Foreign Policy Blogs

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

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

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

Dyslexic Priorities

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

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

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

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

Private Security Branding

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

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

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

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

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

Modified Hegemony

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

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

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

The X-Factor

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

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

Dollars and Dysfunction

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Putin-Trump House of Cards (Twitter)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo Credit: Hindu Struggle Committee)

Hindu rights activist Shipan Kumer Basu illustrated that Bangladesh has a lot to learn from Israel and that Israel can play a role in assisting the minority communities within Bangladesh.

According to Shipan Kumer Basu, head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, the Jewish people have been persecuted for thousands of years and that due to this history, “Israel has a history of helping people who are in distress throughout the world. Israel is a country full of talent and has vast expertise.” He believes that Bangladesh could benefit from Israeli knowledge in a variety of fields: “Extending their strong helping arms will strengthen our country and the minorities both intellectually and financially.”

He noted that in the past, Israel was very helpful to the Bangladeshi people: “In the 1971 Bangladeshi War for Liberation, then Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appealed to Israel for help. Israel readily helped with arms and ammunition and thus Bangladesh was born. Israel was the first country to recognize Bangladesh as a country officially. But, the same country did not keep any ties with Israel.” Some Bangladeshi Muslims are now greatly opposed to this reality. As Kaji Aujijul Haq said, “Why can’t we keep ties with Israel, when most of the Arab world is opening up to Israel? Our Prophet instructed us to keep ties with the Jews. Have we become more powerful than the Prophet himself?”

“Israel can help us in many ways,” Basu stressed, noting that Israel has the potential to play a key role in empowering the minorities within his country. According to a report released recently by the Hindu American Foundation, the Hindu minority living in several countries in South Asia are subjected to legal and institutional discrimination, restrictions on their religious freedom, social prejudice, violence, persecution, and political marginalization: “Hindu women are especially vulnerable and face kidnappings and forced conversions in countries such as Bangladesh and Pakistan. In several countries where Hindus are minorities, non-state actors advance a discriminatory and exclusivist agenda, often with the tacit or explicit support of the state.”

For this reason, Basu believes it is of critical importance for Israel to work in order to empower the minority communities within Bangladesh, stressing that this can lead to the re-establishment of diplomatic relations. He seeks for elections to be held as soon as possible under international supervision for he does not trust the Awami League government to hold fair elections: “If the Awami League comes to power again through a showcase voting process, then it will be a disaster. All of the minorities will lose the power to vote. Then, the Awami League will snatch land, kill and force the Hindus to leave Bangladesh. So a very neutral election is in need so that both Hindus and Muslims can live in peace.” Basu has enlisted the support of Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi, head of the Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Public Relations, so that the plight of the Hindu minority in Bangladesh can reach the international community. He believes that Israel can play a key role in helping his people to obtain human rights and equality before the law in Bangladesh.

The post Hindu Rights Activist: “Bangladesh has a lot to learn from Israel” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Tsai Ing-wen arriving in Panama City on her first overseas state trip in June 2016 (photo: The China Post)

The days of countries paying tribute to China, in order to stay in China’s good graces, may long be gone, but nowadays the tribute appears to flow in the opposite direction.  Since opening up its economy in the late 1980s, China has grown into an economic behemoth – capable of flexing its economic muscle to influence not only its own backyard, but far-flung countries in Central America such as Panama.  

Last month, Panama became the latest country to cut diplomatic ties with Taiwan and instead recognize China and its “One China” policy, presumably influenced by promises of economic aid and investment.  Beijing is not the only country to lavish extensive economic aid in exchange for a country’s political allegiance (“dollar diplomacy”), but it is one of the countries which has the most to offer financially.

Taipei’s efforts at autonomy depend on the international recognition of its Republic of China (ROC) government in Taiwan, and have suffered in recent years as more countries fall under the economic spell of Beijing.  To date, only 20 countries recognize the Republic of China’s government in Taiwan, down from 30 countries in the mid 1990s.  And the pressure from Beijing is also growing on other countries which do not even have formal diplomatic relations with Taipei  – the UAE, Bahrain, Ecuador, Jordan, and Nigeria have been asked by Beijing to rename Taiwan’s representative offices, such as “Taipei Trade Office”, that do not suggest Taiwanese sovereignty.

The linkage between withdrawing diplomatic recognition of Taiwan and receiving economic gifts is not lost on the Panamanian government – countries which vote with China at the U.N. usually receive more aid than other countries, according to AidData.  China is the second heaviest user of the Panama Canal, and Chinese companies such as Landbridge Group and COSCO Shipping have been scouting investment opportunities around Panama.  Landbridge paid $900 million in May 2016 for Panama’s largest port, Margarita Island Port in the Colon Free Trade Zone, and other Chinese companies seek contracts to upgrade the port for handling larger container ships, as part of Chinese President Xi Jinping’s “One Belt, One Road” infrastructure project.  COSCO is expected to bid on a tender proposed later this year to develop some 1,200 hectares of land adjacent to the Panama Canal.

Panama was the first overseas visit of President Tsai Ing-Wen since assuming office in May 2016.  Following Panama’s reversal, she denounced the decision as a betrayal, arguing, “Oppression and threats are not going to help in cross-strait relations. It will on the contrary increase the discrepancy between the people” of Taiwan and China, and vowing, “We will not compromise and yield under threat”.

Panama is the second country this year to succumb to Beijing’s riches on offer, and Taipei can expect further pressure from Beijing on the diplomatic front in swaying other nations to choose Beijing.  And the pressure is mounting on other fronts as well – while Taiwan is routinely blocked from United Nations events (except with permission from Beijing), last month a Taiwanese professor and three Taiwanese students were blocked from using their Taiwanese passports as proof of identification when visiting the public gallery at the United Nations (UN) human rights office in Geneva.  Staff at the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights (OHCHR) told them only documents issued by Beijing would be acceptable, with one staffer arguing ‘Taiwan is not a country. Please present an identity document from a country recognised by the UN’”.

Incidents such as these, and further deserter countries like Panama, can be expected as strongman Xi Jinping tightens the reins on Taipei, which is being driven further away.  Nationalistic distractions like Taiwan will prove useful as Xi attempts to deal with domestic economic and security worries in the run-up to the critical 19th Party Congress in October.  

The post Using Economic Muscle, Beijing Sways Panama over Taiwan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Presidents Barack Obama and Vladimir Putin in happier times, during a G-8 meeting in Ireland in 2013. (Photo: Pete Souza)

On June 23, the Washington Post published an article online about the Obama administration’s deliberations concerning Russia’s hacking of the U.S. electoral process last year. The article, which was fairly balanced, has yielded a considerable amount of discussion, much of which has been far less balanced.

A Rant (Please excuse me for a moment.)

Have you ever noticed how, after a decision is made, after the implementation is complete, after the consequences are in, everyone—and by everyone I especially mean TV pundits—is suddenly an expert on whatever question was involved. In fact, everyone suddenly has been an expert from the beginning. And they pretty much know the same things. They know the decision was wrong; they know the outcome was a disaster; and they know that if only the decision maker had gone with the other option—whatever that option might have been (and it is unlikely to be specified)—then everything would have worked out well. There would, in fact, have been no adverse consequences whatsoever, for there can only ever be two options, and obviously one of them must have been the perfect solution to the problem at hand.

Just imagine this scenario: Let’s say that George W. Bush decided at the last minute not to invade Iraq in 2003. To this very day, Dick Cheney would be going around saying, “If only we had taken out Saddam Hussein when we had the chance, they would have greeted us with flowers and the Middle East would be a beacon of peace, stability, and prosperity today.” And pretty much all of the pundits would believe him.

