Foreign Policy Blogs

Given that the last strongholds for ISIS (known as Daesh in the region) in Raqaa, Syria and Mosul, Iraq have fallen, it is likely the group in its current territory-based form will gone by the end of 2017.  Only weeks ago, Daesh was allowed to leave central Syria before the Syrian Army closed the 5-kilometer gap between Al-Raqqa and Homs. Last month, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that Syrian government forces, supported by the Russian Air Force, had liberated over 90 percent of the country’s territory.

Fortunately, there has been a plan for this moment.  The Americans and the Russians—the main power brokers in the conflict– have been in direct talks regarding the future of Syria since 2015; indeed, everything is on the table regarding a transitional phase, the presidency, and even the future governing body. According to leaks and news reports, the two sides have agreed on that the president and transitional governing body shall exercise executive authority on behalf of the people but in line with a constitutional declaration. As for the president, he or she may have one or more vice presidents and delegate some authorities to them. This draft will be proposed during the Geneva Conference at the end of November.

As for the transitional governing body, it reportedly will serve as the supreme authority in the country during the transitional phase. According to drafts we have seen, it is proposed to have 30 members: 10 appointed by the current government, 10 from independent individuals named by the UN Secretary General and 10 by the opposition. The chairman will be elected from among the independent members by simple majority. This representative structure—which includes representatives from Assad’s government—stems from the recent visits to Damascus by officials from the European Union, Russia and the United States.

According to American sources, an important provision of the new constitution would be Presidential term limits. The proposed article states that “The President of the Syrian Republic shall be elected for seven calendar years by Syrian citizens in general after free and integral elections. The president might be re-elected only for one other term.”

The involvement of the Assad government in these deliberations should surprise no one. Former American ambassador to Syria Robert S. Ford stressed in a recent article published in Foreign Affairs that “The Syrian civil war has entered a new phase. President Bashar al-Assad’s government has consolidated its grip on the western half of the country, and in the east. By now, hopes of getting rid of Assad or securing a reformed government are far-fetched fantasies, and so support for anti-government factions should be off the table. The Syrian government is determined to take back the entire country and will probably succeed in doing so.”

 

After Daesh, Syria still matters, and not only because of the scale of the humanitarian crisis there. Major political trends in the Middle East tend to happen because big countries want spheres of influence in geostrategic locations.  Russia has an interest in Syria, for example, as a Middle Eastern forward operating base, for access to warm water ports, and more generally, to check U.S. influence. The U.S. (and its allies) see in Syria a country cleared of Daseh that must now be “held” to prevent the regrowth of the terrorist caliphate, as a bulwark to protect neighboring Israel, and to maintain the free flow of oil.

In other words, the big countries that represent such geostrategic players such as Syria aspire to influence and change the geopolitical situation within her borders to improve their own strategic position and enable them to gain cards in the Middle East region.

But Syria is not merely a proxy battlefield for the big powers. With the end of Daesh in sight, Syria has a chance to reclaim her sacred sovereignty, which as the basis of the international order gives it the ability to control what happens inside its own borders. The upcoming constitutional process is an opportunity to restart and reconnect the Syrian people to its institutions, which should in turn serve them and only them. It should not be lost.

 

Shehab al-Makahleh is an author and analyst of terrorism, military, and security affairs in the Middle East and co-founder of Geostrategic Media and is based in the UAE and Jordan.

 

Maria al-Makahleh is a political commentator, researcher, and expert on Middle Eastern affairs based in Russia, and serves as President of the International Middle Eastern Studies Club (IMESClub) in Moscow.

The post The End of ISIS is in Sight. What is Next? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

From Syria to Iraq, Trump’s Middle East policy enables Iran to spread its tentacles across the region.

During the elections, Donald Trump was highly critical of former US President Barack Obama’s foreign policy to the Middle East. From Obama refusing to follow his own red line policy on Syria to the Iranian nuclear deal, Trump proclaimed that “Obama is a disaster on foreign policy” who treated enemies with “tender love and care” while picking fights “with our older friends.” However, since he became US President, Donald Trump has demonstrated not only that he is no better than Obama on foreign policy but some analysts claim that on Middle Eastern affairs, he is actually worse than him to the point that certain circles in Washington, DC who could not stand Obama are actually beginning to miss him.

Let us begin with Syria. While ISIS is essentially dead in the country, Trump has enabled both Russia and Iran to fill the void. He has backed away from seeking regime change. While the US did assist the Syrian Democratic Forces in their struggle against ISIS, Trump has left Russia and Iran in charge of securing security arrangements, creating safe zones, and above all, leading the diplomatic process that will determine the future of the country. While Trump has not abandoned the Syrian Kurds yet for he is still supporting the Syrian Democratic Forces against ISIS, he did leave that option on the table in order to prompt Turkey to abandon the Iranian axis and to reach a greater understanding on Syria with Russia.

Many Syrian Kurds feel that this is a great betrayal after they worked so hard in order to help the US rid the country from ISIS. Furthermore, had Trump supported breaking up Syria into separate states that better reflect the ethnic reality in the country, only part of the country rather than the entire area will fall to Tehran! The US should have engaged with the Kurds, the Druze and Sunni Arabs in order to make sure as many areas as possible did not fall to the Iranian axis. While Obama abandoning his red lines enabled the radical Islamists to overtake what was a peaceful revolution, Trump’s Syria policy has empowered the Iranian regime in Syria to the detriment of America’s natural allies.

Not only Syrian Kurds feel betrayed by Trump. The State of Israel is greatly disturbed that US President Trump has allowed Iranian-backed militias to be within 3 miles of the Israeli-controlled Golan Heights. This is a horrendous reality that even Obama did not impose on the State of Israel. Now, Iran is building a permanent base some 50 kilometers from the Israeli Golan Heights and making moves in order to secure its land route from Iraq to Syria to the Israeli border. This will give Iran a strategic advantage in harming the State of Israel. And this decision was made by a US President who claims there is “no one more pro-Israel than I am.”

In addition, the situation in Iraq has greatly deteriorated largely because Trump has decided to side with Abadi over the Iraqi Kurds. The US knowingly allowed the transfer of US weapons and technology to the Iranian backed militias in order to attack the Kurds while making assurances that the movements of these militias were only to be used against ISIS. If Trump had supported Kurdistan’s Independence Referendum and given the Kurds the very same arms that the US gave on a silver platter to Iraq, then Iran would not be making massive gains in Iraq.

It is critical to note that Abadi is just as bad for the US as Maliki is and to oppose our natural allies the Kurds merely to empower Abadi is a strategic mistake. Like Maliki, Abadi is also an Iranian proxy. Both Iraq and Syria are failed states that Iran seeks to preserve so that they can benefit from the resources, oil, water, etc. and to use as a launching pad against Israel and the GCC. In order to obtain its goals, the Iranian-controlled Iraqi government started the process of purging any reference to the Kurdistan region of Iraq, ethnically cleansing the Kurdish areas and is now holding them hostage for food, fuel, humanitarian supplies, etc. The Iraqi Supreme Court also is seeking to erase any Kurdish gains or rights. Is this the kind of government the US should support?

Nevertheless, Trump has chosen to take hostile positions towards the Kurds that even Obama would never take. While Obama also did not get that a united Iraq is a failed policy for the country was artificially created by colonial powers and Iraq would be more stable if it was broken up into three countries, at the very least, he would not tolerate American weapons being used to attack the Kurds in Kirkuk and other areas. Under his watch, the Kurds enjoyed autonomy and de facto independence. Now, even that is being robbed from them as Trump stands by and does nothing. Given this, Trump is not the Mr. Tough on Iran that he claims to be. To the contrary, he is enabling Iranian aggression across the Middle East.

The post Does Trump’s foreign policy enable Iranian aggression in the Middle East? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

When Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates, Bahrain, and Egypt instituted a blockade against Qatar this summer, many in Qatar and the broader international community feared it would greatly disrupt Qatari society by breaking supply chains, limiting access to food and other resources, and preventing free travel across the region. However, Qatar has defied the odds, thanks in large part to a unique spirit of ingenuity driven by its long-standing commitment to research & development. Indeed, greater innovation is the key to ensuring not just a stable future for Qatar, but for the entire region.

While the regional blockade has hindered overall growth in the Gulf region in the short term, in Qatar, our ongoing stability and development rests with our institutions that refuse to stop innovating in core sectors such as education, energy, science and research, and community development. Qatar has been able to conduct business as usual in these areas, including following through with the Qatar National Research Strategy.

Qatar Foundation (QF), a private, non-profit organization founded more than 20 years ago by Qatar’s leadership, is one such institution that has embraced this call to action, relentlessly addressing the nation’s and region’s grand challenges in food, water, cyber, health, and energy-security through domestic research and development. The tangible results of this commitment are bearing fruit today in the midst of the ongoing crisis, as QF has been sponsoring researchers from Qatar, the greater GCC region, and across the globe to tackle these serious challenges and create new real-world solutions. This investment in Qatar’s research and development capacity and the human capital it has built inside Qatar, as well as attracted from abroad, are some of the reasons why Qatar has proven so resilient in the current situation.

With regards to food security, QF R&D has supported an initiative called SAFE-Q, which has been investigating how to safeguard food and the environment in Qatar. Ongoing research has demonstrated unique ways to secure Qatar’s food supply chains and encourage sustainable local food production for the country—a critical issue for nearly all countries in our region.

In the energy space, QF researchers are examining new possibilities to reduce Qatar’s reliance on oil-powered desalination plants to secure our water supply, including developing new solar energy technology aimed at vastly improving the resilience and performance of solar panels in the desert.

In climate, QF research is identifying innovative uses of recycled and aggregate material, providing an economically viable and environmentally sustainable way to make Qatar less dependent on imports of aggregate materials used in infrastructure projects. Researchers have shown how to significantly increase the use of recycled materials in construction, and have collaborated with the Ministry of Municipality and Environment to successfully use recycled aggregate in high-value construction projects in Qatar.

In terms of resource security, QF R&D is also supporting extensive research into the genomes of one of Qatar’s most abundant natural resources: date palm trees. A breakthrough project in this field makes it possible to determine the economic viability of a tree at the seed stage, rather than having to wait until the tree is five years old. This could soon open up a whole new stream of research into the feasibility of utilizing date palm tree products in other industries, including construction or furniture.

And regarding healthcare, QF’s Qatar Genome Programme is a one-of-a-kind national initiative to map the genome of Qatar’s population, an effort which can produce critical insights to move Qatar closer to achieving its aim of developing personalized healthcare tailored to an individual’s needs and unique characteristics.

Ultimately, this ongoing commitment to research is critical not just to ensuring the future peace and prosperity of Qatar, but of the entire Middle East and beyond. Innovation is highly beneficial for local economies, boosting inbound investment, economic activity, job creation, and technology transfer. As Her Highness Sheikha Moza bint Nasser has said, “We, in Qatar, have never been confined by our local geography. Rather, we have continuously placed our attention on the development needs of the Arab nations, as we set strategies and plans for scientific research.”

Research is a key component for the advancement of any country; it is vital to the creation of a competitive and diversified economy. Indeed, research has a unique ability to foster the development of human capital and support the growth of homegrown institutions across the region, helping provide security that can mitigate regional conflict and tumult.

