success. In 2014, a successful police operation focusing on drugs hub Lazarat in southern Albania saw the arrest of more than 100 people, the seizure of cash and hashish and the closure of a number of illegal labs. However, no gang bosses were arrested, leading some to speculate that they were enjoying the benefit of high-level political protection. It’s also worth noting that the raid had the knock-on effect of stabilizing drug prices in the region which had been on the point of collapse.

Former Prime Minister Sali Berisha has admitted that it was unofficial government strategy during his administration to turn a blind eye to the processing and distribution of illegal drugs from Lazarat, as it enabled them to contain cannabis production, while underpinning claims that progress against drug smuggling was being made.

A Balkan-wide struggle

It’s a comparably dismal state of affairs in neighboring Montenegro, which has an ambitious EU accession target date of 2025 but where the escalating violence by criminal gangs has led to accusations of tacit government collusion. Police have stepped up patrols in Podgorica and Kotor following a string of clashes between rival Montenegrin gangs over the past year, but few arrests have been made. The towns have long been favored by criminal groups, most famously by drug baron Darko Saric – who was jailed in 2015 for smuggling cocaine from South America with a number of co-defendants, many of whom are still on the run. Gang warfare has also spilled over into Serbia, where it’s alleged that gang members with Serbian citizenship are also receiving support from people in positions of power.

Unfortunately, there is little hope for change with the expected return of strongman politician and former prime minister Milo Djukanovic to power following presidential elections slated for this April.  He bowed out of politics after the 2016 elections, yet over the past 25+ years he has twice before quit public office while maintaining considerable political influence. It is easy to see why, given the evidence that he has used his time in power to build lucrative ties with organized crime groups and to enrich his own associates.

EU membership no panacea

Even existing EU member states in the Balkans have been unable to shake off accusations of corruption and links with organized crime, notably in Romania. A new government was recently formed under the leadership of the country’s first female prime minister, Viorica Dancila, but it’s feared that little will change in the immediate future.

Although pledging to reduce bureaucracy and increase wages – as well as fast-tracking the construction of an extensive new road and rail system – Dancila supports proposals introduced by the ruling Social Democratic (PSD) party designed to make it harder to prosecute corruption and over which the European Commission (EC) has expressed concerns. The policies have already triggered mass protests in Bucharest.

Dancila is the third Romanian premier in seven months and is seen by some as prime minister in name only, with PSD chairman Liviu Dragnea calling the shots from behind the scenes as he is prohibited from taking office due to a conviction for vote-rigging. Dancila will have her work cut out convincing the public (and the EC) that her government is committed to fighting corruption given that five cabinet members are the subjects of current corruption investigations.

With the EU intimating the possibility of accession talks in mid-2018, Albania has begun efforts to clean up its act. These include the recent firing of the national police chief, Haki Cako, under whose auspices cannabis cultivation actually increased – despite his assertions that his force had ‘uprooted’ cannabis all over Albania.

Nevertheless, with Brussels getting tough about requirements for would-be joiners, it remains to be seen whether Albania’s attempts to address the country’s deeply entrenched criminality will bear fruit in the form of coveted EU membership.

The post Can the Balkans get serious about tackling crime? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Addis Ababa is a very active city even by night. Taken near Bole MehaneAlem – Edna Mall.

Not many may know that Ethiopia was among the first countries to join the International Monetary Fund (IMF) when the latter was formed on 27 December 1945.  Nevertheless, it took another 72 years for Ethiopia to welcome its first visit from the IMF Managing Director, in this case, Christine Lagarde who in December 2017 visited Addis Ababa, Ethiopia and met with Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn. This followed the IMF’s  assertion that in 2017 Ethiopia’s economy surpassed Kenya’s to become East Africa’s largest economy. Lagarde’s visit served as the latest stamp of approval for Ethiopia’s bold plan to reach lower-middle income status by 2025.

It was Ethiopia’s late President Meles Zenawi who crafted Ethiopia’s ambitious goal of becoming a lower middle-income country by 2025. Following victory in 1991, the ruling Ethiopian People’s Revolutionary Democratic Front (EPRDF) set in motion far-reaching economic reforms aiming to transform this poverty-stricken nation into a “developmental state” while maintaining an iron grip on power. Although achieving lower middle-income status by 2025 is ambitious, Ethiopia is making strides in combating poverty and improving economic conditions with the poverty rate falling from 44% in 2000 to 23.5% in 2015-16 (IMF, 2017).

Ethiopia’s government has made great strides in raising Human Development indicators, increasing female labour force participation as well as pursuing pro-poor growth policies. In the last decade Ethiopia has consistently registered double-digit GDP growth buoyed by state-led investments in infrastructure and manufacturing. According to the IMF Ethiopia’s economy will expand by 8.5% in 2017/18.

This growth will be supported by infrastructure spending and Ethiopia’s attempts to become a regional manufacturing base, in contrast to resource dependent economies in Africa such as Nigeria. The 2014 fall in commodity prices has had a negligible impact on Ethiopia’s growth trajectory and for this reason Ethiopia is becoming the new standard for a working, non-resource rich, African economy.

Ethiopia is driving economic growth through the government’s laser-like focus on sectors such as manufacturing, energy and infrastructure. A notable example can be found in the Grand Ethiopian Renaissance Dam (GERD) where Ethiopia plans to leverage the Blue Nile to become Africa’s largest exporter of electricity. Although the GERD will boost the economy and meet Ethiopia and its neighbour’s energy needs the plan is facing severe pushback from Egypt which is traditionally the kingmaker when it comes to the River Nile. How Ethiopia negotiates this risk will be a key indicator of whether it achieves its goal of becoming a regional power supplier to neighbouring countries vis-à-vis Tanzania, Uganda and Sudan.