Now, Back to Our Story

The key take-away from the pundit discussion regarding Obama and the Russian cyber attacks is that Obama did nothing in the face of Russian aggression. The critics rarely if ever say what he should have done;* often neglect to mention what he did do; and completely ignore the reasons for not doing more. President Trump, seeing an opportunity to fault his predecessor, has picked up this theme and promoted it, blaming any ill consequences of Russian hacking on Obama’s lack of response while continuing to deny that the hacking occurred at all.**

With regard to timing, critics complain that the administration did not make a public announcement of the Russian hacking until early October when CIA director John Brennan had attributed the hacking to Russia in early August. This, however, disregards the fact that the rest of the Intelligence Community did not conclude that Brennan was right until . . . late September. (People often assume that the government knows something from the moment that one official believes it to be true, but government—or any collective decision-making process—does not work that way, which actually prevents a lot of irresponsible decisions.)

The complaint also tacitly dismisses the potential importance of Obama’s (ultimately unsuccessful) efforts to bring the Republicans into a joint statement in defense of the America electoral system. (He wanted to avoid any appearance that he was interfering in the election himself, especially considering that Trump—and Bernie Sanders—had already denounced the process as rigged.) Critics do not give any explanation for why the announcement would have made a bigger impact in August. (If people really believed that to be the case, then “August surprise” would be a perennial political cliché instead of “October surprise.”) In the end, the announcement received virtually no attention because Trump’s Access Hollywood video and the first dump of John Podesta’s personal emails were released the same day, and the press found them more intriguing, but the administration could hardly have anticipated that.

As usual, Obama’s approach was cautious and deliberative as he focused on ways to deal with the situation without making matters worse. Worse, in this case, would have meant direct interference in the voting or vote-counting process. Thus the task at hand was to avoid the Scylla of allowing the Russians to interfere with impunity while evading the Charybdis of provoking them into escalating. You don’t want to taunt them into some action that you cannot defend against. Also to be avoided was any action or announcement that could undermine the voters’ faith in the integrity of the election and thus further the Russians’ purpose of sowing confusion and distrust. Would the Russians really have escalated? There was no way to know then, and there is no way to know now. Some people have pointed out that the voting and tabulation processes are not connected to the Internet and are therefore safe from outside interference. That is a valid point; yet the computers that controlled the centrifuges at Iran’s Natanz nuclear fuel enrichment plant were not connected to the Internet either, and the United States found that it could get the Stuxnet worm into them if it really wanted to.

So, just what did Obama do? In addition to public announcements that we knew what Moscow was up to, private warnings not to go further, bolstering of the election infrastructure against cyber threats, and postelection diplomatic and economic sanctions, Obama had an additional trick up his sleeve. This is what the Post called “a previously undisclosed covert measure that authorized planting cyber weapons in Russia’s infrastructure.” This is something the Russians were intended to find and presumably would be unable to counteract. The idea is to warn them that, if they should interfere in an election again (or engage in some other unacceptable aggressive action), the United States will already be in a position to disrupt Russia’s most vital infrastructures. If the Post has described the situation accurately (and if Trump does not order it removed, which he apparently has not done to date), this may be just the deterrent threat needed to avoid a return of Russia’s electoral interference. In a few years, we shall see.

*Some specify that Obama should have imposed December’s sanctions before the election (and simply assume that this would have elicited neither adverse reactions from the Trump campaign and Republican voters nor escalation by the Russians). In cases such as these, doing what I recommend but not doing it the moment I recommend it (or when I determine after the fact that I would have recommended it if I had recommended it at the time) is often considered the equivalent of not doing anything. The ubiquitous phrase “too little, too late” can be made to fit nearly every situation.

**Similarly, Trump claims that former FBI director James Comey lied to Congress about their conversations while simultaneously asserting that his threat to reveal nonexistent audio recordings compelled Comey to tell the truth.

The post Obama, the Russian Hacking, and the Folks Who Write about Them appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

According to reports, U.S President Donald Trump is “eager to meet Russian President Vladimir Putin with full diplomatic bells and whistles” at the Group of Twenty (G20) Summit in Hamburg, Germany on July 7. In fact Trump is “so excited about meeting Vladimir Putin that U.S. officials are worried.” U.S. allies in Europe are also worried. They probably should be worried.

Despite any “diplomatic bells and whistles,” Trump and Putin are also almost certain to meet behind closed doors, with U.S. representation limited to Trump and a small number of close aides in an administration that is under federal investigation for possible collusion with Russia to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election and possible obstruction of justice. Trump’s last meeting with Russian officials – foreign minister Sergei Lavrov and ambassador Sergey Kislyak – included Trump revealing “highly classified information” to his Russian guests behind closed doors in the Oval Office. This shouldn’t inspire confidence in anyone.

Among concerns regarding his meeting with Putin is that “fanboy” Trump will be “too eager to please” the Russian president. According to reports, Trump “has told White House aides to come up with possible concessions to offer as bargaining chips” in his meeting with Putin, though it remains unclear what if anything Putin would be asked to give in return. Among the concessions Trump may offer is rolling back U.S. sanctions against Russia or agreeing to Russian demands for the return of two diplomatic compounds in the United States seized by the Obama administration in retaliation for Russian meddling in the 2016 election.

Foreign policy experts also fear that Trump will be “played” or “outfoxed” by his far more experienced and better-prepared Russian counterpart. Other than offering up concessions to Russia, Trump appears to have no clear agenda for the meeting. Putin, on the other hand, will almost certainly have a list of specific demands or requests to make of Trump. Chief among Russia’s current public demands is the return of the aforementioned diplomatic compounds. What Putin will privately ask of Trump is anyone’s guess.

Among the methods Putin might use to manipulate Trump is to bond with him over supposed “fake news” and the “deep state,” which Trump and his supporters have blamed for Trump’s ongoing Russia problems. To help avoid such pitfalls and improve the optics of the meeting, some administration officials have pressed for the National Security Council’s best known critic of Putin, Fiona Hill, to be included in the meeting. “The idea,” one senior administration official said, “is to get as many adults in the room as humanly possible.” Whether Hill will be included in the meeting remains in question.

A further concern is that Trump appears to have no plans to bring up Russia’s interference in the 2016 election. This is not surprising, given Trump’s mixed signals on whether he believes or wishes to admit that such interference even occurred. Trump is, after all, the apparent beneficiary of Russia’s actions, and to acknowledge such is to bring the legitimacy of his presidency into question. To avoid the topic with Putin would seem to invite further Russian interference in future U.S. elections, which raises obvious questions regarding the motives behind Trump’s refusal to discuss the matter.

At no previous time in America’s history has a U.S. president had as suspect a relationship with a hostile foreign power as Donald Trump has with Russia. At no previous time has a U.S. president displayed such open admiration as Trump has displayed for authoritarian leaders like Putin. The almost daily revelations on Trump’s Russian ties, Russia’s interference in the 2016 election, and possible collusion with Russia by the Trump campaign are more than ample cause for discomfort at the prospect of a private meeting between Trump and Putin.

Trump’s meeting with Putin is preceded by a visit to increasingly authoritarian Poland, where Trump has been promised a “fawning reception” with cheering crowds. To flatter Trump in a country where he is actually quite unpopular, Poland’s right-wing government is reportedly busing “rent-a-crowds” into Warsaw from across the country. Trump’s visit to Poland is seen as a “snub to the European Union” and an opportunity for Trump to use Poland as a “springboard for another attack on the EU.”

Such is the strange new reality of U.S. foreign relations under President Donald Trump.

The post Can Trump Be Trusted in a Room Alone with Putin? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Moroccans gather to protest mistreatment by government and ruling monarchy authorities in late May 2017. Protests, and anger at the ruling class, has continued to grow. Photo: Fadel Senna/AFP

Morocco has long been viewed as a center of stability, with development potential and openness to reform. It has also been a beacon for foreign investment for these regions, considered in many respects an oasis surrounded by a volatile region. Yet in the last month, unusually fervent protests have shaken things, exposed vast inequality and drawn attention the country’s economically depressed northern region. Many see parallels between Morocco’s burgeoning unrest now and the Arab Spring revolts of 2011.