QF shows it is possible to bring experts together from across the globe to harness their knowledge and expertise to create positive change and discovery in the Middle East. The region should look to continue to foster ways to promote such efforts, as the we are set to face increasing challenges due to economic and technological transformation, coupled with the effects of climate change. The same agility that has allowed Qatar to weather current difficulties is going to be needed in the future by all. Qatar’s research and development community is playing its part to find solutions, and is set to continue doing so in the future.

Dr. Hamad Al-Ibrahim is Executive Vice President of Qatar Foundation Research and Development

The post How Innovation Can Drive Stability in the Middle East appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

According to the International Organization for Migration (IOM), more than 2,200 migrants died while trying to cross the Mediterranean during the first seven months of 2017. In the United States, more people are dying while trying to cross the U.S.-Mexico border, even though fewer people are making the attempt. According to the IOM, the reported number of fatalities are probably underestimated because most deaths occur while people are crossing a vast, remote desert or a large, swift body of water.

In response to the continuing crisis facing potential migrants fleeing war or poverty, Secretary General António Guterres called on member states who gathered in New York for the General Assembly last month to find “a humane, compassionate, people-centered approach [to migration] that recognizes every individual’s right to safety, protection and opportunity.” Guterres spoke to a General Assembly that consisted of many new leaders, some of whom had run on anti-immigrant platforms to get elected.

But in the same building just one year earlier, these same member states unanimously adopted the New York Declaration for Refugees and Migrants, an international statement which outlined a path toward two global compacts scheduled to be adopted in 2018.

The first, the Global Compact on Refugees, aims to help the international community to find more equitable ways to share the responsibility for refugees.

The second, the Global Compact for Safe, Orderly, and Regular Migration, aims to enhance international cooperation in governing migration, protect migrants from smugglers and other criminal networks, and address the causes of irregular migration.

According to the Secretary General, the members of the UN are at the halfway point towards agreeing on these compacts. Over the next year, Guterres believes that UN members need to re-establish the integrity of the refuge protection regime, develop national and international mechanisms that take human mobility into account, hold human traffickers and smugglers accountable, create more opportunities for legal migration, and incorporate the advances in artificial intelligence and the skill shortages associated with this technology into international cooperation mechanisms.

But it won’t be easy. Media reports have suggested that a global backlash against international migration is making it harder for national governments to adequately address this issue. Although the clear majority of the 244 million international migrants travel legally, the consequences of irregular or unauthorized migration have captured headlines all over the world. In 2014, journalists from the Guardian, Le Monde, El País, Süddeutsche Zeitung and La Stampa debunked common myths about migration, but these myths continue to influence migration policy well into 2017.

 

The post UN Secretary General Calls on Member States to Take a People-centered Approach to Migration Crisis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

 

Communicating with friends and colleagues in Harare, I am hearing the following (all quotations are direct from people I have communicated with, but I hope you’ll forgive my granting of anonymity in light of the circumstances):

• Get out of your minds your 1970s African coup cliches.
• Most of the streets in suburban Harare (and Harare is an enormously suburban urban area — so also dump your western conception of suburbs) are perfectly easy to navigate. There is no excess of police, the military is not rolling tanks down the streets.
• There is a sense of unease. For example, the University of Zimbabwe remains open, but end-of-year exams have been postponed.
• There is a sense of “relative calm,” but also a sense of fear.
• Honestly, no one knows what is happening politically.

People are scared and uncertain, but the fact is that there has been a constant sense of fear and uncertainty in Zimbabwe for more than a decade.

 

The post On the Ground (Indirectly) in Harare appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The sudden resignation of Lebanese Prime Minister Sa’ad al-Hariri on October 4, 2017 from Riyadh appears to have taken by surprise just about everyone in the Middle East.  The significance of Hariri’s announcement taking place not in his own capital but rather in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia was lost on virtually no one. As speculation that Hariri was either forced into resigning and/or is currently being held against his will has mounted, savvy observers have concluded that the decision reflects the Saudi will as much as it reflects Hariri’s own thinking.

But as is usual in the Middle East, other regional developments factor heavily into the actions that produce headlines.  With Raqqa no longer in the hands of the Islamic State and the city of Deir Elzour having fallen to the Syrian army, Saudi Arabia may have finally conceded that the Syrian conflict is a lost cause and is instead looking for other battlegrounds on which it can confront Iran, its bitter rival for regional hegemony.

Thus, a second theory that has circulated and swirled like a hurricane in the days that followed Hariri’s resignation is that the move portends a new conflict between Israel and Hezbollah.  With the region a perpetual tinderbox and both Israeli government officials and Hezbollah leaders long musing publicly about what their next battle would look like, Hariri’s surprise move could be the casus belli, or at least an opening salvo, that leads the region into its next confrontation.

For years now, Saudi Arabia and its allies have long warned of Iran’s aims of forming a Shiite Crescent that stretches from Tehran to Beirut, passing through Baghdad and Damascus en route.  But while Saudi calls received little purchase just a few years ago, today’s Middle East may produce a different and much more dangerous outcome.

For starters, while the Obama administration was notoriously cool toward Saudi Arabia and hesitant to get involved in another conflict, the current Administration has engaged in far more bellicose rhetoric and signalled that it is firmly in the Saudi corner.  Russia, once an afterthought in the region, has in the intervening years become a dominant player, not only in Syria but via political and commercial overtures elsewhere in the region including Iran, Saudi Arabia, and even the UAE.  Turkey, once a reliable NATO ally, now may be closer in its thinking to the Russian bloc than to its erstwhile friends in America.  The Iraqi army has seemingly foiled Kurdish plans for independence and the Islamic State appears to be in its waning days in both Iraq and Syria.  Perhaps most importantly, Saudi policy is now in the hands of the young Prince Mohammed bin Salman, who has demonstrated his willingness to take on enemies at home and abroad with fervor.

In the recent past, Hezbollah and Israel have engaged in two wars, both in 2000 and 2006, with sparks in both instances provided by Hezbollah’s overreach at times when Israel would have been content to delay confrontation.

While the United States has typically sought to balance its close relationship with Israel with a desire to avoid getting embroiled in such conflicts, the next confrontation may be different.  This past October 23 marked the 34th anniversary of bombing the US Marine Base in Beirut in 1983, an attack—blamed by the US government on Hezbollah, although never claimed by the group– that led to the death of 241 American and 58 French soldiers.  US Vice President Mike Pence issued fresh warnings to Iran and Hezbollah the same day, saying: “Thirty-four years ago today, America was thrust into war with an enemy unlike any we had ever faced. The Beirut barracks bombing was the opening salvo in a war that we have waged ever since — the global war on terror.”

Pence said that the American administration has redoubled its commitment to “cripple Hezbollah’s terrorist network and bring its leaders to justice.” This bellicose rhetoric, in which Pence said that the US will be “fighting terrorists on American terms and terrorists soil” was taken by many in the region as yet another signal that war is shimmering on the horizon. Pence added that Islamic terrorism “is a hydra with many heads, striking London, Paris, Barcelona. No matter what name they choose to go by or where they try to hide, this President and our armed forces are committed, as the President said in his own words, to destroy terrorist organizations and the radical ideology that drives them — and so we will”.

Such a war would present a perilous series of pitfalls for all involved.  The Hezbollah of today is not the same group it was in 2006, let alone in 2000.  With the group’s fighters having gained battlefield experience over several years of fighting in Syria, along with expectations that it has received far more advanced weaponry from Iran, any conflict would almost certainly prove far more deadly than previous encounters.

Last September, Israel carried out its largest military drills in 20 years along its northern border, which lasted for ten days and simulated an attack against Hezbollah inside Lebanon. The drill was then described as a response to a “significant threat to Israel and especially the home front”.

Israel would likely seek to deploy its ground forces reach the Litani River in southern Lebanon, the zone it occupied from 1982 to 2000 that represents Hezbollah’s heartland.  Israeli air strikes would aim to prevent Iranian and Hezbollah production of precise surface-to-surface missiles that can travel long distances, reaching its most dense population centers in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem.  As in previous wars, Israeli strategy would seek to minimize any damage that would be inflicted upon its forces and civilians in northern Israel.

The question is whether such a conflict will occur due to an unexpected spark arising from miscalculation, or whether Israel—emboldened by its newfound, if unacknowledged, alliance with Saudi Arabia and tacit backing from the United States–will act deliberately, this year or next, to pre-empt Hezbollah’s ability to further develop weapons that threaten the Jewish State.  Though Israel has previously sent messages to Hezbollah in the form of airstrikes on its weapons convoys in Syria, this time it may opt “to launch a pre-emptive strike on the production facilities in Lebanon”.

The confluence of these changes in the region and the aggressive rhetoric of all parties form a maelstrom that, sadly, looks to be propelling the Middle East toward yet another war.  Any conflict between Hezbollah and Israel would not be contained, but rather would affect surrounding countries including Syria, Jordan, and the two countries using the Israeli-Lebanon arena as a proxy battlefield, Iran and Saudi Arabia as well.  This next war, whose drums are now beating steadily, will be more destructive than its predecessors and will once again re-draw the ever-shifting map of alliances and rivalries in the region.

Shehab al-Makahleh is an author and analyst of terrorism, military, and security affairs in the Middle East and co-founder of Geostrategic Media and is based in the UAE and Jordan.

 

Maria al-Makahleh is a political commentator, researcher, and expert on Middle Eastern affairs based in Russia, and serves as President of the International Middle Eastern Studies Club (IMESClub) in Moscow.

The post Another War in the Middle East? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A military tank with armed soldiers on the road leading to President Robert Mugabe’s office in Harare. [AP Photo: Tsvangirayi Mukwazhi]

What is happening in Zimbabwe?

It appears that 93-year old “President for Life” Robert Mugabe might finally be out of power. The military has refused to acknowledge a “coup,” but when the military leadership provide the spokesmen for the government, when generals are asserting who will and will not be acceptable as potential heads of state and government, and when people are being encouraged to remain inside, it seems pretty clear that change is afoot and that we are talking about a change fomented at least in part by the military. That may not be an according-to-Hoyle coup, but one would probably be at a loss to come up with a better term.

Last week Mugabe sacked Emmerson Mnangagwa, his second-in-command. Mugabe (or people acting on his behalf) had accused Mnangagwa of working with the military to foment a coup of his own. Now reports indicate that Mnangagwa has returned from a brief exile to take over the government.

If this is the case, it is perhaps not ideal (coups or their equivalent rarely are) but it would serve to mitigate my chief concern: That while most observers of the region have long wanted Mugabe to exit the scene, recognizing the deleterious effect he has had on his country for too much of the three-plus decades he has been in control, a power vacuum might still have been worse than anyone expected. After all without a clear plan for succession, and in lieu of Mugabe losing an election (and having Mugabe accept the results), the struggle for power in Harare might have gotten ugly. Mnangagwa is no saint, and we have no idea whether and when he might be in a position to call for elections, but if he has the support of the military and if he can lay out a clear plan moving forward perhaps Zimbabwe can avoid a bloodbath.

Perhaps.

As of now, it seems that Mnangagwa has emerged as the winner of a power struggle between his supporters (in the military and beyond) and First Lady Grace Mugabe, who has been vying to succeed her husband and has shown some of his megalomaniacal tendencies. But there is still a long way to go and much to find out before anyone should be celebrating.