In terms of infrastructural investments, Ethiopia is fast becoming a destination of choice forChinese investors. 2018 was ushered in with the opening of the Addis Ababa–Djibouti Railway which cost $4 billion and was funded by Chinese state-owned rail and construction firms as part of China’s transformative One Belt One Road Initiative. The Addis Ababa-Djibouti Railway connects the landlocked Ethiopia to Djibouti’s port which is significant as Djibouti handles 95% of Ethiopia’s cargo. With a growing population of 105 million Ethiopia is waking up to the perils of its landlocked status and dependence on Djibouti’s ports as proven by its recently acquired stake in Somaliland’s Berbera port. The ways in which Ethiopia capitalises on its economic linkages with neighbouring states will be key to it reaching lower-middle income status by 2025.

In addition to state-led Chinese investment, private Chinese companies have also invested in Ethiopia, creating over 28,000 jobs, mainly in the manufacturing sector. It was during the 21-year reign of autocrat Meles Zenawi that Ethiopia put in motion its industrial strategy that prioritises labour intensive sectors such as manufacturing as a means to create employment opportunities for its large and mostly poor population. Ethiopia has seen some success in manufacturing due to the creation of various industrial parks and the reduction of bureaucratic red tape for businesses through the introduction of “one-stop shop” type regulatory services from the government.

Ethiopia’s new-found economic confidence is embodied by its state-owned, national carrier Ethiopia Airlines which has grown to become one of the world’s fastest growing airlines.Ethiopia Airlines recently overtook South Africa Airways to become Africa’s largest carrier in terms of revenue and profit. Ethiopia Airlines has succeeded through its policy of establishing multiple global hubs and expanding to more than 120 destinations with regular flights to key cities such as Rio De Janeiro, London, Shanghai, Beijing and Washington DC among others.

However, Ethiopia’s most consistent economic risk factor is its historically weak private sector. Ethiopia’s policy of “state-led capitalism” has prevented the emergence of a strong private sector, especially when compared to regional peers such as Kenya where the dynamic private sector is driving growth. To put this into perspective, Ethiopia’s 105 million citizens are served by the state-owned Ethio Telecom which has a monopoly on all telecommunication and mobile services. The Ethiopian government is waking up to the need for competition in key sectors as highlighted in the second Growth and Transformation Plan (GTP II) which aims to strengthen private sector development andincrease FDI.

Despite this, the state has no shown no appetite for privatisation in key sectors such as telecoms and banking where it considers state-owned monopolies and enterprises as cash cows. Going forward, Ethiopia’s ability to reach lower-middle income status by 2025 will be characterised by its ability to reduce the power of large, state-owned enterprises (SOE’s). Other policies for the state to pursue include implementing Public-Private Partnerships (PPP’s) and economic reforms aimed at driving efficiency and stimulating competition in the economy.

Although Ethiopia has made great strides in terms of development, it is in the political sphere that Ethiopia faces the greatest risks in the medium and long term. Although Ethiopia’s “Ethnic Federalism” governance model afforded it stability during the reign of strongman Meles Zenawi, recent cracks have emerged under Prime Minister Hailemariam Desalegn. Examples include the ongoing protests of Oromo activists opposed to the government’s forceful seizure of their ancestral lands around Addis Ababa in the name of FDI. As such, Ethiopia’s ability to maintain consistent economic growth will be tied to its ability to integrate marginalised communities who need to be persuaded that they too have a stake in Ethiopia’s bold, new future.

–

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

The post Under the Radar: Ethiopia’s economic growth offers opportunities and challenges appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Picture from City of Cape Town. (Source: Alberton Record)

Cape Town, South Africa (a city of four million people) is at a dangerous inflection point.
National Public Radio (NPR) reports that South Africa’s second main economic driver and
Africa’s third main economic hub city could be the first major city in the developed world to run
out of water, if residents do not heed new stricter water measures. The New York Times (NYT)
reported that “the day of reckoning the government has tagged as “Day Zero” will surpass
anything a major city has faced since World War II or the Sept. 11 attacks. So how did one of
Africa’s most promising cities – one that boasted high “green” credentials – so rapidly find itself
without water?

A Convergence of Factors

One of the undisputed story lines of this national emergency is that the Southern Africa region
has become drier in recent years. However, the cause of this dryness is somewhat disputed by
scientists. Experts such as Piotr Wolski, a hydrologist at the University of Cape Town who has
tracked rainfall in the region for most of the last two decades believe that climate change has
exasperated dryness in a historically dry region. Climate models support Mr. Wolski’s forecast
that Cape Town will remain on a dry trajectory and that precipitation will become less
predictable in the coming decades.

Other internationally renowned scientists like Dr. Augusto Jose Pereira Filho, (Professor of
atmospheric science at São Paulo University) believes that there are other atmospheric dynamics
in play causing the protracted dryness. He explained in an email response that lower mean water
temperatures in the Southern hemisphere continues to reduce ocean evaporation leading to a dry
lower atmosphere (read: no moisture for cloud formation) across the Southern Africa region.

This is the same cooler ocean and dry atmosphere dynamic Dr. Filho argued in 2015 was the
leading cause of Brazil’s once in a century drought in 2015. Though the precise causal factors
are debatable (i.e., how much is stunted ocean evapotranspiration versus how much is locked in
CO2 induced temperature rise), there is little argument as to who is getting the brunt of the blame
for Cape Town’s nightmare.

Lots of Finger Pointing

The much disputed part of the crisis backstory is how much city planners did to prepare for a
scenario that many warned was not only possible, but inevitable. According to David Olivier,
who studies climate change at the University of the Witwatersrand’s Global Change Institute,
“The national government has dragged its feet.” It is further alleged that in the first two years of
the drought, the unpopular African National Congress (ANC) led national government failed to
limit water supplies to farmers (the large wine industry ) thus intensifying the problem. But the
finger pointing doesn’t stop there.
It is also argued that the city government didn’t make common sense investments that could have
averted the crisis such as tapping into local aquifers and investing in desalination plants. Another
contributing stressor is rapid population growth as tens of thousands of regional migrants flowed
into a city that has been on the upswing seeking employment.

