Foreign Policy Blogs

As the conflict drags on, civilian death tolls mount, and more refugees are created, how could the answer be yes? On October 6, New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof reprinted tweets by victims of Syrian military atrocities, concluding that non-intervention in Syria “has been [Obama’s[ worst mistake, a huge blot on his legacy.”

Meanwhile, the same day’s Times Opinion page included a column by former Obama Administration National Security Council officials Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson (“Don’t Intervene in Syria”) defending the president’s stance. Simon and Stevenson argue non-intervention is not paralyzed inaction; it is a considered action, deemed to be the best U.S. response to the problem.

Both columns agree that the overarching U.S. goal should be saving Syrian lives. Diverging views emerge over whether introducing U.S. force would do so, or whether U.S. engagement should have a purely humanitarian focus.

So has President Obama has been taking the “least bad” course for the U.S. on Syria? Reflecting on the last two decades of U.S. foreign policy interventions, the answer is yes.

In caring for patients, a physician swears an oath to “first do no harm”. The urge to “do something” in the face of a health crisis is overwhelming, but taking the wrong action can be just as deadly. President Obama’s Syria stance is a sort of ‘Hippocratic Oath’ of foreign policy: above all, do not add to the problem. Following the aftermath of U.S. invasion of Iraq, this position is understandable both politically and in terms of practical problem solving.

Politically, is there any way an American public would support another protracted U.S. war in the Middle East? Despite some election year drumbeating for greater U.S. intervention, it is hard to imagine that a U.S. public still healing divisions over Iraq would support another large-scale U.S. intervention in the Middle East. For now, however, assume intervention would be popular, or at least tolerable: what would “success” in Syria mean for the U.S.? What new responsibilities would the U.S. be taking on?

The short and long-term answers to both questions are daunting. Success would surely mean on overthrow of the Assad regime and introduction of a more democratic Syrian government—similar to the U.S. goals in Iraq. Unlike Iraq, however, Syria is embroiled in civil conflict now, when U.S. intervention is being considered. Historically, major powers have not intervened in civil wars out of pure altruism: they have a strategic goal in mind. France did not aid the U.S. in the Revolutionary War out of neighborly duty: it wanted to weaken archrival England and knock it out of North America. Syria is already a fault line in the U.S.-Russia relationship, and President Obama’s advisors are rightly concerned about the possibility of U.S. intervention morphing into a protracted proxy war with the Syrian people caught in the middle.

Alternatively, if the U.S. were to mount a full-scale invasion and overthrow Assad by force, it would own the results (Colin Powell’s “Pottery Barn” rule.) The Obama Administration has aimed to pivot U.S. foreign policy attentions from Europe and quagmires in the Middle East to productive relations in Asia. Having extricated America from Iraq, President Obama is rightly hesitant to leave his successor with another long term U.S. Middle East commitment in its place.

Kristof’s caveat in supporting further U.S. engagement in Syria (“Of course, we shouldn’t send in ground troops”) mirrors the debate over NATO engagement in the Balkans in the mid-1990s. In that conflict, the strategic danger of committing to only partial military response (“no boots on the ground”) was discussed at the outset: if limited engagement does not work, then what?

In addition to telegraphing a signal of America’s partial investment in the conflict, limiting engagement also risks committing forces without achieving goals. The dangers of committing ground troops to Syria are obvious following the U.S. experience in Iraq. The NATO experience in Bosnia and Herzegovina may well suggest that air power alone could go a long way toward ending the conflict. There is an inherent risk, however, in placing more Syrian lives at risk from the air in the name of helping them.

Even the strategy of arming Syrian rebels, which scratches the intervention itch while keeping U.S. forces at a safe remove, has issues. Using the “enemy of my enemy is my friend” calculation, it is difficult to know for certain that today’s friends will not be tomorrow’s enemies. The U.S. had many experiences with tenuous and temporary alliance relationships over Iraq.