The post Crisis in Zimbabwe: Is Mugabe Finally Out? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A refugee woman from the minority Yazidi sect, who fled the violence in the Iraqi town of Sinjar, sits with a child inside a tent at Nowruz refugee camp in Qamishli, northeastern Syria August 17, 2014. Photo Credit: Rodi Said / Reuters

In the last week there have been mass graves discovered in Iraq. There is little detail on who the 400 people found buried are, why they were executed or what group they belonged to, but just that they were victims of ISIS and their location. This story and many linked to the atrocities in Iraq and Syria did not receive as much coverage as they should have considering how similar events in history have scarred the psyche of all democratic nations. The civilian targets of ISIS have often been minority groups in the region that were seen as less than human in ISIS philosophy and that did not have a strong militia protecting their communities. If you were born into such a group by no choice of your own, the worst punishments were applied to you and your family. Memories of those victims of religious fervor that suffered in the Spanish Inquisition have shaped human rights norms and codes along with other historic events in Western history. In these recent cases that can be argued as some of the worst treatment girls and women have faced in human history, there has been a passive approach to protecting their lives.

No one should be burned alive because they would not convert to a religion, but it occurred frequently under ISIS and little was said in Western media in most cases. Sexual assaults against minors daily and the execution of relatives in front of them was standard practice, occurring on a massive scale, in many cases resulting in those girls being burned alive themselves. Every violation of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights was committed using the most extreme methods, and in most cases these atrocities were given a page twelve storyline, if published at all. Their protection was treated as a page twelve storyline as well, with the protectors of many of those minorities, the Peshmerga, now being attacked from all of its neighbours as a reward for attempting to be the only militia that tried to protect minorities from human rights abuses.

Rwanda was a tipping point in how we handle genocide in modern times. Rwanda was almost completely ignored, but awareness of the atrocities was well known as UN representatives were on the ground during the genocide and were communicating with their respective governments, and nothing was done to stop it. Many of these same leaders that ignored the genocide in Rwanda are active in governments around the world today, or advise modern governments on policy and are key contributors in developing legislation and UN actions. These same leaders also impressed their shame on their lack of actions in stopping the Rwandan Genocide, but also have done little to help Yazidis and other minorities in Iraq and Syria. They are well aware of what is going on as video and photos of atrocities are broadcast on social media frequently. Their passive attention post-Rwanda to genocide is passively permitting another Inquisition. The policy approach to do nothing about returning citizens who committed these acts against minorities in the Middle East has also fallen on deaf ears. Allowing those who have orchestrated the worst human rights abuses in human history to pass between borders without trial and with complete freedom is an insult to every victim of genocide since the Spanish Inquisition as well.

One of the shameful events that shaped human rights globally, the Inquisition, was occurring yet again, but we are blinded to it in modern society. Perhaps future generations will learn from our mistakes, but there is no doubt that modern society have failed the minorities in Iraq and Syria as regret replaces action, and shame is assured on us by future generations.

The post We Should Have Never Permitted Another Inquisition appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Saudi Iranian Flags BIN

On Saturday afternoon November 4th from the Saudi capital of Riyadh, now former Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri declared he resigned due to threat of assassination, saying, “I have sensed what is being plotted covertly to target my life.” The BBC reported that Hariri made multiple trips to Saudi Arabia (KSA) over the couple of days prior to his announcement, and Hariri attacked Iran and the Shia movement Hezbollah in the Riyadh broadcast. The location of the surprising revelation and Hariri’s depiction of Iran as determined to “destroy the Arab world” hints that the Saudi-Iranian proxy war may have returned to Beirut.

Lebanon’s elections were scheduled for May 2018, but last weekend’s developments call that into question and may have destroyed any semblance of détente that existed in Lebanese politics between the regional heavyweights. Lebanon’s delicate political arrangement assembled Sunni, Shia, and Christian representatives after two years without a complete government. Yet, the role of Hezbollah (due to its designation as a terrorist organization by the U.S. and Arab Gulf States) constituted a legitimate excuse for outside intervention. So far, Lebanon’s government has not collapsed, many suspect Hariri is just a mouth for Riyadh, and Hezbollah may be the hero if they can maintain stability in Lebanon.

On October 10, the U.S. offered two multi-million dollar rewards for Hezbollah leaders which may correlate with Saudi State Minister for Arab Gulf Affairs Thamer Sabhan’s tweet two days prior that an international coalition to confront Hezbollah is needed. Following the KSA’s interception of a missile fired from Yemen, Mr. Sabhan described Hezbollah’s role in assembling the missile and stated, “We will treat the government of Lebanon as a government declaring a war because of Hezbollah militias.” This came as Saudi Foreign Minister, Adel al-Jubeir, labeled the same missile attack an “act of war” by Iran. Iran has supplied Hezbollah with as much as $200 million each year, so Hezbollah may find themselves at the center of a power struggle with few options to extract themselves.

Former U.S. Ambassador to Israel Daniel Shapiro immediately assessed that an Israeli-Hezbollah conflict was inevitable, arguing Israel has been prepping since 2006. Israeli Defense Minister Avigdor Lieberman contributed to this prospect on Saturday saying, “In Practice Lebanon has been occupied by Hezbollah and the Iranians,” and “This axis is operating inside Lebanon, inside Syria and is extending its patronage into the Gaza Strip.” The U.S. and KSA have lead the fight to coordinate international opinion against Hezbollah and have operated in cohesion with their terrorist designations. Congress even introduced a bill to encourage Europe to see Hezbollah as one movement and not to differentiate between the political and military wings of Hezbollah.

Lebanon’s political future and security may unfortunately be dictated by the interests and strategic moves of foreign powers. The U.S. and Russia have coordinated with Hezbollah at different times to combat Daesh in Syria, and Iran has backed them nearly since their 1979 revolution. Russian and Iranian security interests aligned in Syria and have blossomed into a much deeper relationship, whereas President Trump most recently proved his support for the Saudi Crown Prince’s consolidation of power, tweeting, “I have great confidence in King Salman and Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing… Some of those they are harshly treating have been “milking” their country for years!”

In an effort to alienate the militaristic efforts of Hezbollah and Hamas from the greater Arab community and contain Iranian influence, the KSA is moving quickly to build alliances and present a new image as moderate or progressive (like granting women the freedom to drive). The detention of the Saudi “untouchable” Princes may assist in legitimizing the Monarchy’s governing mandate, but the timing of these moves encourages speculation of a Saudi-U.S. plot for the region. Riyadh, by some accounts, is committing war crimes in Yemen, and has not effectively shown off its military competency. What was supposed to be a quick victory is now a disaster with a record-breaking cholera epidemic, the worst famine in decades, and no clear path out.

During the Israeli-Hezbollah war of 2006, many Arab Gulf States were rattled by public support for Hezbollah which, by default, shed warmer light on Iran. In March 2016, all six GCC States designated Hezbollah a terrorist organization, but their unanimity is still a hard sell to their citizens.

Sectarian identity fluctuates with time and by situation, which makes for insecure politics. Sectarian identity is not only driven through polemics, but institutionalized via access to public sector jobs, opportunity in the armed forces, and cemented by wealth distribution. Generalizing Arab Gulf state economies may, by nature, predispose some flavor of Orientalism, but the rentier economic model has granted the government the necessary incentives to impose sectarian identity on its people by correlating profits and stability with the Monarchy.

However, questions of legitimacy arise quickly when funds run dry and as Saudi economic woes become more urgent, social unrest could threaten the Monarchy. Much has been written on the Saudi-Iranian struggle for regional supremacy and their shadow looms heavily over Yemen, Iraq, Syria, Bahrain, Qatar, and now Lebanon. The dense collection of alliances and informal dealings with States and non-state actors encourages rumors and conspiracy theories to bounce around the Arab Streets, and the presence of foreign powers (like the U.S. and Russia) inspires speculation about their end game and further obscures the truth.

If we accept that a new Middle Eastern Cold War has settled in, as argued by F. Gregory Gauss III of Brookings, between the KSA & Iran, then have the rapprochement efforts by the KSA with former foes inspired any allegiance following last week’s barrage of developments?

Rapprochement Coverage & A New Order

Since November 2013, reports have surfaced over Saudi-Israeli rapprochement and speculation has accelerated since the summer of 2016 due to fears of the U.S. abandoning the MENA region. Saudi officials went so far as to state, “Israel is not an enemy” that summer to a scholar at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy; a drastic divergence from the 2007 condemnation of Israeli excavations near al-Aqsa mosque in Jerusalem as “a provocation to Muslims around the world.”

Private rapprochement efforts along military and business interests are widely documented, but public statements frequently contradict such evidence. On October 21, the Forward reported in an interview with Saudi Prince Turki al-Faisal, a former ambassador to Washington and onetime head of the KSA’s intelligence agency, that such rapprochement with Israel was an illusion of Prime Minister Netanyahu; yet, “two hours after the interview,” Prince Turki, the former Head of Mossad, and a Pentagon official sat on the same stage for a security seminar. Due to the political consequences, official confirmation of such rapprochement is highly unlikely for now.

A leaked cable by Israel’s Channel 10 on November 6, shows that the Israeli MFA ordered its embassies to support the Saudi & Hariri line about the destabilizing effect Hezbollah has had on the Lebanese government. Publicly, Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu has tweeted, “The resignation of Lebanon’s Prime Minister Hariri and his remarks are a wake-up call to the international community to take action against the Iranian aggression, which is turning Syria into a second Lebanon.”

This leak will likely play as a smoking gun, implicating Israel and the KSA in an effort to upend the regional structure and severely damage Riyadh’s legitimacy amongst Arabs skeptical of Israel. This revelation may make Riyadh’s relationship with Cairo that much more significant because the KSA is in desperate need to save face in the Arab Streets. Riyadh invested heavily in Egypt following the removal of the Egyptian Brotherhood in 2013 with not only economic funds, but political capital; Riyadh’s relationship with Cairo is complicated but as Egypt makes up a quarter of all Arabs, they remain a key source of legitimacy.

The Saudi-Iraqi rapprochement effort has made great strides over the past month including: the first flights between Riyadh and Baghdad in 27 years, a newly appointed Saudi Ambassador to Iraq, and the establishment of a Coordination Council in the presence of U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson. Riyadh’s diplomatic blitz also comes as Russia is championed the de facto winner in Syria, and classic U.S. allies are seeking assurances that their Iranian-foe will not topple the regional status quo.

Iraq has not shown any public allegiance to Riyadh since last week’s developments and has avoided comment on the subject. This is fairly easy to do because their security situation can still consume local headlines and Baghdad has been clear about balancing its relationship with the U.S., Russia, the KSA, and Iran. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi just two weeks ago returned from a trip to Riyadh, Cairo, Amman, Ankara, and Tehran without declaring any allegiance to one over the other. This flood of developments comes amidst the steady drip of information hinting at possible negotiations between the Israelis and Palestinians, facilitated by Cairo whose most ardent backer is Riyadh.

Cairo’s Role in Riyadh’s Scheme

Cairo’s relationship with Riyadh is complicated as Sisi seeks to reform his relationship with the Palestinians, by pushing Qatar out of Gaza, but does not view Hezbollah as a serious threat. The summer of 2017 was characterized by the cutting of diplomatic relations and a financial boycott of Qatar by the KSA, the UAE, Bahrain, and Egypt that has upset GCC coherence. A unique condition that was not explicitly stated in the 13 demands circulated by the Saudi-led bloc was for Qatar to quit funding Hamas.