To diffuse culpability city officials have blamed residents for not heeding previous water
consumption edicts and restrictions. The embattled Mayor, Patricia de Lille alleges that well over
half the residents are not heeding warnings and she has threatened to impose fines. Ms. de Lille,
who is embroiled in a corruption scandal and facing a possible recall is staying the course
stating recently, “I’m committed to making sure that this well-run city does not run out of
water…We can all avoid Day Zero but we must do it together.”

Unfortunately, many don’t share her optimism and it is reported that talks are underway with
South Africa’s police to start planning for the impending chaos because “normal policing will be
entirely inadequate.” The city is hoping for the best and planning for the worst in advance of
“Day Zero” – a historic tipping point that will occur before the end of April if the already
implemented countermeasures (e.g., rationing and water sourcing) prove not to be effective.

Not the First; won’t be the Last

Sao Paulo, northern California, Paris (experiencing the heaviest rains in 50 years), Houston, and
Puerto Rico, and now, Cape Town are just representative examples of regions that were
grievously unprepared for protracted changes in weather patterns. Poor planning under-girded by
complacency (or misinformation) about the disruptive capacity of climate change effects, is a big
reason populations continue to be unnecessarily injured by a phenomenon that scientists,
politicians and activists have been warning about for over a decade.

Lastly, the most salient lesson to be learned from this unfolding drama is the imperative for
policy makers to factor environmental variability into their governance calculus, or face the risk
of tremendous loss of faith at best, or popular unrest at worst. This clarion call to action will
continue to ring true for many years to come.

The post Cape Town Awaits “Day Zero” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Lula may face over 10 years in prison, or become re-elected as President

A well known song from Antonio Carlos e Jocafi could easily run though someone’s mind when reading about corruption in their native Brazil. Voce abusou, or You abuse me is how many citizens feel when members from political parties or elite members of a society take advantage of the public purse. It is not only a financial drain on society, but in order to ensure success of the few over the many the political system must be corrupted along with agencies, branches of government and even the judiciary. While politics permeates all institutions in society, even judicial ones at times, the complete corruption of a system always leads to the people being ignored and abused. Challenging the powers that be often results in extreme actions like humiliating and destroying opponents via ad hominem campaigning, and in some cases even going to the extremes of prison or death.

When a small group of people, be it political agents or an entire party, focuses more on their own ability to win a seat in their government’s capital than the people themselves, the system changes and rots from above. Corrupting the elite leads to an understanding from others in the institutions that success comes in the shadows, and at a certain point achievements become a standardization of abusive policies against the general public and individuals. For a small group to do literally anything to have access to the public purse is always to the detriment of others in society. Besides the open fight for free and fair elections, a barrier to corruption systemically is the judiciary.

Corruption can take place in many forms. Even in a country like Canada, a top aid to a former Premier of the largest Province of Ontario was recently convicted for knowingly hiding actions and erasing public documents relating to over one billion dollars being wasted out of the public purse. This was done so that his party could win a few seats in a past election. The loss of that amount of money from the public without anything to show for it damages the society on many levels. Any future efforts to improve a community are halted with that amount of money lost for the sake of a few greedy people. They effectively destroyed the opportunity for two new major hospitals from possibly being built in their community, possible social housing, welfare, employment insurance coverage and reduced power costs for the most vulnerable in their society, for the sake of a few politicians and their jobs. When funds are stolen or squandered, taxes rise to cover corruption, and those who contribute to society are punished and castigated for continuing to build their own fair societies. In Brazil, these types of issues are amplified many times over, and their judiciary has taken on the task to crush corrupt practices, even if it could be politically impossible to succeed.

The conviction of former popular President Lula da Silva to twelve years in prison for corrupt actions he took during his time in office in the 2000s may show Brazil and the world that corruption must be ended without fail. Whether or not he will serve any part of his sentence remains to be seen. The application of guilt in a fair trial might do more to halt a possible return to politics for Lula than serve justice through his sentence, as the difficulty in reversing corruption once it is institutionalized is almost impossible. With so many political agents in Brazil facing corruption charges, the politics of those in power will flood the judicial process with everything they can to muddy the process, and will likely hinder fairness in that process. A victory for justice in a corrupt system is really any victory that can be claimed, and in societies that are not yet wholly corrupted, a strong a forceful application of justice should be applied not only as the resulting judgment, but as deterrent against abusing the rest of us that just wish to put in a fair days work for our daily bread.

The post Voce Abusou: Corruption as a Permanent Impairment to Society appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As Narendra Modi welcomes ASEAN leaders, can he balance non-interventionism with his desire for Indian strategic partnerships with ASEAN? India can still present itself as a credible counterweight to China, but not without embracing international norms of accountability.

The 26 January marked India’s 69th Republic Day. New Delhi welcomed all ten heads of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) to participate. Indian premier Narendra Modi portrayed it as a coup for his country’s diplomacy, with Singapore’s Lee Hsien Loong, Malaysia’s Mohammad Najib Razak, Indonesia’s Joko Widodo and even Myanmar’s Aung San Suu Kyi in attendance as Modi’s guests.

This banner moment is the fruit of India’s “Look East” policy, launched in the early 1990s after decades of non-alignment. Look East marked a significant change in India’s attitude towards Southeast Asia. It has also proven remarkably durable through successive changes of government, perhaps because both sides see the other as an important partner in containing China.

In 2014, Modi took the policy a step further by directing Indian envoys to “Act East”. This means focusing not just on improved economic relations but also on a wider spectrum of co-operation. Act East has seen Modi visit nine of ten ASEAN member states, presaging a proactive strategic role within the region just as Donald Trump abandons the Obama-era “Pivot to Asia”.