But it can go back to the experience of the Afghan Mujahideen for a clear example. At the time, Islamic militias in Afghanistan were allies in opposing the Soviet invasion. Only years later, Islamic militias—and militant Islam in general—was a problem in Afghanistan the U.S. was fighting an uphill battle to solve. The game changes quickly, especially when the players are not established allies, and erstwhile allies can use the weapons you provided against you.

None of this is meant to suggest the Syrian civil war is not a humanitarian catastrophe begging for a solution. It is the kind of crisis the United Nations was designed to address collectively, both in humanitarian terms and, if necessary, militarily. U.S. refugee policy could better reflect the nation’s commitment to Syrian innocents.

But President Obama is correct to be extremely cautious about the use of U.S. military power in the Middle East following the Iraq invasion. That caution does not reflect political dithering, but rather a grasp of the enormity of the challenge involved in stabilizing that region. President Obama’s own UN Ambassador, Samantha Power, coined a term in a book about America’s response to genocide that is apt for Syria today: it is “a problem from Hell.”

The post Is Obama’s Syria Policy Defensible? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Carnegie Europe)

On September 16, 27 European Heads of States came together in Bratislava for a first- ever-informal meeting to discuss the future of the Union. As they geared to overcome the latest European crisis, the theme of security figured prominently among the five central objectives of the resulting Bratislava Roadmap. “In a challenging geopolitical environment,” states the document, “EU cooperation on external security and defense” needs to be strengthened.  For the upcoming European Council meeting in December 2016, the Roadmap announces that a “concrete implementation plan on security and defense” will be presented.

These and other statements issued during the one-day summit in the Slovak capital suggest that defense policy has emerged as a discursive vehicle to reunite the ailing Union and to regain the citizens’ trust in their governments. As Donald Tusk put it in an open letter to his colleagues, “someone must give back to Europeans their sense of security.”

At first, this bellicose demeanor seems at odds with the Union’s collective identity of a norm-based pacifist community, one that has left behind a Hobbesian state of nature and has instead ventured into a Kantian world of cooperative supra-nationalism. Building upon this foundational myth, Europe’s role in the international system has become that of a normative power (Manners 2002); its foreign policy has relied on soft power tools such as the appeal of its institutional set-up and wide-ranging economic and social freedoms.

However, when European leaders engaged in a security-driven narrative at the Bratislava Summit, they openly challenged this vision, suggesting a more proactive role for Europe as a global military power.

What seems paradoxical at first makes a lot more sense if one considers the nature and centrality of identity-shaping narratives in the realm of international politics. Although identities—as mechanisms to give meaning to the self and the other—are considered to be rather stable, they are not static objects. Instead they are “constituted by collective meanings that are always in process” (Wendt 1992, 407) thus allowing change to occur.

Identities are subject to change, as are the narratives that constitute them. These constituent narratives are central to the creation and preservation of any form of social organization. They are the backbones that allow us to distinguish ourselves by giving specific meanings to a political community and providing “a reason for being” (Della Sala 2010, 1). These identity-shaping narratives, however, are intersubjectively created, that is through interaction with others.  Consequently, their success depends not only on the emitter of the narrative but also on the recipients.

The EU’s traditional narratives, developed around the promotion of peace and the creation of prosperity, have reached a standstill. For many European citizens, domestic peace no longer suffices to justify the existence of the Union, and economic prosperity in a globalized Europe is becoming increasingly illusory. The recurrence of ever more complex political and economic crises over the past decade has undermined Europe’s very identity and its foundational myth, which “no longer seems enough to sustain a ‘permissive consensus’” (Della Sala 2010, 3).

Seen from this perspective, the Bratislava Summit captures European leaders in search of a new narrative; a narrative that can re-unite Europeans and keep them united in the future.

The Bratislava statement followed a joint declaration by the French and German defense ministers earlier in September. Through a joint declaration on the future of Europe’s defense policy, Paris and Berlin wanted to convince both European and international audiences that post-Brexit Europe “isn’t going to be just fine, but even more prosperous and closely united than ever before.” To do so, they relied on no other than the oldest and most persistent motive of state creation: security.