Recently I covered the emergence of these protests, borne from a fisherman in the town of Al-Hoceima killed while trying to reclaim his haul which had been confiscated by police. An opposition group turned this tragedy into a rallying cry, using it as evidence of the government’s disregard for the people’s welfare. They demanded economic support, infrastructure improvements, better hospitals and schools, and an end to ruling regime corruption. In a country not known for political activism, protests spread and grew in terms of participation and frequency; some of the lead organizers were arrested.

It didn’t take long for the protests to grow beyond the isolated northern region of Rif, where Al-Hoceima is located. On June 11, at least 10,000 Moroccans (according to police; march leaders claim the total was much higher) took to the streets of the capital Rabat to show solidarity with the northern protesters. Notably, the Rabat movement was led by the Justice and Spirituality group; an Islamist movement, it played a lead role in Arab Spring-inspired protests in 2011 which resulted in Morocco’s king initiating some democratic reforms. However, these reform have proved mostly hollow and ineffective. Morocco’s king and royal representatives retain a tight grip of control on all aspects of running the country (Morocco has the Arab world’s longest-ruling monarchy). As a perfect example of this, the Moroccan ruling authorities have banned Justice and Spirituality from organizing a political party or being represented in government.

As of June 15, about 100 members of the opposition movement had been arrested. There were calls for King Mohamed VI to intervene to diffuse the growing unrest. After meeting with the Moroccan monarch, newly elected French President Emmanuel Macron commented that King Mohamed is interested in “calm[ing] the situation in the Rif region by responding to the demands of this movement.” Silya Ziani, an opposition leader, called for the king’s involvement saying “We hear about the king investing in major projects abroad. What about us?” Yet the king has not responded or engaged these requests in any way.

Arrests continued on a daily basis over the next week, with no indication the protesters’ grievances would be addressed. In fact, the ministry of justice reported to parliament that it felt the government acted with “maturity, responsibility, wisdom, and in accordance with legal provisions” in breaking up gatherings, some of which featured violent clashes with police. A second major protest in Rabat, planned for June 19, was quickly shut down.

A New York Times op-ed on June 28 by Ursula Lindsey focused on the Moroccans’ plight. As she writes, the monarchy’s promises of democratic reform and giving the people more say in their government and more control over their lives have been largely empty. What’s more, the scale has instead tipped more in the opposite direction: more power and influence by the ruling class. “The king is the country’s highest religious authority, its pre-eminent political actor and its largest fortune. Everyone defers to him and knows that the only decisions that truly count are his.” Plus, according to Lindsey the fisherman’s death in Al-Hoceima just exemplified what many Moroccans knew all too well: “arbitrary and humiliating treatment by the state.”

The more international attention drawn to the Morocco unrest, the better. More world leaders and international organizations need to be aware of it, and (as Macron did) encourage the ruling regime to address the people’s concerns in genuine, meaningful, and non-violent ways. The government may be satisfied with how it handled the resistance this spring. But if they continue to use their authority to oppress and imprison those who disagree with them, Morocco may see a turbulent summer.

The post Unrest, uncertainty continues in Morocco appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo: Vijay Soneji, The Hindu

China has become widely known for its breakneck pace of trade and investment across Africa and ubiquitous presence in cities and far flung areas alike. Africa-China trade reached $188 billion in 2015, according to McKinsey, and averaged a 20 percent increase since 2000. As the rapid expansion continues, other countries trading and partnering with African nations are more ‘under the radar’ and not appearing in headlines. India’s external trade has grown significantly with the continent across the Indian Ocean. There are many similarities the regions share in both challenges and opportunities, and plans are evolving to strengthen partnerships.

The African Development Bank (AfDB) hosted its 52nd Annual General Meeting in Mahatma Mandir in Gandhinagar, India. At the meeting, Dr Akinwumi A. Adesina, President of AfDB emphasized the point stating “in 2005-06 the total bilateral trade between India and Africa stood at $11.7 billion, which has reached to $56.9 billion by 2015-16. Now we expect the bilateral trade to exceed $100 billion in the next two years, helped by the (Indian) Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s push for India-Africa partnership.”

According to data from the World Bank World Integrated Trade Solutions (WITS), however, 84 percent of exports from Africa to India were natural resources in 2014. On the other end of the spectrum, exports from India to sub-Saharan Africa consist of consumer goods such as automobiles, telecom and pharmaceuticals. Furthermore, a portion of foreign investment into Africa currently is through Mauritius, a tax haven for investors. Africa’s consumer goods economy is growing but has a ways to go.

The AfDB developed ‘High 5’ priorities to strengthen domestic economies to unleash the continent’s potential: energy, agriculture, industrialization, integration and improving Africans’ quality of life. Prime Minister Modi expressed India’s commitment to partner with African nations to grow technical capabilities in those areas by harnessing India’s expertise and experience to provide value added. Mr. Modi, as well, expressed hope that more African nations join the International Solar Alliance, which framework agreement was announced at the Paris climate conference.

For example of collaboration, Africa is blessed with vast amounts of arable land but much of it goes unused or is inefficiently developed. Dr. Adesina said Africa has nearly 65 percent of the uncultivated arable land in the world. India developed a successful agriculture sector and technologies under challenging headwinds, thus a partnership with Indian companies would be a natural fit and could double as capacity building. Such areas as drip irrigation, mechanization and export supply chain could prove quite beneficial. Of course, if an efficient agriculture industry is developed, that can provide a thrust away from poverty.

Union finance Minister Arun Jaitley emphasized the point at the meeting, “there is a significant scope for the agricultural sector in Africa to benefit from the Indian experience. With the changing global landscape for agriculture India can be a partner in this area.”

In addition to trade, an article in the Indian newspaper, The Hindu, totaled that 152 lines of credit have been extended by the Exim Bank of India to 44 countries for a total amount of nearly $8 billion, $10 billion has been offered for development projects over the next five years and a grant assistance of $600 million at the last India-Africa summit in 2015.

Not One Brick, One Road

Mr. Modi also announced his support to developing an “Asian-Africa Growth Corridor,” also supported by Japanese Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. Within that model, one potential partnership could be port development in East and Southern Africa and connecting with landlocked countries for two-way trade which can connect with Indian or Japanese ports and Delhi-Mumbai Industrial Corridor. It has been called a ‘cooperation model.’ The leaders seek to further engage African nations to flush out the current outline vision document. Relevant infrastructure projects have  previously, and are currently, been developed by the AfDB and African nations, but Dr. Adesina mentioned utilizing Indian expertise would be beneficial as a wide array of projects are needed.

These efforts can also be viewed as an alternate to China’s ambitious One Belt, One Road record setting infrastructure project plan with a staggering estimated price tag of around $1 trillion. The range of OBOR stretches to across Asia, Europe and Africa. Chinese President Xi Jinping further described China is ready to invest $123 billion in roads, ports, energy, and other areas. China has potential to engage 65 nations with potential projects. The program is also widely suspected to drum up increased global influence and leadership, and trade ties are a strong economic method to achieve this goal. However, other nations are not simply going to cede their influence. As noted, India has increased its inroads in Africa, but not on the same scale.

The U.S. is Not Withdrawing

The United States was the top trading partner with Africa, but the rapid ascension of China and other partners has left it falling into the pack. Africa provides great opportunities, but is often viewed at as too risky to do business, thus a myriad of companies have not taken the plunge. The U.S. has, though, been investigating the potential of establishing free trade agreements with Kenya and Mauritius. Africa-U.S. trade reached $33.7 billion in 2016, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce.