Qatar hosts the previous leader of Hamas, Khaled Meshaal, who has ties to the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood; the current Egyptian government rose following a coup perpetrated by the military against the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013. Sheikh Hamad bin Khalifa al-Thani of Qatar was the first world leader to visit Gaza under Hamas control in 2012 (bringing $400 million in aid) and Qatar is the only Gulf state to maintain close ties with Hamas. For its part, Hamas has felt that many Middle Eastern governments have used the Palestinian cause for their own ends, which makes their relationship with Qatar that much more significant.

In early October, representatives of Hamas and Fatah signed a reconciliation agreement which would grant the Palestinian Authority (PA) greater control over Hamas controlled territories in the Gaza Strip (like the Rafah border crossing with Egypt). Two weeks prior, Hamas called for the PA to replace it as the governing body in Gaza, which would in effect remove restrictions on Gazans access to electricity. While Israeli analysts caution against the longevity of this agreement, the PA assumed control over the Rafah border crossing on November 1.

On October 29, Al-Monitor quoted an Egyptian diplomat on the contents of a Cairo initiative for multilateral negotiations towards an Arab-Israeli peace accord. The main tenants of this initiative include:

1. The Arab League will recertify its adherence and support for a two-state solution based on the 2002 Arab Peace Initiative; launched by then Crown Prince Abdullah of KSA and representing a collective Arab interest in recognizing Israel.
2. The U.S. will initiate a conference seeking to determine a path-way to a two-state solution and establishing mechanisms to combat terrorism; Washington and Tel Aviv maintain Hamas must disarm as a precondition to negotiations.
3. The PLO will represent Palestinian interests and Cairo will host the initiative.

Netanyahu stated he was willing to discuss the Arab Peace initiative in May 2016, but even the alignment of all Arab States does not preclude sabotage from non-state actors. Acts of terrorism by individuals or movements force comment from Arab leaders, and their allegiance to their ethnicity can be called into question (often a great source of their legitimacy and power).

Egyptian President Abdel Fattah al-Sisi has urged caution and for the de-escalation of tensions between Riyadh and Tehran, while also affirming his support for Riyadh stating, “We support our (Saudi) brothers.” Riyadh’s backing of Cairo presents an opportunity to elevate Cairo’s status as a leader of Arabs, and as the lead negotiator of peace and stability for the region. Yet, Sisi’s caution is warranted because Egypt has struggled to control the Sinai Peninsula with terrorist attacks occurring frequently, and they do not need to incur the wrath of Tehran. Cairo is avoiding greater sanctions on Hezbollah, amidst Saudi urging, which reduces the odds they would take part in any sort of military confrontation.

Riyadh Might Fight Iran Without the Arabs

The most dependable alliance the Saudi’s have cultivated is with Israel and the drastic developments of the past week should be considered an experiment, testing the regional structure and allegiances. Baghdad seeks stability and wants nothing to do with any future conflict. Cairo see’s room for growth with Saudi backing but is not ready to sign up for armed conflict because Iran is not an immediate threat. Israel see’s Iran and Hezbollah as an immediate threat and is ready to adjust the regional structure before stability settles in.

This is the state of affairs, and Riyadh must decide if they are willing to go forward with Tel Aviv as their staunchest ally in the region. Such a move would likely all but eliminate Riyadh’s hopes of becoming the leader of the Arabs, but might ensure the survival of the Monarchy with allies like the U.S. and Israel.

The post The Middle East’s Cold War Is Not Going Well for the Saudi’s appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

There is a broad-based consensus that security in Somalia has been deteriorating at an alarming rate. In the past few weeks, hundreds of people have been killed by truck bombs at two prominent locations in Mogadishu. The lethal potency of the explosives and the scale of death and devastation resulting from the Oct 14th one was far beyond what Mogadishu has witnessed in over quarter of a century of violence.

These successive deadly terrorist operations combined with allegations that attackers have used intelligence services ID cards have turned the spotlight on Somalia’s National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA). Serious questions regarding the agency’s leadership, competence and the scope of its authority are being raised.

But how does one reveal unpleasant realities and tell a traumatized nation what appeared like a ‘light at the end of the tunnel’ was in fact a runaway train coming at them? How does one do that without shoving them into state of self-defeating despair? These indeed are the dicey challenges, but truth must be told.

Somalia is in an existential race against time. Much like all other critical issues facing the nation, the Somali government does not control its intelligence or security. Worse, the government does not have the political will to address the real causes and effects.

The Ownership Dilemma

Somalia is the center of gravity of international predatory capitalism. Not only because of its untapped natural resources since many countries would qualify, but because Somalia is the gold standard of these three systematically destructive elements: corruption, ineptitude and disloyalty to the nation. How many nations do you know that host dozens of security and intelligence forces with various (domestic and foreign) commands and control? Here are some examples:

There is the revolving door syndrome of failed security leadership that recycles the same has-beens. Every year or so when a new commander is appointed and another is sacked. The former brings in his own clan comrades and cronies and the latter takes with him the manpower that he brought in.

There are former al-Shabab leaders with long ugly record who, despite never seeking the forgiveness of their victims, been co-opted by the government, and, yes, been giving highly sensitive positions at NISA and other branches of government.

There is the cottage industry of intelligence serves ID cards. These IDs are readily available for anyone willing to pay the going rate. Apparently it is the agency’s failure when individuals in charge of issuing these IDs make little over $200 for monthly salary and the going price for a false ID is twice their monthly salary. While civilians try to possess these IDs for various reasons, the most common is the need to get through roadblocks and checkpoints since there is no logging system to verify authenticity of employment.

There are multiple security and intelligence agencies that emerged within the five clan-based federal states that may share a name with NISA but functionally have nothing to do with that ‘national agency.’ Most of them take their substantive orders from one neighboring state or another.

There are the corrupt leaders in the political upper echelon that readily put Somalia’s national interest behind anyone with a bag full of cash or has the capacity to aid them in attaining or keeping a position.

There are many in the circles of influence, including ministers and parliament members, who own their own private security companies and directly benefit from increased insecurity.

There is the underground business cartel that considers the status quo a heavenly blessing.

There is the Blackwater project to advance what might be called ‘world peace according to Erik Prince’ while UAE and DPW provide the diplomatic and commercial façades.

There is UK –guised as UNSOM—to guard the Soma Oil and Gas interest by any means necessary. It is mandated face that governs the Halane compound where a mishmash of the good, bad and ugly and their mercenaries are hosted. In their possession is the carrot and stick that boost or undermine security, at will.

There is the US. In addition to AFRICOM drone operations, the US runs routine covert operations in cooperation with a Somali counter-terrorism unit that is trained, paid, and commanded by the US. Though this was a thinly veiled secret, it entered into the public discourse on US’ controversial activities in Somalia since the recent killing of a Green Beret, and its role in Africa when four other Green Berets were killed in Niger a few months later.

This needless to say raised both media and congressional interests in the US clandestine operations in Africa. For years, AFRICOM has been effectively managing perception by offering ocean-cruise version of embedded journalism.

Against that backdrop it is extremely difficult to pinpoint who, or which combination, has triggered the latest wave of terroristic atrocities.

Knee-jerking Into the Oblivion

As usual, the government immediately reiterated its counter-terrorism motto: al-Shabab and ISIS have committed this atrocity. They are out to eradicate the Somali people, therefore, we should all join hands to fight them in their bloody swamps. We should wage an all-out war in many fronts and many regions and “I will be the first in the line”, said President Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmajo).

Never mind the fact that the terrorists—be they al-Shabab or one of the other clandestine candidates—are executing their deadly operations behind the roadblocks and barricades across Mogadishu. And never mind that the mightiest nation on the face of the earth could not defeat terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan in a conventional warfare involving hundreds of thousands of its best soldiers. President Farmajo declared a war and went off to solicit more military support from Ethiopia, Uganda, Kenya and Djibouti to ‘defeat al-Shabab, once and for all.’

So How Does One Get Out Of This Mess?

In order to stabilize Somalia all pieces of the insecurity puzzle must be accounted for. In addition to al-Shabab’s suicidal vision, the ever-worsening security condition is driven by the interplay of the aforementioned domestic and foreign elements.

Somalia continues being a lucrative project of international appeal, a regional cash cow, and geopolitical pretext for exploitation and military expansion. Except the government which, in theory, is the guardian of the Somali national interest, all others are entrenched in advancing their zero-sum strategies and interests. Out of that condition emerged a deadly system of ‘a favor for a favor’ that keeps insecurity ever-present, but manageable.

The Somali people need and deserve more than a cosmetic accountability fix that is intended to cover the wrinkles of incompetence and corruption.

Somalia needs competent leadership that puts its national interest in its appropriate place; leadership that is mindful of the fact that security does not exist in vacuum; leadership with strategic vision who are mindful that genuine national reconciliation is essential to harmonizing hearts and minds; leadership with the political will to demand immediate overhaul of the current dysfunctional security system; leadership willing to demand streamlining the command & control of the intelligence sector; leadership that demands a front-door entry into Somalia and thoroughly vets to select the right strategic partnerships.

Unless and until these fundamental issues are addressed, neither Somalia nor its (official and unofficial) guests could be safe. Security would be nothing more than an extended respite between one terrorist attack and another.

The post Straight Talk On Somalia Insecurity appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

New United States Ambassador to Vietnam Daniel Kritenbrink arriving at Noi Bai International Airport in Ha Noi on November 4, 2017. Photo: Tuoi Tre Here in Da Nang, economic leaders from around the Asia-Pacific region are gathering for this week’s Asia-Pacific Economic Cooperation (APEC) Economic Leaders’ summit hosted by the Vietnamese.  Established in 1989, APEC is a regional economic forum comprising 21 member states, including Australia, China, Japan, South Korea, Thailand, the United States, and Vietnam.

 

Just ahead of the summit, Daniel Kritenbrink, a Nebraska native, was confirmed by the U.S. Senate on October 26 as the next U.S. ambassador to Vietnam.  Kritenbrink arrived in Hanoi on Saturday and will present a credential letter to Vietnamese State President Tran Dai Quang on Monday morning.  His first mission is to accompany U.S. President Donald Trump during his trip to the APEC summit.

Kritenbrink, 50, has been a State Department Foreign Service Officer since 1994, recently serving as Senior Director for Asian Affairs under former President Barack Obama’s National Security Council.  Prior to that assignment, he was Deputy Chief of Mission in Beijing, and also served at the U.S. embassies in Japan and Kuwait.  Kritenbrink studied political science at the University of Nebraska at Kearney and received a master’s degree from the University of Virginia.  Kritenbrink replaces outgoing U.S. Ambassador Ted Osius, who under Obama was responsible for warmer relations with the Vietnamese and participated in the lifting of a lethal weapons arms embargo by the U.S.

While it is still early days for foreign policy under the new U.S. administration, recent testimony of Kritenbrink at the Senate Foreign Relations Committee confirmation hearings on September 27 may provide some hints of future U.S. foreign policy in Vietnam, which appears to be similar to that of the previous administration:

“Our goal remains to advance American interests across the board and support the development of a strong, prosperous, and independent Vietnam that contributes to international security, engages in mutually beneficial trade, and respects human rights and the rule of law.”