In this vacuum, India is not the only regional power picking up the slack. China hassuccessfully stifled progress in the South China Sea thanks to its outsized economic influence over ASEAN. President Rodrigo Duterte of the Philippines has all but abandonedFilipino claims in the area in exchange for Chinese economic support. India, by contrast, offered a clear and forthright statement that seemingly reinforced its commitment to the United Nations Convention on the Law Of the Sea (UNCLOS) and the institutions of international law more broadly.

But it will take more than isolated cases or a large Republic Day coterie to prove India is ready for a proactive global role. Modi’s track record in two other crises highlight an enduring reticence to speak out against problematic partners, whether in India’s own neighbourhood or further afield.

While Aung San Suu Kyi visits New Delhi as an honoured guest, many of her countrymen receive a harsher reception. A growing number of Rohingya refugees have fled to India since Myanmar opted for ethnic cleansing in October 2016; India’s response has been todeport those within its borders and ban the rest from entering. Indian border forces have been ordered to use “rude and crude” methods to keep refugees from crossing. The country also refused to endorse a declaration at last year’s World Parliamentary Forum on Sustainable Development because it included an “inappropriate” reference to the Rohingya.

Explanations for this uncharacteristic hostility vary. India has close ties to Myanmar’s government. It is especially dependent on Myanmar for help against secessionist rebels who strike at India from secluded bases in mountainous northern Myanmar. India had nonetheless been a forthright critic of the former junta’s abuses. In a remarkable volte-face, Modi has opted instead for condemning Rohingya “terrorism”.

Domestic politics may also play a role. Modi is a member of the Hindu nationalist Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) and has a track record of ignoring mob violence against India’s Muslim communities. Opposition parliamentarian Shashi Tharoor has drawn a direct link between Modi’s political stripes and the deportations, saying it “appears to be prompted by the fact that they are primarily Muslims.”

Neither regional priorities nor domestic politics explain Modi’s non-response to the crisis in the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC). Despite the distance, India contributes the largest contingent of peacekeepers to the UN Stabilization Mission in the Democratic Republic of the Congo (MONUSCO). At least 17 Indian peacekeepers have died there.

The Congolese government is currently undoing the stability Indian soldiers have fought and died for. President Joseph Kabila’s tenure constitutionally ended in 2016, but elections have been put off and Kabila remains in power. He has engineered a lethal crackdown on the pro-democracy movement demanding his ouster: six people were killed and hundreds detained during protests organised by the Catholic Church on 21 January.

Kabila has also kept the opposition candidate best positioned to replace him, former regional governor Moïse Katumbi, out of the DRC by pressuring the judiciary to convict him on spurious charges. That has not stopped Katumbi from heightening international pressure on Kabila, but it has stopped him from returning home.

India has had little to say about Kabila’s actions. Instead, foreign minister Sushma Swaraj stressed in November that the Modi government enjoys “close and friendly relations” with the DRC. She also discussed lines of credit to the Congolese government, even as other foreign investors are dissuaded by the Kabila government’s rampant corruption and its business partners come under American sanctions.\

Though India has a long tradition of humanitarianism, cold geopolitics have apparently trumped idealism. In doing so, is Narendra Modi abandoning one of democratic India’s key advantages over authoritarian China in the struggle over Asia’s balance of power?

If so, there is still time to change course. India’s new “Act East” outlook could well fill the normative vacuum left by the Trump administration as well as the strategic one. India is one of the few regional powers with the economic, military and moral clout to counterbalance Chinese dominance of ASEAN, a challenge that has acquired a renewedsense of urgency with China’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) initiative. Modi may be ready to indulge in power politics, but neither hard power nor an expanded Republic Day guest list will be enough to keep ASEAN from slowly being drawn into the Chinese orbit.

—

This article first appeared on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Nicholas Leong.

The post India looks east, but is it ready to act? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Volcanic schism dominates the landscape in the Islamic world. Sectarian civil wars rage in Syria, Iraq, and Libya. Yemen is the worst humanitarian disaster in the world as a result of a ruthless war campaign spearheaded by Saudi Arabia—a nation that, ironically, carries the Islamic declaration of faith on its flag and is the site of two holiest mosques. There are fanatical insurgencies in Afghanistan, Nigeria, Mali and Somalia.

The latter still remains the embodiment of self-destruction and institutional corruption. It is a ‘geographical expression’ that lacks vision, sovereign authority, and sense of nationhood. It is a resource-rich nation that accepted being the poster-child of perpetual misery. It is a psychologically subjugated and spiritually dysfunctional nation that constantly digs itself into a new geopolitical quicksand.

Somalia is the microcosm of the Muslim ummah or the Islamic nation.

Fifty seven nation states that are members of OIC are reduced to being spectators or at best agonizing over the ethnic-cleansing of the Rohingya people, systematic genocide of the Palestinian people and annexation of holy sites.

For centuries Muslims have been trailing in thought-production, technology, political stability, good governance, and human rights. To emerge out this disgraceful and seemingly hopeless condition requires a mega mirror to reveal the ugly state of our affairs and a thorough introspective process. Granted there are foreign factors and sinister elements that contributed to this ugly state of affairs. But bear in mind only after the internal causes are corrected could the external ones be corrected.

The Raging-foam Syndrome

It is hard for Muslims to ignore the daunting resemblance of current times to that which Prophet Muhammad has prophesized; a time in which nations will summon each other to encircle Muslims and feast upon them. When asked if it was due to smallness of the Muslim population, the Prophet answered: ‘No; you will be numerous.’ Then he added the quality of your moral character would be like scum or foam. You will be afflicted with “al-wahn” or obsession with privileges and luxuries, and extreme fear of anything that could end it.

Today, Dubai—the glittering façade of a degenerate city of lust, greed, and gluttony sustained by foreign military mercenaries—became the success model or the highest aspiration of many Muslim nations. The alternative model still remains brute power to ensure the privilege of the few at the expense of the deprived masses.

In recent decades, the Islamic world has produced some of the most vicious and most corrupt tyrants who would destroy their own countries for their personal power and privilege till they force a tipping of public wrath. Yemen’s Ali Abdullah Saleh was the latest to be flushed down in the sewage system of history.