This is not the first time in Europe’s history that a security narrative has entered the public discourse in times of turbulence. After the end of the Cold War and with the disappearance of bipolarity as a stable ordering principle, the Treaty of the European Union in 1992 “signaled the intent of the Member States of the Union to move beyond a civilian power Europe and to develop a defense dimension to the international identity of the Union” (Whitman 1998, 135-6). Yet Europe’s failure to put an end to the ensuing decade of wars on the territory of former Yugoslavia seemed to bolster critics’ beliefs that Europe would never emerge as a military power on the international scene.

Notwithstanding the creation of the European Security and Defense Policy (ESDP) (renamed the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP) in 2009), post 9/11 Europe distinguished itself mainly through its dividedness in light of the second Iraq War and its failure to deploy its newly created Battlegroups.

While France, posed to be the EU’s top military power after Britain’s departure, has been campaigning for a military union for some time, true change seems to be occurring in Germany. In July 2016, German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen presented a White Paper On German Security Policy and the Future of the Bundeswehr. The document “defines Germany’s ambition to play an active and substantial role in security policy” and was largely seen as marking “a major shift for the country.”

The timing seems favorable for the introduction of a new European security narrative capable of transforming the Union’s identity and role in the international arena. Germany’s attempts to enter hard power politics, France’s desire to Europeanize defense, Eastern Europe’s quest for more security, and Italy’s benevolence towards CFSP all constitute a fertile ground for change. Moreover, a Europe that takes on its responsibilities and contributes to a greater extent to the stability of the international system in place can be sure of Washington’s support.

Skeptics may point out that identities do not change easily, and rightly so. Many obstacles and setbacks must be overcome before we can see the emergence of a European defense policy worth its name. Yet, the so-called-age of global terror, Europe’s place in an increasingly multipolar world, and the Union’s dire need to reinvent itself both domestically and internationally have already initiated a process at the end of which European hard power and its projection abroad will emerge as “a sort of Gramascian ‘common sense’’ (Della Sala 2010, 9). European leaders’ practices and the reception of these practices by their audiences will decide if and when this narrative eventually becomes central to Europe’s new identity; at which point Europe will have left Venus and joined America on Mars.

† The title is adopted from Ian Manners’ article Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?

Della Sala, Vincent. 2010. “Political Myth, Mythology and the European Union” Journal of Common Market Studies 48 (1): 1-19.

Kagan, Robert. 2002. “Power and Weakness” Policy Review 113 (June/July).

Manners, Ian. 2002. “Normative Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms?” Journal of Common Market Studies 40 (2): 235-258.

Whitman, R. 1998. From Civilian to Superpower? The International Identity of the European Union. Basingstoke: Macmillan.

The post Military Power Europe: A Contradiction in Terms? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Protest at China Long March event in San Gabriel, CA (Pasadena Star-News)

Last week in “Chinese Propaganda Comes to Southern California,” I reported on a planned song and dance performance commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Long March of the Red Army of the Communist Party of China to be presented at the San Gabriel Mission Playhouse in San Gabriel, California. As predicted, the performance on October 8 was met with protest by Chinese Americans and human rights activists.

To begin with, “tempers flared and a fight nearly broke out” at a San Gabriel City Council meeting on October 4, as about fifty protesters demanded that the event at a city-owned venue be cancelled. “I’m giving testimony that the Chinese Communist Party encourages people to hate and be violent,” said protester James Yu of West Covina. “These are very unfitting values for the United States of America.” Yu said that he had left China “to escape persecution by the communist regime, and seeing the party as the focus of a gala in San Gabriel was deeply upsetting.”

The event was not cancelled, thanks to the First Amendment right of free expression which does not exist in China under Communist Party rule. However, a rental fee waiver for the Mission Playhouse requested by the event’s organizers was denied due to its overtly political nature. In addition to the rental fee, organizers were required to pay the cost of policing the event. As reported last week, the organizers of the event have a history of pro-Beijing activities that includes making pro-government statements in Chinese media and organizing a forum in Los Angeles to commemorate the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party.