Regional security

At his testimony, Kritenbrink first pledge was to “strengthen Vietnam’s maritime security capabilities” in the disputed South China Sea, calling the region “vital to our respective security and commercial interests as Asia-Pacific nations.”  To this end, he also encouraged Vietnam to continue its active role within ASEAN.

Trade and investment

Despite the U.S. pulling out of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) trade deal, Kritenbrink stressed the importance of trade and investment with Vietnam, noting Vietnam was America’s fastest growing export market.  He called for Vietnam to improve labor and environmental standards, transparency for state-owned enterprises, and intellectual property protection, leaving the door open for negotiation on a new U.S. bilateral trade agreement with Vietnam.  

Human rights

While regional security and trade and investment may be higher priorities, Kritenbrink did not shy away from listing human rights as “a top priority for the United States.”  While noting “some progress” on human rights and religious freedom, Kritenbrink called the trend over the past 18 months of increased arrests, convictions, and harsh sentences of activists as “deeply troubling” and called further progress on human rights critical for Vietnam to reach its fullest potential.

People-to-people ties

The new ambassador also noted that Vietnam is in the top six source countries for foreign students studying in the U.S. and Vietnamese students contributed some $700 million to the U.S. economy in 2015.  He also highlighted the new Peace Corps program and Fulbright University Vietnam (FUV) – to which the outgoing U.S. ambassador to Vietnam, Ted Osius, was recently appointed as vice president.

Humanitarian and war legacy issues

Lastly, Kritenbrink called for the full accounting of U.S. military personnel missing in action from the Vietnam War “our solemn obligation”, while noting the U.S. has contributed $103 million to deal with unexploded ordnance and $115 million toward the remediation of dioxin contamination in Da Nang.

While Kritenbrink may have had limited exposure to Vietnam as a diplomat (three official trips and the overseeing of the negotiation of two bilateral Joint Statements with Vietnam in 2015 and 2016), his time as deputy chief of mission in China will bring much-needed perspective to his new role in Vietnam.

As Kritenbrink duly noted in his testimony, young Vietnamese hold overwhelmingly positive views of the United States, and with a booming economy (growing between 6-7 percent), Vietnam and the U.S. could become strong partners in the region.  Of course, many Vietnamese will be closely watching the speech (and any tweets) from U.S. President Donald Trump on his vision for a “free and open Indo-Pacific region” during his visit this week to Da Nang.  His comments could signal further interest in Vietnam and the region’s affairs –  something some foreign policy analysts (and Vietnamese) fear is dwindling over U.S. domestic challenges and growing Chinese influence in Southeast Asia.  

The post Daniel Kritenbrink Appointed New U.S. Ambassador to Vietnam appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Picture of suicide bomber Ayat Al Akhras in front of UNRWA school (Photo Credit: Kay Wilson)

A new comprehensive study by the Center for Near East Policy Research & the Israel Resource News Agency, commissioned by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, highlights new Palestinian Authority school books used in UNRWA schools, which shows unprecedented incitement to terror. How should the 68 UNRWA donors react?‘

Most recently, the Center for Near East Policy Research and the Israel Resource News Agency published a comprehensive study, commissioned by the Simon Wiesenthal Center, which underwrote some of the costs associated with the study. The study provides numerous examples of how new Palestinian Authority textbooks that are used in UNRWA schools incite terrorism against Jews and the State of Israel. What differentiates this study from all previous studies of PA school textbooks since the PA began introducing their own schoolbooks in 2000 is that this was the first time that all PA school books were examined.

This study argues that despite statements made to the contrary by the US State Department, incitement to terrorism remains a pivotal part of the Palestinian school curriculum. For example, Arabic Language, Grade 5, Part 1 (2017) p. 14 and Social Studies, Grade 9, Part 1 (2017) p. 74 describe Palestinian female terrorist Dalal Mughrabi, who murdered 38 Israeli civilians in the Coastal Road Massacre, as a “martyr of Islamic and Arab history” who “commanded the Fidai ‘Deir Yassin’ operation on the Palestinian coast in 1978 in which over thirty soldiers were killed.”

A terror attack targeting the Jewish community of Psagot is described by Arabic Language, Grade 9, Part 1 (2017) p. 61 as a “barbecue party [haflat shiwa’] there with Molotov cocktails on one of the buses of the Psagot colony [musta’marah – Jewish settlement].” Arabic Language, Grade 7, Part 1 (2017) p. 66 describes the State of Israel as the “devils aides.” And Our Beautiful Language, Grade 3, Part 2 (2016) p. 64 includes the following poem: “And I shall remove the usurper [ghaseb – code name for Israel] from my country and shall exterminate [ubid] the foreigners’ scattered remnants [fulul al-ghuraba’]. O land of Al-Aqsa [Mosque] and the sacred place [haram], O cradle of pride and nobility. Patience, patience, for victory is ours!”

Throughout the 2016-2017 textbooks, the name Israel was replaced by the phrase the “Zionist occupation” and the Arab-Israeli conflict was referred to as “the Zionist-Arab conflict.” The maps in the Palestinian textbooks don’t show Israel on the map. Even major Israeli cities like Tel Aviv do not appear on the maps in the Palestinian textbooks for they were built by Jews. However, there are calls for the descendants of the Palestinian refugees to return to their former homes via armed struggle. As Our Beautiful Language, Grade 5, Part 1 (2015) p. 50 declares, “We are returning/ Returning to the homes, to the valleys, to the mountains/ Under the flag of glory, Jihad and struggle/ With blood, sacrifice, fraternity and loyalty/ We are returning.” Even the math textbooks included questions that prompts students to support the “Palestinian shahids.” The question remains whether funding to UNRWA should be made conditional upon reforms in the UNRWA educational system?

Chris Gunness, spokesman for UNRWA, issued a statement that UNRWA is mandated to teach the national curriculum of the host country’s government, which in this case refers to the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank and Hamas in Gaza and asserted: “We have reviewed them rigorously in line with our curriculum framework, which aims to ensure that our curriculum is in line with UN values. In the small number of instances where issues of concern were found, we have created enriched complementary materials for use in our classrooms and we will be rolling out training on this to our teachers in the coming months. UNRWA’s condemnation of all forms of racism is a matter of public record.”

A spokesman for the Swiss Embassy concurred: “UNRWA’s condemnation of all forms of racism and its efforts to prevent them are well documented. As evidenced by Switzerland’s regular dialogue with UNRWA, the Agency investigates founded issues with due diligence. In this regard, UNWA has one of the strictest control mechanisms in the UN system. Switzerland has no evidence of institutionalized hate speech or institutionalized anti-Semitism on the part of UNRWA.”

Dr. Arnon Groiss, the study’s author, disagreed, stressing that documentation provided by the Center for Near East Policy Research shows how some UNRWA staff members have openly supported terrorism against Israel as well as anti-Semitic hate speech online and some UNRWA teachers have even moonlighted as terrorists. For example, UNRWA’s workers union posted a poster featuring the map of “Palestine” (Israel is wiped off the map) accompanied with the following caption: “Oh UNRWA, we have a cause and our fight, jihad, resistance and struggle against those who usurped our land do not need neutrality.” The UNRWA’s workers union has been controlled by Hamas for many years. Some former UNRWA employees, such as Suheil Al-Hindi, were actively part of Hamas while working for UNRWA for years. It took a very long time for UNRWA to get rid of Hindi.

Om Alaa, who identifies herself as an UNRWA teacher on her Facebook profile, published on social media a picture of Adolf Hitler and his “top” ten quotes. Eman Shammala, who identifies herself as an UNRWA teacher on her Facebook profile, published a photo on Facebook of a keffiyeh-clad Palestinian playing a knife like a violin, using a Palestinian “key of return” as a bow. At the Al Fakhoura Middle School (UNRWA), the Islamic Bloc organized an event honoring 13 years since the martyrdom of senior level Hamas terrorist Sheikh Yassin. A sign featuring Sheikh Yassin and the Hamas flag waved outside of the school.

There are many more examples that highlight how UNRWA has been exploited by Hamas, Islamic Jihad and Fatah terrorists. However, there are still those in the international community who refuse to call a space what it is. Therefore, Sander Gerber, a fellow at the Jerusalem Center for Public Affairs, added: “The PA indoctrination of its population is well known but its pervasiveness and impact hasn’t been fully appreciated. The Center for Near East Policy Research study identifies UNRWA education as one epicenter for this institutionalized hatred, which blocks any hope for peace.”

Rabbi Elie Abadie of the Sephardic Academy in New York emphasized: “I think the US and also the UN need to review that entire budget to UNRWA and to make it conditional on them maintaining their neutrality, removing any inciteful material and removing any employee that is connected to terror organizations. Many of the UNRWA employees are sympathizers of terror organizations. Some of those schools are used to store weapons, keytoushas and rockets. That entire charter of UNRWA has to be checked and revised. I think it should have been done long ago.”

Israel’s Deputy Foreign Minister Tzipi Hotovely concurred: “A fundamental examination and serious revision of UNRWA is required. It is crucial that the UNRWA curriculum be revised to educate for peace instead of continuing to incite a new generation towards hate and violence. We need to see a reform in UNRWA. There needs to be increased supervision and accountability of relief funds to ensure they are going to help needy people and not to support terror and the destruction of Israel.”

MK Dr. Anat Berko added: “The issue of UNRWA should be investigated. It definitely should not stay as it is today. Yes to humanitarian aid. No to ‘refugee forever’.”

Rep. Doug Lamborn (R-Colorado) took it a step further: “All funding for UNRWA should be cut until reform conditions are met. Textbooks that delegitimize Israel, denigrate the Jewish people, promote the “right of return” through violent struggle, and glorify martyrdom must be banned.”

According to Former Israeli Consul General to Miami, Former Israeli Consul General to Chicago and Former Deputy Mayor of Netanya Dr. Yitzchak Ben Gad, “I think UNRWA is a source of trouble. Its mandate was to help the Palestinians to stand on their own two feet and to be a constructive element in Palestinian society and to support themselves and their families. Instead, they are doing the opposite. They teach children to hate Jews and Israelis. They even quote the Quran that says that the most terrible enemy of the Muslims is the Jews. Enough is enough. Time for a change.”

Prominent Middle East expert Dr. Mordechai Kedar stressed: “UNRWA lost its raison d’etre years ago and all of the other issues are secondary.”

Jonathan Greenblatt, CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, declared: “Since the 1990s, the ADL has been a strong voice calling for peace education for all. We have long expressed outrage that textbooks in the Palestinian Authority have not prepared these students for peace, and instead have instilled deep hostility towards Israel and Jews and support for terrorism and armed conflict. Over the years, much attention has been paid to this issue, and the Palestinian Authority, UNWRA and others have pledged to remove anti-Semitism, the celebration of terrorism and incitement from these educational materials. To a degree, they have done so. We are therefore alarmed that new textbooks for Palestinian students appear to still venerate terrorists and promote martyrdom and do little to promote the idea of Israel as a reality and a partner for peace.”

Rabbi Donniel Hartman, head of the Shalom Hartman Institute, believes that assuming this study is accurate, there are deeper issues that the international community must grapple with: “In contemporary moral discourse, the powerless are always moral. The powerless aren’t challenged for their moral failures. Power equals immoral, colonialism, etc. We allow the powerless to maintain mediocre moral standards as if we are somehow being considerate when we are condemning their society to the mediocre. You are not doing the powerless any favor by providing excuses. Moral expectations are healthy for everyone. When you don’t treat someone as an adult, it is paternalist. It is not just UNRWA. It is a universal discourse.”