The Africa Growth and Opportunities Act (AGOA), designed to provide markets for African goods and stimulate trade, was initiated under President Clinton in 2000 and last renewed in 2015 by Congress. Thirty-eight nations are eligible according to the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR). African exports under AGOA totaled $9.3 billion in 2016 with petroleum over the years continuously being the largest export product, 55.6 percent of the total, however down from years prior due to lower prices and increased U.S. production, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Non-petroleum exports have increased from $1.4 billion in 2001 to $4.1 billion in 2016. Some of the industries are autos and parts, apparel, fruits and nuts, cocoa, and cut flowers. In sum, the amount of the petroleum decrease led to a decrease in overall trade.

Further Road to Economic Growth

The newer economic engagement and development paradigm has shifted to include trade and not just aid. China has stimulated this model while other nations have increased trade and foreign direct investment; official development assistance (ODA) is a significant factor for improving the lives of African citizens at the last mile, but a portfolio of approaches is necessary to reach the goals of the AfDB and everyday African citizens. Trade and investment are front and center.

The post India Continues Building Trade Ties With Africa appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Washington : President Donald Trump and Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi hug while making statements in the Rose Garden of the White House in Washington, Monday, June 26, 2017. (AP/PTI)

In their June 26 meeting President Trump and Prime Minister Modi voiced their mutual admiration as the nations grapple with a complex relationship. Ultimately, India’s tradition of electoral democracy makes it a friend. Though we also share strategic interests, we should take care to base our relations on the deeper values.

Mr. Trump’s and Mr. Modi’s styles may make them compatible. Both were elected by majoritarian populist movements. Both boast large Twitter followings. Both, in Trump’s original travel ban and Modi’s elimination of large bank notes, have sprung hasty policy moves on their countries that led to turmoil. Mr. Trump apparently also now sympathizes with India in its rivalry with China, over his disappointment at the latter’s inaction toward North Korea. A U.S. sale of surveillance drones to India reinforces this common interest, in a strategic counter to China’s “One Belt” projection of economic power across Central Asia and the Indian Ocean.

Interests could diverge, partly in Trump’s immigration-unfriendly plans, and his populist-driven pullout from the Paris Accords. Modi criticized the latter. On immigration, the two countries have unique issue, in the question of the specialized H-1B visas for persons of unique skills—IT driven in this case—to work in the US. India has also been an advocate of free trade, reflecting the interests of a developing economy. These issues were muted at the summit, and many strong rationales for reconciliation are available.

The U.S. should take care that the rationales we invoke, to bolster friendship or to manage differences, rest on the values of freedom and rights. Economic interests can evolve to put us at odds, and strategic calculations have not always brought us together.

But it was Indian-born Amartya Sen (politically opposed to Modi but not renounced in this) who defined both freedom and development as “the expansion of the ‘capabilities’ of persons to lead the kinds of lives they value – and have reason to value.”

Which sounds a lot like Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.

The post US-India Relations: What Do We Want? What Should We Want? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On September 25, Kurdistan is holding a referendum for independence.

Already, Aldar Khalil, the government spokesman for the Kurdish region in Syria, expressed that the Syrian Kurds are interested in a confederation with Iraqi Kurdistan. Given the divisions between the KRG who has positive trade relations with Turkey and Khalil’s group who is working together with the Assad regime, Syrian Kurdish dissident Sherkoh Abbas argued that it is a good sign.

He emphasized that for a number of reasons, the United States of America should welcome this development and support the Kurdish Referendum for Independence.

Khalil stressed that for starters, an independent Kurdistan will bring the Shia Crescent to a halt. According to Abbas, Saudi Arabia and other Sunni Gulf states have recently started to view an independent Kurdistan in a positive light just so that they will be able to confront Iranian aggression in the Middle East region better.

He noted that this has been reflected in their social media: “The GCC had Israel as enemy number one and the Kurds as number two. Now that has changed. Now, they are willing to divide Iraq and Syria so that it could be a buffer against Iran. They view it positively as a way to roll back Iran’s gains as well as the Muslim Brotherhood in Ankara.”

“It is important to be on the side of the GCC, Israel and the Kurds,” he proclaimed. “In the past, anywhere we went in the US Congress and US Senate, they said wait a minute; we have a lot of interests with 21 Arab nations. If we support Kurdish independence, it could hurt our vital economic interests. What we can do is promote human rights and democracy.”

“Now with a shift in the Arab position not viewing the Kurds and Israelis as enemies, now it is easier for all of these nations to support the Kurds for it is not opposed by Kuwait, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt. Those countries don’t view the Kurds as a threat but an opportunity to roll back the Shia Crescent and the threat to the Al Saud kingdom emerging in Ankara, who wants to get rid of the Al Saud family and to be the Khalifa.”

Abbas noted that two years ago, the Arabs would never let Iraq and Syria split for it is Arab land. Now, he claimed that they know if they keep it whole, it is for Iran and the Muslim Brotherhood and that undermines the Saudi kingdom so they now think it is good to let the people of those nations go their own way and to roll back those threats. He added that it is critical to note that the United States does not need to place boots on the grounds in order to confront Iranian aggression in the Middle East.

Since a good portion of the population in the Islamic Republic of Iran consists of minorities like the Azeris, Balochis, Kurds and Ahwazi Arabs, Abbas emphasized these groups can merely do an uprising and enable the Iranian regime to collapse from within as the Syrian and Iraqi Kurds unite in order to form their own independent state, which is ready to be an American base in the Middle East and to be of utmost assistance in America’s struggle against international terrorism.

He stressed that such a strategy can shrink Iran in half and significantly reduce Iranian hegemonic influence in the Middle East without putting the life of a single American soldier in jeopardy.

Finally, an Iraqi source added that America should support an independent Kurdistan for it is the right thing to do after the Baathists and then the Shia militias alongside ISIS terrorized the Kurdish population. Since 2014, the Iraqi central government cut the budget at the same time that the Kurds faced ISIS and the KRG absorbed 2 million refugees.

However, the source emphasized that the KRG to Barzani’s credit did not give up hope of building a pro-Western democratic country that grants human rights, minority rights and women’s rights to all its citizens who would be willing to help the United States in its struggle against terrorism under less than optimal conditions while facing not so supportive neighbors.

The source claimed that America should support Barzani in this just struggle as the Kurds deserve to have what every other nation on earth has. They have their own unique language, culture and national history. They were a state in the past. The source noted that there is no reason why they should not be a state in the future. And for all of these reasons, the source proclaimed that the Unites States should support an independent Kurdistan.

The post Syrian Kurdish Dissident: “America Should Support the Kurdish Independence Referendum” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Trump-Kushner and Xi Jinping families at Mar-a-Lago. (large)

As Bloomberg, The Washington Post, and Reuters have reported, the Chinese government has invited President Donald Trump’s daughter Ivanka Trump and her husband Jared Kushner to visit China later this year for the purpose of cultivating ties between China and the Trump administration and in advance of a possible visit to China by the president. Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post also observes that “Beijing is courting Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner” in “its efforts to gain access to [President] Trump,” bypassing normal U.S. diplomatic channels.

China’s courtship of the couple and the Trump administration’s apparent openness to such an arrangement should raise eyebrows if not very loud alarm bells, as should the prospect of a U.S. taxpayer-funded trip for them to China.

In addition to the obvious nepotism in the couple’s White House roles and their complete lack of foreign policy qualifications, both have business ties to China that present potentially serious conflicts of interest. Putting vetted foreign policy professionals in charge of U.S.-China relations instead of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner would at least provide a degree of separation between China’s dictators and Trump-Kushner family business interests.

U.S. tax dollars should not be used to pay for the president’s daughter and son-in-law to travel to China and play at being diplomats. Jared Kushner, whose only previous experience is helping to run his family’s businesses and being married to Ivanka Trump, has already traveled to Iraq, Israel, and the Palestinian Territories at taxpayer expense to no apparent end but his own self-promotion.