Long March 80th anniversary gala, San Gabriel CA (Chinese Daily USA)

On the night of the performance, protesters gathered again outside the Mission Playhouse (see photos). “People are free in America,” said protester Kai Chen, “If someone wants to hang a picture of Hitler or Mao in their bedroom, they’re free to do that.” Chen said he hoped, however, that “attendees would learn from what the protesters have to say about the Chinese Communist Party’s authoritarian practices.” Said fellow protester Ted Brown, “To celebrate the Long March is to celebrate Mao Zedong…. While Mao is gone, Chinese people are still oppressed in the same ways as during his regime.”

Pro-government Chinese media reported that the Chinese consul-general in Los Angeles was among those attending the event, and lamented as “unfortunate” the controversy stirred up by “so-called ‘dissidents’.”

The post China Long March Event Met with Protest in California appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

NATO allies have made significant progress during the July 2016 NATO Warsaw Summit in developing a more flexible and mobile conventional deterrent posture. Nevertheless, Alliance cohesion—a crucial requirement to successfully implement the Warsaw commitments and tackle current security threats—is increasingly being tested.

These tests arise from security challenges in NATO’s eastern and southern flank but also from other areas, such as domestic politics, which have spillover effects on the willingness of the Alliance to work together. With different threat perceptions and national preferences, NATO countries must ensure the Alliance’s cohesion in order to maintain the credibility of its collective defense commitment.

Russia’s aggressive behavior has led NATO to respond with the approval of Readiness Action Plan (RAP) in 2014, in a show of Alliance unity. However, as the situation in Syria further deteriorated in the following years and ISIS, although diminished, still demonstrates the ability to carry out attacks in Europe, many Allies are now complaining about the overwhelming focus of RAP on the east.

Indeed, southern Europe is more concerned about developing NATO’s capabilities in the southern flank to face what it sees as more pressing threats to its security. The yawning gap between Allies’ threat perception risks undermining NATO’s ability to simultaneously address threats coming from different directions.

The mass influx of refugees towards Europe and the spike in terrorist attacks—issues outside of NATO’s security mandate—are nevertheless affecting Alliance cohesion. First, they are stretching European administrations and security forces thin, creating political tensions within the European Union. With countries adopting incompatible policies, and disagreeing over burden sharing measures, the Schengen system is endangered and the sense of European solidarity is progressively vanishing. In this toxic environment, accusations of political blackmail can lead to diplomatic retaliations across different institutional frameworks such as NATO, weakening the Alliance’s ability to implement the Warsaw commitments.

Second, and more directly, the migrant crisis is imperiling the political stability of Greece and Turkey as well as the political future of German Chancellor Merkel due to the disproportionate amount of strain put on those NATO countries—the former due to their geographical position as a bridge to Europe and the latter because of its welcoming policy towards migrants.

The growing threats in Europe’s periphery have inflamed its politics, fueling the rise of populist movements and changing the political landscape of the continent. A loose grouping of parties across the political spectrum, populists usually decry the loss of national sovereignty in favor of the EU’s supranational authority.

They are against internationalism, globalization and champion national solutions. However a national approach to defense, often with isolationist implications, is incompatible with NATO’s collective defense commitment and anachronistic in today’s increasingly interconnected world where transnational challenges and threats—exemplified by the migrant crisis and terrorism—require a high degree of coordination and unity between countries.

In addition, Russia’s “marriage of convenience” with European populist parties is being exploited through disinformation campaigns to undermine the EU and polarize the debate in the continent. The example par excellence of the effectiveness of Moscow’s information warfare was the Dutch referendum on the Association Agreement between the EU and Ukraine.

In today’s world, boundaries between national and international actions are becoming blurrier, with domestic developments—such as terrorist attacks—affecting a country’s foreign policy and conversely, foreign policy decisions—such as Chancellor Merkel’s open-door policy—influencing domestic politics in a perpetual loop of interaction.

As a result, even if populist movements fail to break into mainstream politics, their disturbance could lead to political paralysis within and between countries, a key challenge to the cohesion of the Alliance. Finally, the rise of illiberal sentiment threatens NATO’s core common values of democracy and rule of law.