“In the Jewish tradition, we are taught we have sinned,” Hartman added. “You don’t pound someone else and say you are wrong. When you don’t do that, there is no societal improvement. Every society has to ask themselves what they have done wrong, not what someone else did as an excuse for my wrongdoings. Too often they excuse moral mediocrity. They don’t challenge those categorized as history’s victims. Today, you win when you are considered the victim. The issue is how we live together, not counting the chips of victimhood. Under the assumption that the textbooks are morally flawed, anybody who pushes for more improvement is helping. Whether the best way is sanctions or not is a separate issue. The Palestinians have to be held responsible for what they teach their children and until they do, any aspirations for peace and a better Middle East won’t come to fruition.”

The question remains, who is correct? All of the documentation provided by the Center for Near East Policy Research and the Israel Resource News Agency demonstrates that the claims made by the Swiss Embassy and UNRWA that incitement is not a major issue in UNRWA schools is not accurate.

It is clear to any objective observer that incitement remains a major problem in the UNRWA school system despite the introduction of new textbooks in the Palestinian Authority. How idealistically should the international community respond to this? Disbanding UNRWA is not an option as it can only be disbanded by the UN General Assembly.

Therefore, the only possible way to bring about change in UNRWA education is for donor states in the West to use their financial influence to insist that UNRWA’s curriculum rigorously excludes the promotion of hate and violence and whose materials reflect the reality of a neighboring Jewish state. In addition, the new UN Secretary General and all nations committed to peace in the Middle East must demand that UNRWA ends all incitement in their schools. Furthermore, all staff members—especially teachers—who are members of terror organizations and/or make a statement in support of terrorism and/or demonstrate hate speech should be fired.

The post Should funding to UNRWA be made conditional on ending incitement? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

I’ve missed you even if you did not know that you missed me.

From 2007 to 2014 I was at various times the: Blogger/Senior Blogger/Senior Editor for African Affairs here at FPA.

Well, I’m back! I’ll mostly be focusing on South Africa, because politics and society in South Africa in the next few months will have a vitally important influence on the continent. But my coverage, in keeping with my own work — both journalustic and scholarly — will be broad. I will write about politics, yes, but also sport and culture, history and ephemera. And I will also continue to look beyond South Africa’s borders to events and questions arising in other parts of Sub-Saharan Africa.

I am thrilled to be back. Thanks for reading!

The post The Prodigal Son Returns appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

This post is written by W.A. Schmidt, an op-ed contributor.

—

When it comes to the Trump presidency, sympathetic observers outside the United States are preoccupied with the same question that the majority of their American counterparts must be pondering: How much longer will this president inflict damage upon his country, its political culture, its international relations and its global reputation without paying more of a penalty than a mere shrug among most of his supporters?

For the sake of illustrating the extent of incredulity among foreigners, let us imagine for a moment the shock and dismay that would emerge if the leaders of some of America’s closest allies were to have uttered what has flowed so carelessly out of Trump’s mouth.

What if the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Theresa May, had mocked a reporter for his disability, demonstrated her complete ignorance of the country’s nuclear deterrent during a debate, braggingly disclosed an intelligence source to Russia, praised President Putin for expelling British diplomats and suggested that the U.S. president appoint a far-right bigot as American ambassador to the UK?

What if Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, had bragged about his sexual prowess, about grabbing women with impunity and about his voters’ forgiveness even if he shot someone in the middle of Paris, had encouraged police brutality against arrested suspects, become obsessed with and incessantly lied about the crowd size at his inauguration and claimed he received praise in meetings that never occurred?

What if Chancellor Angela Merkel of Germany had incited violence against protesters at her rallies, attacked mainstream media as “fake news,” called journalists “sick people,” retweeted pictures of physical violence against a major news network and encouraged Russia to hack and leak the e-mails of her political opponent?

What if the Prime Minister of Italy, Paolo Gentiloni, were openly stoking and abetting racism, had called illegal immigrants “rapists,” compared them to “vomit,” refused to distance himself unequivocally from the violence perpetrated by domestic neo-Nazis, called some participants in their rallies “very fine people“ and waxed aesthetic about fascist statues?

And what if Prime Minister Justin Trudeau had called Canada’s election system “rigged” when he was not sure he would win, falsely accused his predecessor of wiretapping him, questioned the legitimacy of members of the judiciary as “so-called judges,” called for the prosecution of his political opponent after the election, engaged in pitiless personal vendettas via Twitter and repeatedly expressed his infatuation with human-rights abusing authoritarian rulers?

These examples are but a fraction of the unrelenting dose of equally un-presidential missives and falsehoods that continue to stream forth from President Trump.

In more decent times – i.e. before Trump’s dreadful feat of coarsening public life by mainstreaming vulgarity and normalizing mendacity – voters would have recoiled. They would have treated such utterances as either the work of a humor-challenged satirist or the product of a fake news outlet. Alternatively, they would have considered the source incompetent, immoral or out of touch with reality and certainly unfit for public office. And yet, this man was elected and has remained, so far, in power.

Meanwhile, we must rely on the efficacy of the countervailing powers to contain the damage. Thankfully, some of the checks and balances within government have been triggered. Resistance in society-at-large is strong and mounting. His record low approval ratings are a further sign that common sense is still alive and that the majority of Americans is not being fooled.

Hope rests also in the fact that, so far, none of the policies he intends to pursue command majority support at home. Interestingly, some of his highest domestic disapproval ratings relate precisely to those issues that are of greatest concern abroad, namely foreign policy and the environment.

Trump claimed speaking not just for America but for the West at large when he read out the disingenuous prose of his scripted remarks in Warsaw, Poland: “I declare today for the world to hear that the West will never, ever be broken. Our values will prevail.” This begs the question: What in his unscripted and hence unfiltered outbursts could possibly be representative of the values of the West?

In any case, his actions speak louder than the fake solemnity of his teleprompter speeches. Nowhere is this more apparent than in his willful destruction of American diplomacy. If Trump took the defense of the West and the United States seriously he would strengthen not eviscerate the Department of State. Nor would he mistreat friends and allies while expressing his admiration for the methods of authoritarian strongmen.

Trump’s address to the UN General Assembly was yet another missed opportunity to demonstrate statesmanship. For the most part, it was jarringly incoherent and parochial. Its many retrograde aspects pleased the adversarial powers he spared most. They see in him a fellow traveler, if not an ally, in their quest to undermine the fundamental values that undergird the United Nations, particularly in the field of human rights and international humanitarian law.

Since the UN’s founding, each consecutive U.S. administrations has endorsed the universality of these values and at times promoted and protected them – until now when even the pretense is gone. His tirade left America’s closest friends understandably aghast. Many of them rebuked him diplomatically in the speeches that followed. Some, like Sweden’s foreign minister, expressed their disagreement with more frankness.

Trump’s supporters would be well-advised to go beyond the soundbites of his speech and its fawning coverage by the news sources they typically consume. Instead they ought to read it in its entirety and then compare it with a speech that would have made Americans proud had it been given by their own president. It was Emmanuel Macron, the President of France, who took on the task of filling the void left by a politically and morally abdicating America. His engaging and inspiring address at the UN aimed at mobilizing humankind’s best intentions and abilities to cope with the world’s problems.

In contrast, Trump’s inclination lies in appealing to people’s lowest instincts and in debasing, not upholding, civilized norms and values. He is neither suited for nor interested in leading by example. As a result, the U.S. has morphed into an outlier among the community of democracies in both style and substance. This voluntary retreat from global leadership is a godsend to America’s enemies and to autocrats the world over. It should make every patriotic American shudder.

It is not surprising that when a prominent BBC journalist returned to the U.S. after spending a few weeks in Europe this past summer, she felt that she had returned to a country “diminished and dismissed.” Her impression was that in Europe “general publics increasingly see the US as a non-entity. It’s not even seen as a joke, people are saddened by America’s diminished global status.”

This becomes painfully obvious in personal exchanges with citizens from other democratic countries. Condemnation of Trump the person and most of his policies is near universal across the political spectrum, except for the extreme right. Case in point was Trump’s complete isolation due to his decision to pull out of the Paris climate agreement. His ignorance of the world inures him from grasping the damage he causes to the standing of his own country, let alone the health of the planet. His pointless posturing may well feed his ego, special interests and the most ill-informed members of his base. Yet for those who care about the U.S., it was just another sad instance of America’s unprecedented alienation from the rest of the world.

Americans better engage in some somber soul-searching as to why such a great nation took such a potentially fateful turn. This task applies predominantly to those Trump voters who do not generally share his or his far-right supporters’ extremist views. They would be well-advised to heed the warnings by fellow Republicans such as former President George W. Bush, former presidential candiates McCain and Romney as well as Senators Corker, Flake and Sasse. How much longer can sensible supporters possibly remain complacent or complicit?

As for the self-proclaimed “super-patriots” among his base, when will they realize that their unconditional support will discourage him from changing course; that giving him a free pass will only deepen domestic and international divisions; that it will wreck America’s image further; and that this may ultimately put the nation at risk – whether from outside or even from within?

And, on a more personal level: that maintaining their allegiance to such a toxic leader in spite of the harm he causes speaks volumes about their gullibility? Or worse, that it exposes the shallowness of their professed “love of country”?

—

W.A. Schmidt is an international affairs consultant and a member of the board of the Foreign Policy Association. He is an op-ed contributor, and his views do not necessarily reflect the views of the Foreign Policy Association or of the Foreign Policy blogs network.

 

The post Trump and the West: The Alienation Continues. Will His Supporters Ever Care? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Current negotiations between Canada, Mexico and the United States to revise and modernize the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) have been characterized by notable disagreements and heavy demands across parties, as well as threats from US President Donald Trump to exit the current agreement altogether. However, the energy sector – and North American energy independence specifically – is a potential area of cooperation that might save NAFTA in the long-term.

The original 1993 agreement excluded rules and regulations for the energy sector largely because Mexico still had a nationalized energy industry. However, current President Enrique Peña Nieto enacted sweeping reforms in 2014 that opened up the industry to private and foreign investment. The renegotiation of NAFTA therefore presents an opportune time to harmonize the three countries’ large and diversified energy industries. Theoretically, this would create an entire region of energy independence and affordable and reliable access to fuel.

Cross-border energy commerce already strong

Canada, Mexico and the United States possess more than enough natural energy reserves to achieve full energy independence if a free trade agreement induces affordable prices and accessibility. The US Energy Information Administration projected in its 2017 Annual Energy Outlook that the three NAFTA countries’ combined production of petroleum and other liquid fuel sources is on track to very soon surpass consumption. The US also now ranks as the world’s largest joint producer of oil and natural gas.

The North American energy industry also already boasts a significant level of trade in oil and refined products, gas, and electricity, even without a specific provision in NAFTA. According to the US Department of Energy, as of 2012-2013, the United States had $140 billion and $65 billion in trade of energy products with Canada and Mexico, respectively. Canada is the United States’ largest source of trade in energy products, and Mexico already purchases around 60-65 percent of US gasoline and natural gas exports. The approval of the Keystone XL Pipeline earlier this year, while highly controversial from an environmental standpoint, now enables 108,000 barrels daily of refined petroleum to flow from the US to Mexico. The US already manages 17 pipelines that carry over four billion cubic feet of natural gas a day to Mexico. These statistics indicate a fast-growing market for US energy products.