Suppressing Scholars and Intellectuals 

Only a few decades after the death of Prophet Muhammad, a chain of Muslim rulers who lacked legitimacy started to recruit or promote their own pseudo scholars or clerics who looked the part but whose primary role was to provide fatwas or moral covers to the political shenanigans of their patron rulers or tyrants. So, sectarian zeal and jingoistic loyalty became the litmus test and the process through which the ummah still manipulated and exploited.

Today, the overwhelming majority of the Muslim scholars and intellectuals are empty-talkers, propagandists or flamethrowers of al-assabiyyah which describes a condition of extreme emotional attachment to one’s religious sect (Sunni, Shi’, Suffi, etc.), school of thought (Hanafi, Maliki, Shafi’, Hanbeli, Ja’fari, etc.), or religio-political identity (Salafi, Ikhwani, Huthi, Islahi, etc.).

Against that backdrop, two essential elements that propelled the Islamic civilization of yesteryear have corroded: genuine pursuit of truth and Ijtihad.

Ijtihad is a thought-processing mechanism to extract meanings or provide new interpretations to existing ones within the moral boundaries of faith. A century ago, Allama Muhammed Iqbal has warned the colonized minds of heedless ummah about the prevalence of suppression of intellectual and spiritual inquiry in the Islamic world. “The door of interpretation (ijtihad) cannot be closed. Because a door that has been kept open by the Qur’an and Sunnah (Prophetic teachings), can be shut by them alone and no one else,” he wrote. Iqbal reasserted what Muslims have long forgotten: spiritual inquiry and rational quest for meaning is a God-ordained process to acquire and produce knowledge.

Genuine Muslim scholars and intellectuals are those who are motivated by pursuit of truth and advancement of the common good. They are not enticed by power, privilege or wealth. Their main role is to enlighten the masses and keep power in check while preventing senseless rock bottom rebellion and anarchy.

Tyranny of ‘Reform’

Though the Islamic world, more specifically the Middle East, is the center of gravity of international politics and competition for strategic or energy resources, by the large, Muslim rulers in those countries have very little or no political clout to advance their respective national interests let alone make a world impact. Most are charlatans whose foreign policies are handicapped by inferiority complex and their domestic policies are emboldened by their tyrannical impulses. They readily put their nations’ interests last so long as their positions of authority are secured, their privileges are sustained, and their images are polished with superficial grace.

If the Arab Spring was the people’s raw expression against abuse of political power, against economic disenfranchisement and corruption, these destructive ills are still present in many Arab and Islamic countries and in some cases even more pronounced. The Muhammad Bin Salman phenomenon in Saudi Arabia is an example.

As a de facto King, he has been asserting unchecked authority that is making his country at-risk for political implosion. He spearheaded the catastrophic war in Yemen, weapons-purchase frenzy that is draining the Saudi economy, and the Qatar blockade. He imprisoned a large number of religious scholars, princes, media moguls and professionals who could have challenged his legitimacy and appetite for power-grab. They are all declared guilty of corruption without any judicial process.

So, the de facto King declared anti-corruption campaign and imposed austerity measures while maintaining his exclusive right for exuberant extravagance- a luxury chateau in France for over $300 million $500 million yacht and a $450 million painting.

Then you have the Egyptian and the Turkish opposition-purge or collective punishment models. None of these models are morally justified in Islam.

The Prophetic Model

Rhetoric aside, Muslims have drifted away from the moral principles that led Prophet Muhammad and his companions change the world and establish a global civilization.

First: unwavering sense of justice and fairness. While most may proclaim it, man cannot truly uphold justice and fairness without acknowledging the delusion of self-sufficiency and without declaring the Divine supremacy over him. The one who acknowledges and upholds God’s rights upon him is likely to uphold the rights of other human-beings.

Second: aspiring for excellence in all matters, and dealing with other human-beings in the best manner possible. With such approach coexistence with others who maybe different or espouse different beliefs becomes much easier.

Third: taking responsibility very seriously and being compassionate and beneficial to all people. And because families constitute the early stages of community formation, those who fulfill their familial responsibilities are likely to benefit the society at large.

Fourth: refraining from and preventing all aspects of corruption- moral, financial, political, social decadence and sins that harm self and others.

Fifth: refraining from and preventing heedlessness, overt or shameless behaviors that destroy all ethical boundaries and promote moral anarchy.

Sixth: refraining from and preventing against all form of transgression whether against the Will of God or against other human-beings.

These core principles encapsulated in a verse in the Qur’an were operationalized through a system of governance that promoted and protected these objectives: Sanctity of life, faith, property, family and intellect.

Prophet Muhammad was conscious of the fact that no relationship can be built on a zero-sum foundation. Sustainable relationships—domestically and internationally—are built upon trust, ethical conduct and certain level of sacrifices.

Getting Back On Track

The human-being is divinely hardwired to search for meaning in life. So as a rational being, inquiries and discoveries in the moral and material realms of life lend the person reason to exist. They are the wheels that propel the process to reimagine and reinterpret. Any society that fails to reassess its social, political, economic, and spiritual vison to match the ever-evolving generational aspirations and challenges would have to face immanent decay.

Islam is a universal faith. As such, interaction and collaboration with the rest of humanity is a divine obligation. And that can only materialize after we change our individual and collective mindset.  Numerous verses in the Qur’an underscore the importance of using the mind and intellect and warn against sectarian groupthink and blind loyalty.

It is time for Muslims to reclaim the Islam of inclusivity that transformed broken persons, tribes, and nations. It is time to reinvigorate the Islamic values of thinking before acting; connecting to the hearts before the minds, and purifying the intention before trying to reform. Ponder, plan or simply perish.

** Article was first published by The Muslim Vibe

The post The Ailing Muslim Conscience: It’s time to reclaim the Islam of inclusivity appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Trump’s State of the Union. Turkey intensifies operations in Syria. Merkel mends her coalition. All this in The Week Ahead.