The United Kingdom’s referendum vote to leave the European Union, the so-called Brexit, was not directly related to security issues, but has the potential to negatively impact the Alliance. Although politicians hurried up to assert that Brexit would not impact the United Kingdom’s commitment to NATO, analysts are more skeptical: “we are hearing everyone say nothing will change as a result of Brexit, but really they know this might be a seminal moment” explained Jonathan Eyal, International Director at RUSI, a British think tank.

First, since there is no clear plan to leave the EU, much of the political focus of the United Kingdom and most European allies in the near future will be on how to deal with Brexit. The use of their limited resources and political capital will inevitably diverge attention away from other issues, reducing the Allies interest in pushing forward the Warsaw agenda. In addition, this uncertainty affects NATO directly, as noted by Mr. Stoltenberg: “unpredictability creates challenges to our security. […] We are faced with so much so much uncertainty, unpredictability and instability surrounding us. And anything that adds to that is a concern.”

Second, Brexit might provoke economic instability, leading to a possible recession in the United Kingdom in 2017 and weakening growth prospects throughout Europe. As a consequence, this could negatively affect both the defense spending of the United Kingdom and reverse the recent defense spending increases observed in many Allied countries.

Third, as the European Union’s biggest defense spender and a crucial transatlantic intermediary, the United Kingdom break from Brussels could hurt NATO-EU cooperation—a vital element in maintaining the Alliance’s cohesion since both organizations currently have 22 member countries in common. If Brexit negotiations with the European Union become divisive and/or lead other countries to emulate the United Kingdom’s decision, they could severely impact deliberations within the Alliance.

Moreover, if Brexit goes through, it would reduce the EU’s share in NATO defense spending from 24% to 17% significantly reducing the EU’s voice within NATO. It would also considerably degrade the EU’s Common Foreign and Security Policy.

Although some argue it will improve EU security decision-making as the United Kingdom tended to favor NATO over EU action, Brexit will undeniably reduce the EU’s diplomatic clout (the United Kingdom is a permanent member of the UN Security council and a member of the G-7), intelligence gathering capabilities (the United Kingdom is a member of the Five Eyes intelligence alliance), and military might (the United Kingdom makes up 24% of the EU’s military spending and 7% of its military strength).

Faced with all these challenges and in an environment cluttered with disinformation/misinformation, it is more important than ever that different national constituencies understand NATO’s crucial role and the necessity for member countries to show a united front.

The post NATO Post-Warsaw: Challenges to Alliance Cohesion appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

It is increasingly obvious that China can no longer be patient over the North Korean issue. (South China Morning Post)

It is always surreal to watch the televised images of the heir of the Kim family dynasty, Kim Jong-un, strutting around his senior subjects with a cigarette between the fingers.

What is even more surreal is the oddity of the heir’s relentlessly pursued agenda—‘Byungjin Line’ (meaning ‘Guns and Butter’ but more like ‘Guns over Butter’ in actual implementation). At the 7th Party Congress held last May, one of Dennis Rodman’s best friends obstinately manifested that he will unflinchingly invest in the completion of his ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons portfolio, whatever the cost is to its people. Kim’s such dogged ‘Songun’ (Military-first) position clearly demonstrates that he will not follow the Chinese path of moving towards economic reform with a degree of openness.

Kim Jong-un’s diplomatic craftsmanship is disastrous. Since he came into power in 2011 he has not yet made a single official visit to China. Meanwhile China, the G2-aspiring major power, has unwittingly earned an international obloquy as the Kim regime’s one and only godfather; largely because the major power accounts for more than 70% of the regime’s foreign trade, and most of its food and energy supplies.

Instead of reviving its regime’s effete comradeship with China, in 2013 Kim executed his own uncle, Jang Sung-taek. Jang was then the second most powerful person in the Kim regime and China’s most trusted power broker, who dominated the development of trade cooperation and border economy (‘Shinuiju’ meaning special administrative district) with China.