Furthermore, while NAFTA energy integration would be dominated by fossil fuels in the near future, North America’s diverse range of climates and topography make the region poised to become a major player in cleaner, renewable energies, particularly solar, wind and ethanol. Mexico has grown significantly under NAFTA to become a competitive, middle income country. This growth has translated into a rapid increase in demand for electricity; Forbes estimates that, in the next 25 years, Mexico’s power use will double.

Approximately two-thirds of Mexico’s energy growth will come from natural gas, but the remainder is expected to come from renewables. Accordingly, Mexico has rapidly expanded its capacity for wind energy, with a 400% increase expected from 2014 to 2018 and the US has witnessed a similar level of growth in wind energy capacity. This has already created major demand for turbine equipment from US companies such asGeneral Electric, with considerable space for additional growth.

Political commitment to North American energy independence

Encouragingly, all three NAFTA leaders have signaled that they view North American energy independence as a major priority, demonstrating a potential major area of consensus in the midst of otherwise tense negotiations. In 2016, Presidents Obama, Peña Nieto and Trudeau stated a joint goal to make renewable energies constitute 50 percentof North America’s electricity by 2025, up from 37 percent in 2015. This goal may be deprioritized under Donald Trump, but his administration is most certainly focused on energy independence in general. In a June speech at the US Department of Energy, Trump announced his desire for “US energy dominance.” Moreover, the US Trade Representative’s NAFTA renegotiation objectives, released July 17, emphasized support for North American energy independence, indicating buy in from the US in this arena.

Leading industry associations in all three countries have echoed these goals. Earlier this year, the American Petroleum Institute, Asociación Méxicana de Empresas de Hidrocarburos and the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers issued a joint proposal urging reforms that liberalize trade of energy goods and integration of North American energy supply chains. These commitments provide an opportunity to integrate a new export sector into NAFTA that could help eliminate the United States’ trade deficit with Mexico, a particular point of contention regularly raised by Trump. They also provide an opening to create a holistic set of common cross-border standards around energy production and usage for both traditional and renewable fuel sources.

Political risks to energy sector integration

The biggest political risk to achieving these energy integration goals will be Mexico’s leading candidate for the presidency in 2018, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador (AMLO), a leftist populist whose platform has been elevated, largely in response to harsh rhetoric from Donald Trump towards Mexico. AMLO has threatened to reverse the 2014 reformsthat opened up Mexico’s energy sector to more private investment.

Second, the investor-state dispute settlement mechanism (ISDS) will be critical to keeping the three countries’ energy policies and regulations in harmony, but the Trump administration has proposed scrapping this vehicle from NAFTA. For example, each country currently provides different levels of subsidies and standards for what exactly qualifies as renewable energy. These disparities could theoretically lead to conflicts between foreign companies and the state with regard to tax breaks and fair competition. Consequently, the ISDS provides a critical independent judicial body and risk management mechanism to protect their international investments.

Energy sector integration across North America is a lofty goal to achieve, especially amongst three heads of state with vastly different political philosophies and political headwinds in 2018, indicating potential for further polarization. However, current trends in cross-border commerce and domestic economic objectives make NAFTA renegotiations an appropriate forum to address the issue.

 

This article first ran on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Samuel Schofield. 

The post How the drive for North American energy independence could save NAFTA appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

One of the most iconic tools for bringing down the Soviet Union was the distribution of information from the West and the promotion of an anti-Soviet narrative that was forbidden behind the Iron Curtain. In societies where the control of information was a necessity to controlling the narrative and beliefs of a society, challenging the ruling elite and the Politburo created a distrust of the Soviet leadership and promoted dissident movements inside the Soviet Union. This tactic was so effective because information and the freedom to challenge the government were limited to those at the upper echelons of the Communist Party. In a one party state, opposition in any form and the treatment of different opinions as dissidence makes any challenger a soon to be martyr. In societies where a small group of people seeking justice and revolution are scripted into the national character, challenging the powerful control of elites dominating a corrupt system is something most citizens are receptive to in their daily lives. For this reason the organisation Radio Free Europe was created, broadcasting behind the Iron Curtain to promote Western ideas or freedom of speech and democracy inside of Eastern Europe at the time.

In all societies there is a natural inclination to have justice prevail so citizens with little power do not have to live under the repression of powerful elites and work fruitlessly for the sole needs of a few corrupt individuals. In most societies where the free press is protected, there is the ability to challenge whatever narrative and information is distributed publicly. The damage to a Communist society does not have the same weight as there is no coercion following the distribution of ideas in free societies. Blocking or repealing thoughts and ideas should not become acceptable because no thoughts or ideas can exist in such societies without the ability of being challenged in some fashion. Coercion to block freedom of speech is often illegal in those legal systems, and that is how modern democracies should function. When someone in a free society with complete freedom of speech is touched by a real event that is reported in a manner that people close to an incident know not to be true, it is not the same as listening to a challenged report behind the Iron Curtain. Focusing on their opinion and attempting to sully, damage or threaten an individual for voicing whatever opinion they hold is and should be considered a gross violation of their rights in free societies. This is the case because if an idea is dangerous and is not creating a direct physical threat, it means it is breaking the control of someone or a group of people, and that power structure likely should not exist in the first place to take justice away from people in a society who dare to voice their opinion. Even if information contains bias, the ability to challenge it should be paramount as blocking it creates the impression that there is a lack of justice in the process of banning that form of speech.

Many will then ask, how do you know if a news source is reliable? In reality you do not know how reliable a source may be as there is no oracle that can be relied upon to disseminate such information to an extremely reliable degree. It is best to measure the source of the information and whether or not their information is distributed to benefit those that run that organisation. Bias in reporting will exist, but if that bias is to help a cause the reader sees as just, it can be seen as reliable as much as it is agreed upon by various groups and interests. Another good measure is to be extremely skeptical of any source that focuses or divisive policies or targeting thoughts, ideas or individuals without contributing new information to a narrative. News that acts as an attack advert against other news agencies, groups or individuals mirrors Soviet era overreactions in the pre-Glasnost era. Any negative media against open ideas that go beyond debating the ideas and moves into attacking a person or their character is likely a disservice to an open society. These tools are usually used by political elites to win elections, and would be best described as propaganda as opposed to a story published by a journalist who works in a professional manner.

Journalism and its role in society is paramount. It is so crucial that stories are not banned, but challenged, as the truth often comes with justice. While laws are changed or lawyered into different meanings, justice and equity tend to be at the core of values in a free society no matter how much suppression is applied against free thinkers. Justice is so powerful that even a lack of truth did not save the Soviet Union from the effects of Radio Free Europe and other measures to remove that elite structure from existence. Half-truths and coercion against free speech almost always make for martyrs in societies, and when ideas are suppressed the natural imbalance and lack of justice becomes intolerable to individuals, and they react, they always react.

The post Lessons from the Cold War in Alternative Media appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As sectors of the domestic and world economy become more dependent on the internet and the cloud, their vulnerability to new forms of attack and disruption increases. Cybersecurity is not just a national defense issue, but must also become a cost of doing business.

It is clear that the shipping industry is susceptible to cyber-attacks. These attacks can be as harmful as the damage caused by storms. In many ways, they might be more harmful, because they can come out of nowhere.

Maersk and NotPetya

In June 2017, Maersk was subject to a cyber-attack centered in Ukraine. The malware, called NotPetya, is a variation on the ransomware called Petya, but NotPetya does not appear to be supported by a desire to get rich, just a willingness to cause mayhem.

Unlike Petya, which did act as ransomware, NotPetya scrambles the target computer’s file system — everything is lost. No possibility of paying in Bitcoin exists.

The NotPetya attack knocked out Maersk’s network for several days, and Maersk expects the total loss from the attack to be in the neighborhood of $200-$300 million. While operations resumed quickly, the attack led to the complete shutdown of Maersk’s operations worldwide.

Vulnerabilities

The industry relies on computers to function, and GPS equipment is connected to worldwide networks. Engines are run using computers.

The number of vulnerability points, both on-shore, and at-sea, is large and growing. If the construction of self-driving ships becomes a widespread reality, more vulnerabilities will appear.

Email systems are vulnerable to hacking. Cyberkeel, for example, discovered hacking activity in a shipping firm’s systems. A virus planted in the system monitored emails originating in or destined for the finance department. The virus changed the text of the message to change the bank account number to that of the hackers.

It cost the company several million dollars before they noticed.

Cyberkeel was founded three years ago and established to provide cyber security. One of their programs was to provide penetration testing of shipping firms’ systems. At first, they met with little success, because firms were complacent with their systems. Perhaps the greatest vulnerability is complacency.

Many shipping systems are not encrypted. The lack of encryption makes the shipping line and its vessels vulnerable to cyber attacks. Regardless of encryption, many ships’ crews are not trained in cyber security. One survey indicated that in 2015, 43% of crew members were aware of their company’s cyber security policies, while only 12% had received training.

Piracy

One shipping firm was hacked by pirates — sophisticated pirates.

Instead of seizing a vessel and holding the crew hostage pending ransom payment, these pirates gained access to sensitive information regarding ships, cargos, containers and contents. They boarded the vessel, opened the specific containers containing the valuables and left with the loot.

Unlike what happens in many hijackings, the pirates released the crew and never asked for a ransom.

The company eventually became suspicious, determined the pirates had hacked the computerized manifest, and they took steps to prevent further unauthorized access.

Propellers and Charts

Another vulnerability is in the systems which control a ship’s operation. One container ship in an Asian port was shut down when a switchboard which managed the power supply to the propeller, and other mechanical components were shut down by ransomware.

Electronic Chart Displays are rarely protected by anti-virus software. Charts are, of course, crucial to navigation, especially in restricted and coastal waters. The chart display of one tanker in Asia was infected by crew carelessness.

A crew member brought a USB flash drive on board to print paperwork. The flash drive was infected with the malware, which only activated when another crew member tried to update the charts before departure, also using USB. The problem was detected while still in port, and it was fixed. Had the problem occurred at sea, however, the situation could have become dangerous.

Taking Control

Independent cyber security firms and analysts are confident that hackers could cause catastrophic results. It is possible to take control of the systems from afar and cause a collision. They have performed tests on the systems and succeeded in penetrating them.

An attack could also change the coordinates displayed by GPS, although in coastal waters the crew would likely spot the difference and adjust for it. But at least one ship’s open satellite system had the username “admin”, which needed to use the password “1234” to access the system, which means that someone at the shipping company was careless.

It is likely hackers did not cause the recent collisions between USS Fitzgerald and John S. McCain and merchant vessels. The U.S. Navy aggressively encrypts its systems, which should deter hackers from invading their confidential information. Current indications are that crew and command errors led to the collisions. There’s no indication the merchant vessels were hacked, either, but both collisions are under investigation.

South Korea reported that 280 vessels had to return to port in April 2016 due to problems with their navigation and other systems. South Korea believes North Korea was responsible for these hacks.

In addition, jamming devices fitted to lighthouses have been tested and can affect GPS receivers up to 16 nautical miles. Some GPS devices died, while others provided false information. Jamming devices on ships can cause even more chaos.

Solutions

The industry has begun to recognize the risks it faces. Awareness that a problem exists is always the first step toward solving the problem.

Shipping lines — and the industry as a whole — should follow a set of guidelines for cyber security, and those guidelines should be strong and effective.