• President Trump will present his State of the Union Address to Congress this Tuesday, following a rough week that included a government shutdown, controversy in Davos, and revelations that he tried to fire special counsel Robert Muller. Given the numerous issues facing Congress right now, it is unlikely that Trump’s speech will bring forth any new legislative priorities, though it may prove a useful distraction for the press and Republican leadership.
• Should the President lay out an immigration platform agreeable to Congressional Democrats, this could become an important speech for both resolving the fate of 700,000 Dreamers in the United States as well as initiating a more stable budget vote. Additionally, should the president mention infrastructure and discuss it beyond broad platitudes, he may be able to jump start negotiations on a major infrastructure bill ahead of midterm elections this November.

GRI Take: Don’t expect any radical new policies from Trump’s State of the Union Speech as the current budget crisis occupies most of his attention. However, if Trump announces reforms for DACA recipients, he has the potential to bolster his own popularity and hasten the end of the Congressional budget showdown.

• This week, the Turkish military’s Operation Olive Branch is likely to escalate as Turkey seeks to eradicate Syrian Kurdish forces from the area of Afrin. U.S. support for the Syrian Kurds has long angered Turkey, as Turkey views the Syrian Kurds as an extension of the U.S. designated terror group, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK), and a threat to its internal safety. Efforts to deescalate fell flat, as both Trump and Erdogan came away from last week’s phone call with a radically different understanding of the situation.
• The escalation also follows reports that as many as 130 members of Turkey’s armed forces returned injured from Olive Branch. If Turkey had thought this to be an easy fight, it is in for a surprise. It will be difficult for Turkey to quickly eradicate the YPG, given their fighting experience, well-trained and equipped forces, and U.S. support. Adding further complications to this matter, the Syrian government has threatened to shoot down any Turkish plane it finds in its territory. This could limit the Turkish military’s ability to provide air cover or engage in less casualty-heavy military tactics in its fight to eliminate the YPG (People’s Protection Units).

GRI Take: Turkey will escalate operation ‘Olive Branch’ in the coming week, promising more schisms with its international allies. Its NATO allies, especially the U.S., oppose the operation, further alienating Turkey from the organization and its regional priorities.

• This Sunday, representatives from Angela Merkel’s CDU are expected to finalize an agreement to continue the grand coalition between her party and the Social Democrats (SPD), following intense opposition from several quarters of the SPD. There remain several major sticking points, particularly on immigration, that the two parties need to first hammer out. However, both have reached the conclusion that continuing to draw out talks will only further damage German public perception of both parties.
• Both the SPD and CDU have major motivations for holding a harder line in negotiations that will make any governing arrangement difficult. For the SPD, there is a consensus that the party’s close link to Angela Merkel’s previous government has negatively impacted their popularity across Germany. The party thus faces pressure to exert major concessions from the CDU. On the CDU side, any concession to the social democratic wing of the German spectrum could be viewed as an opportunity for the far-right political party Alternative for Germany (AfD) to gain voters from the center-right.
• The shape of the final coalition largely hinges on the actions of the AfD. As the 3rd largest political party in the Bundestag and largest outside government, the far right AfD will act as the largest voice of opposition to the CDU/SPD coalition. This could create strain for the coalition partners even after they enter into government as the rightward leaning CDU and left-leaning SPD attempt to reconcile their priorities while protecting their base from being poached by the AfD.

GRI Take: Merkel will get her coalition; however, in order to be effective over the long term, one of the two ruling parties will have to soften their stance on their platform policies.

–

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights.

The post The Week Ahead: 28 January-3 February 2018 appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Venezuela is closer than ever to a full-blown humanitarian crisis, with its population being unable to satisfy dietary requirements amidst a climate of hyperinflation and collapse of national productivity. The government, instead of formulating a clear exit strategy, is forcing supermarkets and consumer goods manufacturers to cut prices at severe losses, in a move that is sure to worsen the situation. GRI’s Juan Daniel Goncalves provides an insider’s view.

Venezuela boasts the highest cumulative inflation rate of the last decade, as well as increasingly unavailable and/or prohibitively expensive food and medicine. These problems have become so systemic that anywhere from 1.5 to 2.5 million people have left the country, and in 2016-2017 almost a third of Venezuelans reported a desire to emigrate.

Officially, the Venezuelan government wants to convince whoever bothers to listen that this in fact is not their fault, instead blaming US-orchestrated sabotage campaigns, and on the “economic war” – an alleged coordinated attack by the private sector against everyday Venezuelans. For those who have not yet raised an eyebrow, the government’s long practice of denying responsibility is easily debunkable with one telling statistic: ever since 2005, after the ruling PSUV (Partido Socialista Unido de Venezuela) managed to reorganize public institutions under their full control by appointing party hardliners as leading bureaucrats, there has reportedly never been a Supreme Court ruling against the government in over 45,000 decisions.

In any case, the most troublesome reality the PSUV does not want to recognize is that Venezuelans are starving, to the point were desperate lootings are now commonplaceacross the country.

A 2016 report by Venezuelan universities and NGOs revealed that approximately 74.3% of Venezuelans confessed to unplanned weight loss due to financial constraints. Since then, it is safe to assume that in a country plagued with a 2017 cumulative hyperinflation of above 2000% – citizens’ purchasing power have continued to worsen, and with it, their quality of life.

To further illustrate the ramifications of hyperinflation’s effect on Venezuelans’ pockets, Harvard professor Ricardo Haussmann published a statistic where he shows that in order to be able to afford the country’s cheapest calorie – yucca – at around 30 BsF, for a daily intake of 2000 kcal (what is recommended for an average adult female) throughout a span of a month, a person must earn at least 1,800,000 BsF. This feat is quite impossible as the current minimum monthly salary together with food stamps as of 18 January 2018 amounts to 800,000 BsF (it is worth noting that there would be no leftover money for utilities, transportation, entertainment, education, etc).