In an official response to Jang’s execution, China hoped to ‘continue’ maintaining a ‘healthy’ relationship with the Kim regime, but the consequences of spoiling little Kim are harmful. Internally, Kim’s support base has been engulfed by his father’s hawkish loyalists who compete for the boss’ trust, notwithstanding the fact that the boss is too survival-conscious (or hyper-rationally ‘mad’) to have faith in anyone but his ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons portfolio.

Externally, the Kim regime keeps flaunting its nuclear missile capabilities in defiance of the international community’s sanctions. The latest UN resolution 2270 was signed in March 2016 to call upon member-states to ban their support for the Kim regime’s WMD (Weapon of Mass Destruction) related activities, like transportation of WMDs, and to embargo coal and other mineral exports from the regime.

Scoffing at the fifth UN Security Council (UNSC) sanction that it received, on August 24th the regime lofted at a high angle a long range KN-11 Submarine-launched Ballistic Missile (using ‘cold-launch’ technology). This landed in the water of Japan’s Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ). And on September 9th (North Korea’s National Foundation Holiday), the regime further conducted its fifth and biggest underground nuclear warhead test yet (the alleged impacts round up to 10kt), dismissive of the G20 summit hosted in China.

The credibility of Kim’s threats has become existential to the extent that, if the regime really possessed miniaturized nuclear warheads as it claims, its long-range Intercontinental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) and SLBM could nuke the west coast of the U.S. mainland. Such existential threats gives the U.S.-led trilateral alliance in Northeast Asia legitimate reasons to resort to preemptive strikes, in case the Kim regime shows any signs of a nuclear attack.

Unlike his father, Kim Jong-il, who at least kept the de-nuclearization card under the negotiation table of the six party talk, Kim Jong-un is not as dexterous in finding the fulcrum point on the dovish-to-hawkish scale. The danger with little Kim is that his threats swing back and forth in a pendulum between the two polarities of “artilleries and nuclear weapons”.

China must understand that Kim Jong-un’s behavioral incorrigibility concurs with the collapsibility of the regime, not because of exogenous pressures, but from internal malfunctions. The dilemma for the Kim regime is that maintaining political stability through reinforcing a frayed Juche ideology is always more important than promoting a degree of openness in the informal Jangmadang economy.

Thus, the regime will be more repressive in putting an end to the North Korean people’s increasing market demands and simultaneously over obsession with its ballistic missiles and nuclear weapons portfolio. For the foreseeable future this can only be exacerbated, especially when the North Koreans (those who surreptitiously access outside information) confirm the own economic reality―namely of being relatively deprived, at a 1:40 per capita income gap, in comparison to their kindred South Korean people,.

It is expected that the United States might soon apply the Iran Model to the Kim regime, in order to strengthen sanctions against the regime’s incorrigible behavior. Pundits warn that China will be offended by the United States’ initiation of a secondary boycott on Chinese companies transacting with North Korea, foreboding possible ruptures in cooperation between the United States and China on the Korean peninsula.

Despite the gloomy picture, whenever Kim Jong-un poses another new non-negotiable threat, it becomes ever more obvious that China can no longer be patient over its buffer zone; it is turning into a rambunctious nightmare to regional security. A number of Chinese experts have recently recognized that Kim Jong-un is a worn-out nuisance. Perhaps now is the ripe time for China to recalibrate it policies towards North Korea.

The post China should Recalibrate its Policies towards North Korea appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Tsai Ing-wen waves to supporters at her party’s headquarters in Taipei on Saturday after her victory in Taiwan’s presidential election.

Diplomatic ties between Taiwan and mainland China have been experiencing multiple hurdles since the new Taiwanese president Tsai Ing-wen won the election this past January, after eight years of gradual restoration of trade and cultural exchanges under Ma Ying-jeou’s presidency.

This June, mainland officials unilaterally suspended all major communication mechanisms with their Taiwanese counterparts. A spokesperson for mainland’s Taiwan Affairs Office (TAO) announced it would  cut off the official exchanges channel between them and mainland Affairs Council (MAC), as well as between mainland’s Association for Relations Across the Strait (ARATS) and Taiwan’s Straits Exchange Foundation (SEF). His decision leaves both sides with no outlets for direct government communication in case of a crisis.