His appearance in a blazer and flak jacket in Iraq was widely ridiculed and earned him a new nickname: “Full Metal Jackass.” Ivanka Trump, whose only previous experience is in the fashion industry, is no more qualified than her husband for such undertakings. These are jobs that should be done by foreign policy and national security professionals.

“Full Metal Jackass“: Jared Kushner in Iraq.

While Donald Trump’s sons ostensibly run his businesses, he seems to be grooming his daughter and son-in-law to become his political heirs in an apparent effort to establish himself and his brood as America’s new ruling family: The House of Trump.

Such practices are normal in a country like China ruled by a “red aristocracy” of dynastic “princelings” like President Xi Jinping. China’s “courtship” of Jared Kushner and “marginalization” of the U.S. State Department has been previously noted with the observation of China’s greater “comfort with dynastic links” than with official U.S. diplomatic channels (See “America’s Princeling: Why Chinese Elites Love Jared Kushner“).

The Trumps and Kushners including Ivanka and Jared as well as the president himself also have significant potential conflicts of interest related to their business ties with China.

Many of the products sold by Ivanka Trump’s fashion company are produced at factories in China where sweatshop conditions have been reported, and the recent arrest and disappearances of investigators looking into conditions at these factories in China prompted The Washington Post to ask if China might be “offering Ivanka Trump unseemly favors” in exchange for favorable treatment by the Trump administration.

Donald and Ivanka Trump have both been awarded valuable trademarks for their businesses by the Chinese government since the Trump inauguration, prompting constitutional concerns regarding foreign emoluments. Unauthorized and unpaid Trump-branded toilets are an example of what can happen in China without trademark protection, and of how far Donald Trump has defined the American presidency down in the eyes of the world:

“Trump Toilets“: What happens in China without trademark protection.

Donald Trump’s and the Kushner family’s real-estate businesses have both also raised money from Chinese investors through the controversial EB-5 visa program for wealthy investors. Recent Kushner EB-5 activities in China prompted a call from U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) for the Kushners to be investigated for potential fraud and concern from Democratic members of the U.S. House of Representatives that Kushner Companies and its partners in China “may be seeking to benefit from the Kushner family’s connections to the White House.”

In China it is normal to mix government affairs with family ties and business interests, and Chinese government officials frequently use their positions in government to gain financial benefits for themselves and their families.

No doubt China would welcome any opportunity to deal with the United States “the Chinese way” via the president’s family members and their business interests. The United States is not China, however, and the President of the United States should not behave like a Chinese (or Russian) dictator-oligarch.

Negotiations between Washington and Beijing should be handled by professional diplomats who do not have business interests in China that their Chinese counterparts can use as bargaining chips; and no such negotiations should include back-room business deals to enrich the president and his family.

The question of whether someone in China can put the Trump name on a toilet without paying for it should not enter into discussions (if any) on human rights in China, the status of Taiwan, or territorial claims in the South China Sea.

Nor should U.S. taxpayers have to foot the bill for an Ivanka and Jared Go to China self-promotion tour. If Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner travel to China at all, it should be on a family vacation trip at their own expense.

The post China’s Courtship of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner Should Raise Eyebrows appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

This week conflict between the U.S. and its allies in Syria against the Syrian regime, Russia, and Iran heated up.

A US F-15 has shot down what has been reported as an armed Iranian made drone operated by Syria as well as the downing of a Syrian SU-22 strike aircraft that was shot down by a US F/A-18E a few short days earlier.

The response by Russian Foreign Minister Lavrov was to pull back on coordinated communications between the different forces in the region and issue a statement claiming that any U.S. or allied aircraft incurring into the Syrian territory will be painted/tracked by Russian and its allies anti-aircraft radar and fired upon if a threat is demonstrated against forces aligned with the Kremlin

Reporting on the facts of the incidences has been somewhat consistent, but the rationale behind the attacks has been confused in interpretation by many writing on the issue. The U.S., especially under the new  Trump administration, has focused on targeting ISIS and keeping pressure on its fighters while their hubs of Raqqa and Mosul are picked apart by local forces.

Russian complaints that the SU-22 was targeting ISIS fighters complicates the story, as U.S. sources claim that the Syrian SU-22 was instead targeting Syrian rebel allies in the region. In the past, the U.S. has asserted that because Syrian rebels are often linked with jihadi organizations, what constitutes Syria’s rebels was hard to define. Indeed, many American weapons have ended up in in the hands of the very fighters the U.S. is fighting against.

The fate of the Syrian SU-22 pilot remains unknown, an event that mirrored the Turkish shooting down of a Russian SU-24 strike aircraft in 2015. In that incident, a Turkish F-16 shot down a SU-24 killing at least one of the pilots and causalities were suffered by the Russian marines attempting to rescue the pilot.

Like in the current incident, there is a high degree of uncertainty about who Assad’s regime allies are in the region. It should be openly detailed who local U.S. allies are in the region so it can be demonstrated whether or not Washington is really on the offensive against ISIS while Russia and Syria are trying to wipe out future legitimate political opposition in the region.

Ignoring this long lasting conflict in the West can lead to more incidences that are still not clearly understood or addressed in an appropriate manner. Information and education will be the only way the effects of the Syrian war can be understood and addressed effectively.

The post Painting Targets in the Syrian Conflict appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Chinese ship shown ramming a Vietnamese ship while guarding China’s oil rig Haiyang Shiyou 981 in disputed waters in mid-2014 (VnExpress News photo)

Just when Chinese and Vietnamese relations appeared to be going well, the waters of the South China Sea (and East Sea) may be heating up again.

Speculation is rife among geopolitical analysts following the early departure of a Chinese delegation from the annual Vietnam-China Border Defense Friendship Exchange Program this week in Hanoi. The two Communist countries were scheduled to hold a fence-mending gathering along the border where they fought a short, devastating war in 1979.

Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission Fan Changlong’s decision to cut short the delegation’s visit, and the cancellation of the event “for reasons related to working arrangements”, is reportedly over a heated argument during a private meeting Fan held with Vietnamese defense officials.

Some analysts, such as Wu Shicun, president of the Chinese-government affiliated National Institute for South China Sea Studies, believe the argument broke out over oil exploitation of the disputed island chains of the Spratly island chain, “One direct reason leading to the cutting short of Fan’s visit might be because Beijing sees Vietnam as breaking its promises about not exploiting oil in disputed areas in the South China Sea”.

Carl Thayer, emeritus professor of politics at The University of New South Wales in Australia, also speculates General Fan requested Vietnam to halt oil exploitation near Vanguard Bank in the Spratly island chain.

He also believes the Chinese response, which “If true, this would be a clumsy and counterproductive act by China,” may be due to Beijing’s disapproval over Hanoi’s efforts to promote strategic cooperation with the United States and Japan: “This setback would also be a sign that China is being more assertive in response to Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s visits to Washington and Tokyo in order to curtail the development of Vietnam’s defense and security relations with these two countries”.

Yet Thayer also warns that a military clash could take place within the next few days, noting that China is deploying 40 ships and several Y-8GX6 turboprop anti-submarine warfare aircraft to the area. The area has seen sparks of conflict before—in May 2011, protests broke out in Hanoi after a Chinese fishing vessel cut a Vietnamese boat’s cable near Vanguard Bank.

Sending that many ships into an area claimed by Hanoi may lead to additional anti-Chinese protests, as witnessed in mid-2014 when Beijing parked its $1 billion deepwater oil drilling rig, the Haiyang Shiyou 981, for 10 weeks in waters claimed by Vietnam as part of its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone set by international law.

At that time, the rig was surrounded by over 100 Chinese vessels, including military ships, some of which rammed or fired their water cannons at Vietnamese ships encroaching near the Chinese rig.

Should the above deployment of naval ships and aircraft actually take place, Chinese military officials would do well to recall Chairman Mao’s quote, “A single spark can cause a prairie fire”.