In light of the looming humanitarian crisis, and reminiscent of similar disastrous policiesimplemented in Zimbabwe merely a decade ago, on 5 January Nicolas Maduro called for major supermarkets as well as smaller, independent outlets to sell their products at “fair” prices, strong-arming businesses via the SUNDDE (National Superintendency of the Defense of Socioeconomic Rights) to sell at 15 December 2017 prices with the threat to “shut down” or “expropriate” non-compliants.

Retailers were essentially forced to sell much of their stock at an approximate 50% discount overnight due to inflation, in what business executives protested as something that left them “unaware if they were bankrupt or not”.

In an interesting twist, since most major supermarket chains in Venezuela are owned by the Portuguese immigrant community that came to Venezuela predominantly in the 1950’s and 1960’s, Luso-Venezuelan descendants were forced to call on Lisbon to intercede on their behalf. Senior level Portuguese officials – including Portugal’s minister of Foreign Affairs Augusto Campos Silva – flew into Venezuela to meet with the Portuguese community and affected business owners and hear their pleas, before a scheduled official sit-down with his Venezuelan counterpart Jorge Arreaza.

Most likely as a result of these meetings, it seems now that the SUNDDE and ANSA (National Association of Supermarkets) have reached an agreement in which “the Executive made a commitment to guarantee that supermarkets would be able to repose their stock and there would not be any new measures that would imply products to be sold in accordance with the December cost structure”. It can also be interpreted that Venezuela did not want to risk to losing a lukewarm friend in Europe, especially as Arreaza “stressed that there is a very close relationship with Portugal that they will maintain and reinforce”, according to state media. This is also in light of the PSUV becoming increasingly isolated on the world stage after the loss of major allies in the Ecuadorian, Argentine, and Brazilian governments, to name a few.

Having encountered a snag in their supermarket witch-hunt, the SUNDDE decided instead to go after major consumer goods manufacturers such as Procter & Gamble, Nestlé, and Bimbo in an effort to cut prices somewhere along the supply chain and give desperate Venezuelans access to what can be interpreted as a “food-for-today-none-for-tomorrow”.

However, there doesn’t seem to be a resolution in sight, as the Caracas Chamber of Commerce has strongly rejected what they call “arbitrary rejections of price fixing via authoritarian practices that do not resolve the crisis, but rather deepen it and cause anxiety amidst the population that fears that inventory will disappear, mainly food and medicines, (in a climate where) there is an absolute absence of reasons to keep producing”.

Perhaps what the SUNDDE will find in face-to-face meetings with manufacturers will be nothing short of a game of chicken, with manufacturers finding no alternative but to shut down completely in light of the regulator’s constant threats of further controls or expropriation.

In other words, the traditionally populist government of Venezuela is in a bind.

From a risk point of view, Venezuela seems to be heading inevitably down a road in which the government fails to address the productivity and monetary policy problems that are causing the endemic situation – Venezuela’s GDP in 2018 is estimated to contract by 11.9%. Most likely only a major change in the composition of the government would bring about the sensible policy required to rein in the spiral of chaos.

—

This piece was origionally written for Global Risk Insights by Juan Daniel Goncalves.

The post Price-fixing can only worsen the crisis in Venezuela appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani

The Kurdistan Regional Government is presently calling upon the international community including the United States, the EU and the UN to intervene in order to bring the Central Government in Baghdad to the negotiating table: “The restrictive policies adopted by Baghdad against Erbil are in violation of Iraq’s obligations and responsibilities under international and humanitarian law, and its duty as a state to respect and protect its citizens, including those displaced, and to promote and protect the human rights and fundamental freedoms of individuals and groups.”

According to the Kurdistan Regional Government, reducing the Kurdistan Region’s budget in the 2018 Draft Budget Bill without involving the Kurdistan Regional Government, closing off the Kurdistan Region’s airspace, and travel restrictions are among measures of collective punishment being implemented by the Central Government in Baghdad against the Kurdistan Region. In fact, Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani stressed that the Iraqi Central Government has even stopped sending medical supplies to the Kurdistan region, even though the area recently suffered a horrendous 7.3 magnitude earthquake. The KRG stressed that these measures adversely affect 1.5 million displaced persons who have taken refuge in the Kurdistan region.

“With winter fast approaching, many displaced persons, including Yezidis, Christians, and recently displaced people from Kirkuk, Tuz Khourmatu and other areas, will be without critical supplies, specialized assistance, and care provided by UN agencies, NGOs, and other international organizations,” the KRG statement read. “Erbil and Suleimaniya airports are vital to meet the humanitarian needs of displaced people and the basic needs of our general population, including emergency medical evacuation of civilians as well as victims and military personnel wounded in the fight against ISIS. Moreover, restriction of movement is detrimental to peace, stability and progress in a globalized world.”

As we speak, Iraqi Prime Minister Haider Al Abadi refuses to engage in dialogue with the Kurdistan Regional Government. Furthermore, he wants the Peshmerga to become part of the “Iraqi government security forces or a small local force.” He added: “All border crossings in and out of Iraq must be under the exclusive control of the federal state.” This would include the Kurdish oil pipeline to Turkey, which is a major source of income for the Kurdistan Regional Government.

As Abadi seeks additional punitive measures against the Kurdistan Regional Government, Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani calls for dialogue: “The Kurdish government and political parties are ready to fully engage in negotiations with Baghdad in order to resolve all disputes through understanding and based on the constitution. The KRG is ready for talks that would achieve the best interests of Iraq and the Kurdistan region. We don’t think that these issues can be solved militarily. They need serious political talk.”

“The UN, EU, ICRC, the US and NGOs, and other members of the international community are essential to serve the humanitarian needs of displaced people hosted by the Kurdistan Regional Government,” the Kurdistan Regional Government stressed. The Kurdistan Regional Government seeks American and international assistance in bringing Iraq to the negotiating table. All of the parties should help Barzani to overcome this crisis. He needs the international community to force Iraq to overcome this crisis for without their assistance, the situation for one of America’s strongest allies in the region is seriously deteriorating.