You must train your crews and alter their behavior. Make crews aware of the cyber risks and what they can and can’t do with the computer systems on board. While printed copies of bills of lading and other information remains important, ensuring computers and printers can’t be compromised by an infected flash drive should be a top priority.

The industry also needs to create standards to allow insurance companies to cover damage from cyber-attacks. You must identify the risk so insurance underwriters can evaluate what you identify.

Cyber security is as necessary as physical security. Companies expend significant resources ensuring their buildings remain safe. Companies should realize their electronic systems are just as vulnerable to attack, and extend the same level of resources ensuring the safety of their ships and crews — and business.

—

Cory Levins serves as the Director of Business Development for Air Sea Containers.  Cory oversees the development and implementation of ASC’s internal and external marketing program, driving revenue and profits from the Miami FL headquarters.

 

The post Could the Shipping Industry Be Susceptible to Cyber-Attacks? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A passerby helps an old man hit by a car, in Beijing September 9, 2014 (Photo/IC)

Joseph Nye of Harvard University first coined the term “soft power” in his 1990 book, Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power.  He explored further the notion of soft power in his 2004 book, Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics, arguing: “A country may obtain the outcomes it wants in world politics because other countries – admiring its values, emulating its example, aspiring to its level of prosperity and openness – want to follow it. In this sense, it is also important to set the agenda and attract others in world politics, and not only to force them to change by threatening military force or economic sanctions.  This soft power – getting others to want the outcomes that you want – co-opts people rather than coerces them.”

China rightly deserves any soft power emanating from its ability to pull millions out of poverty, and the example Beijing is setting in renewable energy and electric cars is laudable.  But there is still work to be done – one such area is the scarcity of good Samaritan behavior.

Good Samaritans, those who help people on the spur of the moment, are unfortunately a rare species in China.   The name comes from the parable of the Good Samaritan, as told by Jesus in the Bible of a traveler who is stripped of clothing, beaten, and left half dead alongside the road. A priest and then a Levite both pass and avoid the man, until a Samaritan stops to help.  Some European countries, such as France and Germany, have Good Samaritan laws which impose a duty on citizens to intervene with assistance for those in need.   

Yet in China there is little trust between strangers, with many citizens justly fearing being blackmailed by fraudsters, or sued in court for aggravating the injuries of victims.  Most Chinese are familiar with at least one legal case where those who tried to help were successfully sued by the victim for either causing injury or creating the incident.  In 2006, a Nanjing man was ordered to pay 40 percent of an elderly woman’s medical bill after she broke her leg – on the presumption he must have been guilty to have helped her.  Another man committed suicide after being found guilty of knocking down a senior citizen in south China’s Guangdong Province in 2014.  During my six years in Shanghai, I was often advised by Chinese friends to not interfere in “local matters” and once saw a man jump into the side of a car, an act I was told was an oft-employed effort to collect compensation from the driver, usually decided on the spot after any vehicle accident.

I left China in 2012 for a number of reasons, but my decision was sealed after watching a surveillance video on YouTube showing a two-year-old girl named Yueyue being consecutively run over by a van and a light-duty truck in Foshan a year earlier.  Some 18 passersby were taped walking past the girl without offering help.  The girl died later after days of medical treatment.  The driver later told the China Daily “If she is dead, I may pay only about 20,000 yuan ($3,180).  But if she is injured, it may cost me hundreds of thousands of yuan.”  In April 2017, a woman crossing the street in Henan province was hit by a taxi which didn’t stop and was run over again by a SUV, while pedestrians witnessing the incident kept walking.  

So it comes with some relief the recent announcement of China’s Good Samaritan law, which went into effect on October 1, China’s National Day, which provides protection to those who voluntarily offer emergency assistance to victims who are, or who they believe to be, injured, ill, in danger, or otherwise incapacitated, ensuring that they will not be held civilly liable in the event that they harm the person they are trying to save, according to China’s official Xinhua news agency.

While it is true that rescuers could cause more damage to those already injured, just walking by without doing anything was never the proper response.  There are usually enough witnesses around at anytime in China who could vouch for the innocence of those accused good Samaritans.  And professional rescue should be just a phone call away.  Here in Ho Chi Minh City, strangers will not hesitate to stop and rush to help those involved in the frequent accidents – which kill one person every hour in Vietnam.  With the new Good Samaritan law taking effect in China, we can hope the same attitude eventually prevails in China, and China can gain some soft power by leading from example.   

The post China’s Good Samaritans appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Shipan Kumar Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, emphasized that Sheikh Hasina’s government is rushing to help Rohingya Muslims but is systematically discriminating against Hindus, Buddhists and Christians in her country including the Rohingya Hindus who came to her country seeking shelter from ethnic cleansing.

In an exclusive interview, Shipan Kumar Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, stressed that Sheikh Hasina’s government is rushing to help the Rohingya Muslims who have come to her country even when it contradicts Bangladesh’s national security but is harming the Hindu minority within her own country: “The Sheikh Hasina government and her party leaders have shown so much kindness to them that they have even forgotten about their own security. There are reports that Rohingya fringe groups have started to loot and steal in the areas where they are given shelter.”

“The security of Bangladesh is at stake,” Basu proclaimed. “Yet, Sheikh Hasina does not care about that for she wants to show the international community that she is a great humanitarian. But on the contrary, the Hindu, Buddhist and Christian minorities within her country are being tortured every day. Millions of minorities have been forced to leave Bangladesh. Their exodus was prompted by her government’s policies. The Awami League has never supported the minorities within Bangladesh.”

According to Basu, the Sheikh Hasina government has always instigated violence against the Christian, Hindu and Buddhist minorities within Bangladesh: “They then pass the buck onto their adversaries like the BNP and Bangladesh Jamaat-e-Islami. In order to look clean themselves, they have thrown many leaders from political parties that they oppose in jail on false charges. When addressing Bangladeshi minority leaders and the international community, they evade responsibility, blaming their adversaries instead.”

“They do this even as hundreds of homes were burnt, women were raped, minority lands were grabbed, Hindu idols and temples were desecrated, and minorities were suppressed and mistreated within Bangladesh,” he noted. “The minorities are suffocating in Bangladesh under the Sheikh Hasina leadership and yet they have the guts to pretend to be innocent while pointing the accusatory finger at their political opponents.”

“Sheikh Hasina’s agenda have been exposed numerous times by her adversaries,” Basu added. “However, in order to stay in power as long as she can, she suppresses the opposition and the minorities while showing the world that she is being open-minded and has a big heart to help the Rohingya Muslims. She has given refuge to millions of Rohingya Muslims while discriminating against the Hindu Rohingya as her party followers and leaders systematically suppress the rights of the minorities within Bangladesh.”

The post Bangladeshi Hindu activist: “Sheikh Hasina’s government helps the Rohingya but neglects non-Muslims” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As the Iraqi Army, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Shia militias attack Iraqi Kurdistan, Israeli MK Akram Hasson and Israeli diplomat Mendi Safadi reiterate Israel’s support for an independent Kurdistan.

After the Iraqi Army, the Iranian Revolutionary Guards and the Shia militias launched multiple offenses in Kirkuk, Khanaqin, Khurmatu, Prde and other areas over the last week, many Kurdish civilians have been forced to flee their homes due to the indiscriminate violence, torture, gang raping, looting, and the burning of civilian homes and properties. So far, 168,372 civilians have been displaced. In the wake of such wanton violence targeting the Kurdish community, Israeli MK Akram Hasson proclaimed the State of Israel’s support for the Kurdish people at this critical juncture.

“Israel displayed a clear position for the right of the Kurdish people to an independent state within the historic borders of Kurdistan,” he declared. “We stand as one front against the Iranian threat, which declares its desire to eradicate Kurdistan and Israel. We won’t permit them to arm themselves against our allies. We stand with them against every threat and we recruit the support of the free world to prevent the fall of their dream by leading terrorists in Iran.”

At a historic meeting between Israeli MK Akram Hasson, Kurdistan’s President Masoud Barzani, Mr. Dilshad Berzani and Mendi Safadi, the head of the Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Public Relations, Mr. Dilshad Barzani warned that if the Kurdish wall against Iran will fall, Shia terrorism will achieve its goal and he called for American support in stopping the recruitment of Iran in spreading Shia terror, which works for the eradication of the Kurdish dream and the Kurdish people in the region. Mendi Safadi added: “This is a historic meeting where I stressed cooperation for achieving an independent Kurdistan. We are working via joint efforts to establish an international lobby to support the Kurdish peoples’ struggle.”

Mendi Safadi also attended a demonstration in front of the Iranian Embassy in Berlin, where thousands of Kurds protested the Iranian attacks and Iran’s open war alongside that of the Iraqi Shia militias against the Kurdish people. Safadi stated in his speech that the Israeli people support their right to an independent state, emphasizing that both the Jewish and Kurdish people have a historic right to their homelands.

He noted that while the Arabs are fighting to erase this historic right, the Israeli people still want them to have a country. Safadi hopes that the Kurdish and Israeli flag will be flown over the skies of an independent Kurdistan for Israel’s government welcomes them and supports their just demand for independence.

As Israeli scholar Dr. Mordechai Kedar proclaimed, “Every group has the right to have its own state, its own homeland, its’ own government and to control itself. It is time for all the nations occupied, coerced and persecuted by other religions and nations to be liberated. If they want independence, let them have it in order to make sure they stay alive and prosperous. Why should they be forced to live under the yoke of another culture especially when the other culture is vicious and cruel?”

Meanwhile, within the Islamic Republic of Iran, already many Iranian Kurds are inspired by Iraqi Kurdistan’s Independence Referendum despite the brutal onslaught the Iraqi Kurds have faced from the Iraqi Army, Iran and the Shia militias for voicing their opinions democratically. According to Iranian Kurdish dissident Kajal Mohammadi, “The people of Iranian Kurdistan stand in solidarity with the struggle of greater Kurdistan. The language of violence and threats no longer scares them.” Noting that Iranian Kurds have demonstrated in solidarity with Iraqi Kurdistan and the violent Iranian response to these protests, she emphasized: “No occupying force can break this bond of solidarity and support for one another. The people of Kurdistan are fed up with the Iranian regime. Their threats of bloodshed and their continued militarization no longer work.”

Iranian Kurdish rebel Mohammed Alizadeh stressed that he believes Iran reacted in the way that they did to the Iraqi Kurdish Referendum and the celebrations by the Iranian Kurds of this referendum for they are afraid of its implications: “The first step was taken to reach the goal of having a Kurdish nation. The enemies of the Kurdish nation are so afraid of this. Iran sent in a large military force to prevent the freedom celebrations of the Kurdish nation but the people of Kurdistan are brave enough to resist Iran.”

However, as Kurds across the world are increasingly standing in solidarity with Iraqi Kurdistan and waving Israeli flags alongside Kurdish flags at political demonstrations, there is also a lot of criticism of how America has responded to the recent violence implemented by Iran and its allies against Iraqi Kurds. As Kurdish leader Arif Bawecani declared, “From 2014 to 2017, many of you prized the Kurds for fighting for the whole world in the war against ISIS and terrorism but today you are sending Iran and Iraq against the Kurds. What kind of friendship do you have for the Kurds? Where is your conscious?”

The post Israeli Druze diplomat: “We stand in solidarity with Kurdistan” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.