The post Chinese General Exits Hanoi Early appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Trump’s first press conference, complete with props.

Few moments in the Trump Presidency have proven to be more poignant than his first press conference as President-elect—the thing was that he was not alone during his address to the media. Joined by Trump were six manila folders stacked heavy with documents and agreements detailing his actions on handing his business empire to sons Don Jr. and Eric.

No reference was made to the files themselves during the press conference, neither were they picked up and displayed to the media. The only mention of the documents was at the conclusion the conference in the lobby of Trump Tower. “These papers are just some of the many documents that I’ve signed turning over complete and total control to my sons”, Trump boasted.

At the end of the news conference, reporters were blocked from looking at the papers, while photos emerged of the folders without labels, and in some cases seemingly blank pages, causing a stir on social media.

The pompous display of blank pages and props setting the scene for Trump’s treatment of the press during his presidency could be a point of contention for the future. A more pertinent issue is the extent to which Trump has taken to distance himself from business affairs—are they sufficient measures? Also, what impact can external entities have, namely powerful and influential countries, if Trump and his family are still associated with the Trump Organization?

The first formal announcement of Trump’s sons taking control of business affairs was in January, where it was also made public that he would donate all money spent by foreign governments on accounts accrued at his hotels to the US Treasury.

Speculation on the issue began to surface in March, with Eric Trump declaring, “its something that our integral controlling teams take seriously.” Phil Ruffin, 50-50 joint venture owner of Trump International Hotel Las Vegas with Donald, contradicted the call from Eric Trump, stating “I don’t know anything about that.” Its also been identified the earliest payments will be made to the Treasury will be 2018.

The issue at hand is the potential for other countries to influence government decisions by contributing to the bottom line of the Trump Organisation. Extra caution must be taken when Eric Trump is now the co-chief of his father’s business, considering the New York Attorney General is currently investigating the actions of the now defunct Eric Trump foundation, using the foundation to siphon more than $1.2 billion of charitable donations to the Trump Organization.

Several groups have also identified the fact Trump’s lack of definitive action to distance himself from his business affairs could be deemed unconstitutional.

Under Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, “No person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” And while Trump has demonstrated a willingness to curb any conflict of interest by moving his business interests into a trust managed by his songs, the president retained actual ownership of the companies, meaning he still makes money from them.

Sheri Dillon, a tax attorney advising Trump on ethics issues argued the Emoluments Clause does not apply to hotel stays. Since the first day Trump took to office, several groups have taken objection to this, and a number of lawsuits against the president have emerged in the last six months.

Firstly, a liberal watchdog organization named Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics filed a lawsuit in January. Then it was two attorneys general for the District to Columbia and Maryland who took legal action. And as recent as mid-June, a group of almost 200 Democrat senators and representatives decided to follow suit, pardon the pun.

These actions all had one thing in common—scrutinizing Trump´s violation of the emoluments clause, and the stipulation that only Congress can approve the receipt of foreign payments, which Trump has not received. The fear that was with January´s efforts was whether they were entitled to litigate at all, along with the lack of precedence. With increased action however, unprecedented progress could be on the cards in the future.

There is strong evidence some countries are already testing the integrity of the U.S. head of state as he continues to remain a stakeholder of his business affairs. Instances from the Middle East and Asia exemplify this. One brief example—Kuwait´s Washington-based Ambassador switching a booking made in previous years at the Four Seasons to the Trump hotel in D.C., shows suspect actions.

Another Gulf state an arguably more significant diplomatic relationship with Washington is Saudi Arabia, with actions both during and after the presidential campaign coming under scrutiny. Shortly after launching his bid in August 2015, Trump registered eight companies tied to hotel interests. Lets not forget, Hillary Clinton was lambasted for the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from this very country.

More recent action held a more sinister motive. Foreign disclosure filings were released in June, showing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia paid Trump International Hotel nearly $270,000 through its D.C.-based lobbying firm Qorvis MSLGroup over the last several months. The payments were made for hotel rooms and catering services for dozens of U.S. veterans recruited by the group as an aim to coerce lawmakers to water down Justice Against Support of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. This indirectly implicates the Saudis and their involvement with 9/11, providing the U.S. President an unethical source of income simultaneously.

Speculation over actions in East Asia has also taken place, with revelations of further questionable behavior. It has been discovered the Chinese government has granted preliminary approval of nine Donald Trump trademarks that were previously denied, fueling allegations Beijing might be giving the president´s family business special treatment. One columnist pointed to a series of tweets to show further evidence of Trump´s rebuffing his election promises of putting “America First” in trade deals. One tweet dismissed one of his earlier calls, “why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korea problem?”

This is the same nation Trump threatened in June 2016 with, “if China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets, I will use every lawful — this is very easy. This is so easy. I love saying this. I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes.” If one makes such strong remarks, out of principle, transactions such as these should not take place. Not for #POTUS45.

These are only a few examples of the many dubious business actions that have taken place between the Trump Organization and outside entities—here is a more extensive list. One look at the list is quite scary, really.

If such unethical actions take place in the future, compelling potential further remains for foreign governments to influence decisions in Washington. Blind trusts have been considered the norm for the president´s predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, yet Trump decided against such action, as it would be too complicated to accomplish. And one could argue, the longer it remains like this; the weight of lawsuits against the US Head of State will continue to get heavier.

After all, the difference between Trump and his predecessor when respecting the Emoluments clause of the Constitution could not be starker. While Obama’s legal team sought the advice of attorney general on whether he could receive Nobel Peace Prize legitimately in 2009, it seems Trump has other ideas on how to treat the U.S. Constitution, with numerous incidents pointing to this.

The post Trump Organization First, America Second appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo Credit: Mendi Safadi

Bangladesh is one of the 29 UN member states that does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Bangladeshi citizens have it written on their passport that they cannot travel to Israel and Israelis cannot go to Bangladesh.

As Bangladeshi Hindu rights activist Shipan Kumer Basu who heads the Hindu Struggle Committee related, “As of now, the Bangladeshi government has severed all ties with Israel. All diplomatic, cultural, trade and even travel is non-existent.” Basu wants for this to change and believes that by empowering the Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, this could alter the reality within the country.

Basu, as a Hindu Bangladeshi activist, is quite disgruntled with the present Bangladeshi government: “Sheikh Hasina gave ISIS a stronghold in Bangladesh. She has given them moral, administrative and political support to carry out their dreadful activities throughout the country. A recent survey has shown that even the moderate Muslims don’t like the functioning of the Bangladeshi government. Thousands are lining up along the border and going to India. This will create another huge refugee problem in the subcontinent.”

Basu stressed that Sheikh Hasina’s government is persecuting the minorities of Bangladesh: “The Hindu women and girls are the most vulnerable in our country. They are systematically forced to marry people from the Muslim community. The minority women are sometimes even dragged out of their homes and beaten up. Minority women are forced to sleep with the Muslims to keep them satisfied.”

“In addition, they are forcefully grabbing the lands of the Hindu Temples with the help of the local administration. Many Hindu gods and goddesses were broken to pieces and Hindu priests were severely beaten up by radicals. Not one arrest was made. All of the government people are of the ruling Awami League. The police don’t accept any complaints from minorities. All of the political parties are involved in this dreadful suppression of the minorities.”

According to Basu, the Christians of Bangladesh fair no better: “Recently, a Christian person was killed by radical Muslims. There was a big protest by the local people demanding to punish the perpetrators but nothing happened and no arrests were made. I asked Mendi Safadi, the President of the Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Public Relations, to help us achieve our rights as minorities. Till now, no minority party is given the permission to register within the country yet there are 11 Muslim parties. Safadi assured us that this corrupt government will be exposed to the international community.”