“We call on the international community to intercede in urging Baghdad authorities to lift the embargo, without condition, on international flights,” the Kurdistan Regional Government emphasized. “The international community’s attention and action would be deeply appreciated in mediating and lifting air embargos and other collective restrictions in order to minimize and avoid adverse effects on vital humanitarian services, health and education services, food security, security against terrorism, jobs and income security in the Kurdistan Region.”

The post Kurdistan’s Prime Minister seeks dialogue to end the present crisis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Nearly eclipsing the fourth anniversary of the beginning of the Euromaidan protests last Tuesday was the latest in the ongoing scandal surrounding former Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort.

According to newly released records, the beleaguered political consultant traveled to Moscow at least 18 times during his nearly decade’s worth of work for the pro-Russian politician Viktor Yanukovych, who was elected as president in 2010 and ousted in 2014. The revelations suggest his consulting and business activities were far more closely linked with Russia than he initially revealed.

Manafort has been the subject of intense scrutiny over his work for Yanukovych’s Party of Regions, which culminated last month when a grand jury indicted him and his former colleague Rick Gates on a range of charges as part of FBI special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe. The political consultant has claimed that his work was intended to boost Ukraine’s integration with Europe, but the flight records put the lie to a tale that was already hanging from a thread.

Meanwhile, as Washington focuses on Manafort’s alleged ties with the Kremlin and Mueller’s wider Russia investigation, Ukrainians are wondering what the Manafort affair means for the prospect of eventually rooting out political corruption in their own country. And even if the writing’s on the wall, Kiev doesn’t seem to be in a hurry.

Revelations of Manafort’s skullduggery – not least the estimated $17 million he and his associates were paid by the Party of Regions – hits close to home for citizens in a country where the 50 richest own over 45% of GDP and that ranked 131st out of 176 countries in Transparency International’s latest Corruption Perceptions Index. Even more frustrating for ordinary Ukrainians, despite promises by President Petro Poroshenko to root out corruption, he has, if anything, only helped cronyism become more entrenched.

Most recently, in response to the Manafort investigation, while government officials have said they are willing to assist US authorities, observers shouldn’t hold their breaths. After all, even though the alleged wrongdoing occurred under the previous administration’s watch, Poroshenko’s government has a number of reasons to drag its feet. First, they are loath to derail relations with the White House by further delving into what is now a distinctly sore subject. But most importantly, Poroshenko and his allies worry that if the government opened up its own probe, this would have major consequences for Manafort’s wider network of contacts, not least the oligarchs and crooked officials who still make up a broad swath of the current political elite.

As a result, the country’s most powerful oligarchs are eager for the Manafort affair to blow over as soon as possible. These include men like the businessman Dmytro Firtash and the coal and metals tycoon Rinat Akhmetov, who rank among the wealthiest in the country and have a finger in nearly every pie – from the seats of parliament to the presidential palace to the country’s biggest conglomerates. It was they who helped Yanukovych hire Manafort to begin with and drove his efforts to boost his reputation in the West. But embarrassingly for the current government, they still pull a considerable amount of political clout.

For instance, Firtash – the billionaire oligarch and Party of Regions funder – has close ties with Manafort, having worked with him in a failed effort to buy the Drake Hotel in New York for $850 million in 2008. He has also been accused of essentially overseeing the process by which Poroshenko became president, having helped to organize a summit between former boxer Vitali Klitschko and Poroshenko in 2014. According to allegations, Firtash helped convince Klitschko to run for mayor of Kiev instead of the presidency, in a deal that fueled fury in a country tired of major political decisions being turned into gentlemen’s agreements.

Another oligarch who stands to suffer from a more in-depth investigation of Manafort’s sordid past is Rinat Akhmetov, the man responsible for bringing the political consultant to Ukraine in the first place. Ukraine’s wealthiest man, he is reported to have come out on top following a power struggle among organized crime groups in the 1990s over control for coal and metals assets in the former Soviet Union – assets that he has now organized under his holding company, System Capital Management (SCM).

While Akhmetov claims that he made his fortune thanks to wit and luck, the evidence suggests otherwise. Some claim that Akhmetov’s first stroke of good fortune came in 1995, when his mentor, Akhat Bragin, was killed along with his bodyguards in a bombing. Later, during the Yanukovych era, Akhmetov exerted considerable power as a key Party of Regions funder. Not surprisingly, during those same years, his businesses boomed, adding an estimated $3 billion to his bank accounts in a matter of months. Of course, like many of his fellow oligarchs, Akhmetov recognizes the importance of staying on the good side of the government: after he realized where the winds were blowing in 2013, he, Firtash, and other oligarchs switched teams, beginning to openly support the Euromaidan.

The result is that Poroshenko’s initial promises to enact a policy of “de-oligarchization” has ended in a coalition between the president and Akhmetov, the main heir of Ukraine’s entrenched system in crony capitalism. Parts of the latter’s hold over Ukraine’s economy have started to crack, especially after a London court ordered Akhmetov to pay almost $800 million and settle the debts accrued after the purchase of the state telecom company Ukrtelecom in 2013.

Poroshenko – a political turncoat and tycoon in his own right – thus represents only the latest iteration of oligarchical government in a country that remains, as ever, firmly under the thumb of corrupt interests. Given the tycoons’ enduring power and the government’s slow-moving efforts to tackle corruption, then, we shouldn’t be surprised if Kiev fails to use the Manafort affair as a catalyst for reforms. Yet the government’s likely reluctance to further investigate Manafort’s past – and his network of contacts with Ukraine’s deep state – represents a huge loss for a country that only four years ago had such high hopes for a new chapter in the country’s history.

The post In oligarchic Ukraine, Manafort is a symptom of a wider disease appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.