Basu proclaimed that if Israel empowers the minorities in Bangladesh to address the issues they face with the present government, “We will open all channels with Israel. We will establish full diplomatic ties. There is vast opportunities of work to be done in Bangladesh, which is only at the developmental stage. Our country will have a better opportunity to get the latest technology and equipment. Bangladesh has a population of about 160 million and so we have a huge consumer market. Setting up trade relations will help both countries to grow at a rapid pace.”

The post Hindu Rights Activist: “Bangladesh Should Establish Diplomatic Relations with Israel” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Chemroad Journey vessel from the British Cayman Islands is stranded off Vietnam’s central coast. (FleetMon)

The British Cayman Island-registered ship tanker Chemroad Journey, en route from Singapore to China with some 30,000 tons of chemicals and 27 crew members, has reportedly been grounded on a rocky bottom off the central coast of Vietnam. According to the Maritime Bulletin, the vessel became grounded June 11 and suffers from a hull breach or breaches in its ballast tanks area.

The tanker is around 70 nautical miles off the coast of Binh Thuan Province, threatening the popular coastal resort town of Mui Ne. The Vietnam National Search and Rescue Committee (VNSRC) confirmed the ship was tilting some 15 degrees and could sink, and has demanded the captain of Chemroad Journey not release its chemical load in order to free itself. The tanker is believed to be holding butyraldehyde, ethylene glycol, ethyl hexanol, and ethanol amine, as well as 170 tons of fuel oil and 113 tons of diesel oil.

The response of Vietnamese authorities to the stranded tanker will be closely watched by the Vietnamese public. One year ago, protests broke out in several cities following the release of chemicals from a steel mill waste pipeline in Hà Tĩnh owned by Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Group. The chemical spill killed over 100 tons of fish along a 200-kilometer coastline just north of the popular beach tourist city of Da Nang.

While Vietnamese authorities were quick to deny the spill reached the beautiful beaches of Da Nang, Vietnam’s environmental ministry has confirmed the region will take at least a decade to recover from the spill.

Vietnam is attracting record amounts of international visitors this year, and many flock to Mui Ne for its clean beach, windsurfing and red sand dunes. Last year’s waste spillage led one Formosa official to try to explain, “It is only possible to choose one: either fishing or the development of modern steel industry”. The spill and subsequent response by Formosa has heightened environmental awareness and anger among the Vietnamese population—to the extent unchecked development could threaten the Party’s claims to good governance.

With Vietnam growing at some 6% annually, the new leadership will need to step up efforts to assure an ever-skeptical population that this much-needed growth can be managed sustainably.

The post Stranded Chemical Tanker Threatens Vietnamese Shores appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

With our ever-growing needs for electricity and our consumption habits, night time is not like what it was a few decades ago. Now our cities are as illuminated as in the middle of the day. Hence the astonishment in discovering this photograph of North Korea plunged into complete darkness.

It is easy to imagine the surprise of astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) when they photographed East Asia and saw a ‘black hole’ between China and South Korea. No, the Sea of Japan has not joined the Yellow Sea by drowning North Korea. According to the NASA: “Coastlines are often very apparent in night imagery, as shown by South Korea’s eastern shoreline. But the coast of North Korea is difficult to detect. These differences are illustrated in per capita power consumption in the two countries, with South Korea at 10, 162 kilowatt hours and North Korea at 739 kilowatt hours.”

How can we explain the total blackness of this country of 25 million inhabitants? In a few words, the legacy of the Kim Dynasty.

Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea (DPRK), offers the surreal spectacle of immense, endless and wide arteries definitely devoid of any traffic, lined with sinister gray buildings and soulless. There are few people in the streets of this capital. Where are the shops? The crowd, the frenzy that one observes in all Asian cities?

One symbol: The Ryugyong Hotel, a sort of stylized Russian mountain that had to peak at 330 meters and offer 360,000 square meters on 105 floors has long offered the spectacle of a desolate concrete blockhouse structure. Started in 1987, the construction was stopped in 1992 due to frequent power cuts as the government was going through a lot of financial hardship. It was during these same years that North Korea went through a severe famine.

How is this possible in a country where resources abound? The industrialization of Korea has essentially served to over-militarize the country. The figures are eloquent: first army in the world in number of military per thousand inhabitants and fifth army in the world in terms of numbers. Moreover, DPRK is now the 9th state to possess nuclear weapons, which raises the concern of the international community.

On the agricultural side, the picture is even more dramatic. North Korea has gone through a series of appalling natural disasters: floods and droughts, but aggravated by the implementation of agrarian reforms in Moscow: massive deforestation, intensive agriculture have washed out and deeply impoverished the soil. To obtain oil at preferential tariffs, North Korea had to trade agricultural commodities. Its situation deteriorated further after the collapse of the USSR. Russia naturally stopped the financial aid provided to the people’s republics during the communist era.

With a mineral resource estimated at 24 times that of South Korea, the DPRK has a major economic asset, particularly with a view to the reunification of the peninsula, since it would restore complementarity between the North (where most of the heavy industries were located in 1945) and the South, which traditionally harbors the best agricultural land.

According to the Bank of South Korea, the mining sector accounted for 8.7% of the DPRK’s gross domestic product in 2004: if energy resources (coal) are the main resource in mining production, North Korea is also rich in several strategic minerals: its reserves of magnesite, tungsten, graphite (2006 production: 32,000 tons, 6% of world reserves), gold (2006 production: 2 tons) and molybdenum (ores) place the DPRK in the first rank worldwide. The North Korean subsoil also contains tungsten, mercury, phosphates, silver, fluorine, titanium and molybdenum.

North Korea is second country in the world (after China) for magnesite reserves, estimated at 490 million tons. Annual production of magnesite (10% of the world total) ranks North Korea third in the world.

In addition, there are offshore oil reserves, not exploited, in the Western Sea, whose location straddles the Chinese and North Korean maritime areas. Coal production (mainly anthracite, with reserves estimated at 1.8 billion tones), or 23 million tones per year, is allocated in 600 mines. It is concentrated in the areas of Kaechon, Pukchang, Sunchon, and Tockchon, in South Pyongan, and Saebyol in North Hamgyong. Some of the production is exported to China (2.27 million tones in January-December 2005, accounting for nearly 10% of China’s coal imports).

Early to mid-1960s the north Korean economy actually outpaced that of South Korea. During this time both sides of the Cold War were pouring aid into both countries in an attempt to show that their system was superior. South Korea grew fast, but North Korea held its own.

Iron resources in 1970 had made the North Korean iron and steel industry the fourth most powerful in Asia, after Japan, China and India. At the end of the 1980s, the extension of the Kim Chaek Iron and Steel Complex had raised the annual steel production to 7 million tons. If energy shortages subsequently affected production capacity, they tend to be restored: in 2007, steel production was estimated at 1.23 million tones (up 16% from 2004) but decreased to 1.079 million tones in 2015. Iron production (5 million tons in 2005) places the DPR Korea at 18th place worldwide.

Copper is produced mainly in the Musan mine (North Hamgyong), the largest in Asia (its reserves are estimated at between 3 and 7 billion tons), which also produces iron, and the Unryul mine (South Hwanghae). Copper ore production amounted to 4.91 million tones in 2005 (of which 1 million tones were exported to China in 2005, compared to 600,000 tones in 2004) and 5.13 million tones in 2007.

In the case of non-ferrous metals, other production (zinc: production 2006 67,000 tons, lead: production 20,000 tons 2006) is produced in the Komdok mine (South Hamgyong) and refined in Mungyong. Production of fluoride (12,000 tons) ranks North Korea fifteenth in the world.

Given North-South complementarity in the mining sector, this sector has given rise to several inter-Korean projects, carried out on the South side by the state-owned Korea Resources Corporation (KORES), in particular for the exploitation of graphite.

The mining resources of the DPRK are also being developed in partnership with foreign countries, with China and Germany among others, in particular to modernize production structures. In 2005, a Sino-North Korean agreement (between the Chinese Metal Mining Company and the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Trade) was the first in the mining sector outside of a special economic zone. Anthracite mines in Yongtung, whose annual production amounts to 1 million tons. On December 12, 2008, an agreement in the coal and chemical industry was signed between China and North Korea.

The UK’s Ericon Company and the Dancheon mining bureau in North Korea had also agreed to set up a joint management company. According to the agreement, the Ericon Company was to invest about 400 million Euros in a mine, magnesium plant, and the Dancheon Port; however, this project was terminated without any results.

It is difficult for foreign investors to participate in the management of joint companies with North Korea. Foreign investors want to establish their own companies and operate the mines. The rights of investors to ownership, exports, and other key business arrangements related to the North Korea mining industry are unclear. North Korea is not forthcoming about its mining projects and will not provide information without prior investment agreements with foreign companies.

Additionally, the antiquated infrastructure (including power, rail, and ports) and resulting low productivity make mining operations difficult for foreign investors. North Korean groups specialize in production and trade for the mining sector, such as the Korea Kwangsong Trading Corporation and the Korea General Magnesia Clinker Industry Group

As of March of this year, North Korea has expanded its oil import capacity as Washington seeks to tighten sanctions on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The expansion of the oil terminal in Nampo, a port city on the west coast of North Korea, has been under way since October 2015. The report is based on satellite images taken on October 4, 2015, and again on October 4, 2016.

It seems that North Korea has built a second wharf at the oil terminal and the dry land between the two docks should be used for a new oil terminal and storage facilities. North Korea imports 90% of its energy from China and crude oil is considered a vital link for the army and economy of Pyongyang.

Ed Royce, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives, introduced in March new legislation to significantly strengthen sanctions against North Korea, including sanctions against those supplying crude oil and other products related to the North.

Seoul welcomed the legislation by saying it could be a “strong message” to exert “tangible pressure” on North Korea.

According to Chinese Customs data, in the first quarter of 2017, imports from China to North Korea increased by 18.4% compared to the same period of last year, while its exports to North Korea increased by 54.5%. From January to March 2017, China’s trade with North Korea amounted to 8.4 billion yuan (1.15 billion euros). China’s trade surplus with North Korea reached 1.52 billion yuan (208 million euros)—an increase of 37.4%.

From 19 February, China suspended imports of North Korean coal. It did not import it at all in March. As a result, in the first quarter of 2017, coal imports from North Korea were only half of what they were a year ago. According to Reuters, following the implementation of this suspension, Beijing ordered commercial companies to return the cargo of coal from North Korea.

As North Korea reach out to new friends late April, it urged Algeria to help it exploit its oil. This is what justifies the visit in the Algerian capital of Sin Hong Chol, the deputy North Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs. The official proposed to the Algerian authorities to look at the opportunities offered by his country, particularly in the field of exploration.

It was also an opportunity for the official to call for the strengthening of energy cooperation between the two countries, while highlighting his country’s skills in the field of hydrocarbon processing. With a total embargo on oil imports because of its nuclear tests, North Korea could, if indeed it received the aid of Algeria, develop a solid hydrocarbon industry in order to emancipate itself from this blockade.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of July 2015, North Korea has no proven oil reserves or petroleum and other liquids production. During North Korea’s industrial peak in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the country was able to import oil from China and the Soviet Union at below market prices. Following the end of the Cold War, these deals ended, and North Korea’s oil consumption dropped from 76,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 1991 to 17,000 b/d in 2013.

It is difficult to get an exact estimate of the amount of oil imported into North Korea each year, states the EIA. Some estimates report that North Korea imports more than half of its oil from China and some volumes from Russia. North Korea has the capacity to refine 64 thousand barrels a day, however as a result of the economic decline, has utilization rates below 20 percent. Despite this, North Korea is able to refine enough crude oil to meet some of their domestic demand.

Patricia Schouker is an energy analyst based in Washington DC and an Associate Member of New College at Oxford University. Twitter: @Patricia_Energy.

The post Energy Security in North Korea: From Defiance to Survival appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister, Mohammad bin Salman, discussing the Islamic coalition on Dec. 15, 2015 (Reuters).

During the Arab-Islamic-American summit in Riyadh, leaders and representatives from Arab and Muslim countries stressed their countries’ commitment to combating extremism and terrorism. At the summit, it was decided to establish a strategic alliance. Nations facing a ‘common threat’ often pool their defense efforts in alliances.

While the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a formal alliance, nations can also cooperate implicitly in informal ones. In fact, Saudi Arabia had already announced the formation of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (the ‘Islamic NATO’) end of 2015.

In many ways, defense is a public (“collective”) good. This means consumption of the good by one person does not reduce the amount available for others to consume. It also means that the benefits a given person derives from the provision of a collective good do not depend on that individual’s contribution to funding it.

The same reasoning applies to countries within strategic alliances: whatever the nature of the Islamic NATO, the defense efforts aimed at its ‘common goals’ are a collective good.

Empirical evidence on the political economy of alliances tells us that wealthier countries—like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—would spend significantly more on defense. Smaller states will thus be more inclined to “free-ride” as long as everyone (in the Arab Gulf, the Levant, East Africa and the Sunni world) benefits.

Since the 1960s, “burden sharing” (the specific efforts each member has to make) has been a recurring test of the theory of collective action. As in the case of NATO, members of the Islamic NATO might often bargain over burden sharing. But any ambiguity in this definition will create further tensions within the Islamic alliance. For instance, the alliance might deploy forces in faraway places than the traditional theaters of Yemen, Syria or Iraq. Some members will try to do these missions on the minimum while continuing to cut their defense budgets in response to their macroeconomic difficulties, fiscal pressures and welfare state budgets at home.

In addition to the challenges of free-riding and burden sharing, a ‘shared goal’ (fighting terrorism) might lead to a massive growth of the size of government (among the bigger members of the alliance). When counter-terrorism ends, government control diminishes, but never back close to its pre-war level. In his book, Crisis and Leviathan, economic historian Robert Higgs was the first to point out this pattern (which he called the “ratchet effect”).

In other words, the leader of the Islamic NATO (Saudi Arabia) will face increased spending (in terms of increased defense/security spending; increased subsidies needed to increase public support for the increased provision of the collective good; possible financing of compulsory military service; and so forth). This entails that the Saudi government must obtain resources through the tax system (or through implicit taxation, such as inflation) adding further complexities to Vision 2030.

Another point on a ‘common threat’: the defense budgets of the Islamic NATO’s members will diverge as long as defense strategies and choices diverge. Allies would have differing views on the sources of threat to their national security: while some countries consider Iran as their chief source of threat; to others, the Islamic State (ISIS) is the chief threat.

In his classic work on what defense goals best meet threats; which military means best serve those goals; and how to compare the value of military and other spending, Warner Schilling attributes the difficulty to uncertainty about future threats with the result that “the defense budget, while susceptible to rational analysis, remains a matter for political resolution.”

The last two words above are critical for the Islamic NATO: how much defense is enough will be answered through politics and tradeoffs. Thus, larger members will be promising private goods (especially financial aid and/or regional investments) to smaller ones in return for contribution to the public ones. Yet, this strategy is extremely expensive and usually well beyond the means of all states except, for the time being, the leader of the alliance (Saudi Arabia).

Also, we should expect smaller states which strongly identify their “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia as an important key to their security and their political clout to be willing to contribute significantly (both in terms of troops and risk-sharing).

Islamic NATO could survive, if and only if Saudi Arabia carefully compares other goods to offer (than public goods) and assesses the burden sharing perspectives within the alliance. That said, smaller members can and should be expected to provide their comparative advantage in areas such as ground forces and niche capabilities.

If the above-mentioned challenges are hard to reach, the Islamic NATO will be a fractured, uniquely privileged group.

The post The Future of the ‘Islamic NATO’ appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.