In the meantime, Beijing is consciously reducing its cross-Strait tourist numbers and trade volumes. The numbers of tourist groups visiting Taiwan from mainland dropped by 30% since this past May, and Beijing plans to further cut down the total tourist number even further from 3.85 million in 2015 to 2 million by the end of this year.

Like-minded soft trade sanctions, such as canceling cross-Strait trade deals, also created stress on Taiwan’s economy. From January to July this year, the total cross-Strait trade volume dropped by 9.8%, with exports from mainland to Taiwan dropping by 12.7%, according to mainland’s Ministry of Commerce.

Meanwhile, Beijing sent Tsai a clear message of dissatisfaction by “further squeezing [Taiwan’s] international space”. The Gambia, an African nation formally connected with Taiwan, resumed diplomatic ties with Beijing in early March.

In addition to poaching Taiwan’s few remaining diplomatic partners, Beijing has successfully persuaded Cambodia, Malaysia, and Kenya to send Taiwanese suspects residing in those countries back to China for trial this year. Comparing this to China’s past history of non-interference in Taiwanese citizens’ legal affairs overseas under President Ma, Beijing is clearly flexing its muscles since Tsai Ing-wen’s election

A historic Ma-Xi meeting focused on the “1992 consensus”.

Most cross-Strait policy changes were made by mainland officials directed by Chinese President Xi Jinping, with the clear political objective to apply pressure on the new Taiwanese President Tsai. Why has Beijing’s policy towards Taiwan shifted so dramatically from Ma to Tsai?

The key to understanding this deterioration on cross-Strait relations goes back to the 1992 Consensus—a mutual agreement between Kuomintang (KMT) and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 1992. In it, both sides agreed on the “One-China principle”, that Taiwan is a province of China, with “different interpretations” of which party is the legitimate governing body of China.

As the current leader of DPP, to endorse the 1992 consensus would be considered political suicide for Tsai Ing-wen. Consequently, she failed to endorse the 1992 Consensus after she won the Taiwanese presidential election this January. In her interview with Liberty Times (Tzu-yu Shih Pa) shortly after the election, she addressed the “discussion of the 1992 Consensus” as “a historical fact and both sides had a common acknowledgement to set aside differences and seek common ground” yet did not support the actual substance of the document.

Unlike Tsai, her predecessor President Ma Ying-jeou was never asked to clarify his stance of the “One-China Principle” during his presidency. Despite Tsai’s multiple attempts to extend olive branches to Beijing, Xi Jinping has never recognized her as a credible partner of Beijing. Although Tsai clearly outlined her cross-Strait policies on a “no surprises, no provocations” policy stance, she is facing much more systematic obstacles than her predecessor.

One of the challenges for President Tsai is the long history of mistrust between Beijing and DPP, the party she currently chairs. Mainland politicians are prone to associate DPP with “pro-independence”, “separation”, and other labels of the like. The infamous separatist “Two-state Theory” put forward by the former President, DPP leader, Lee Teng-hui is still fresh in the memory of mainland politicians. On the other hand, Beijing shares a mutual trust with Ma Ying Jeoy and the KMT he led, built on years of reconciliation and cooperation. Without trust, calculated ambiguity won’t lubricate the cross-Strait relations for President Tsai like it did for Ma.

Tsai has also had to face obstacles as the first female president of Taiwan. She has dealt with sexist criticism directed at her gender and marital status. Maj. Gen. Wang Wenxing, a Chinese military official at China’s Academy of Military and an acting member of ARATS, described Tsai in the International Herald Leader as “extreme” and “emotional” because “she was never married, and therefore lack of the burden of love, family, and children”. Though his article was taken down shortly after due to broad criticism from the public, the fact that it was approved by a CCP-affiliated publication exposed some mainland officials’ hostility against this “single woman politician”.

Calculated ambiguity was sufficient to maintain a healthy cross-Strait relationship during Ma’s Presidency. But if Tsai wishes to keep vital diplomatic ties from deteriorating, she needs to find more creative ways to maneuver between Taiwan’s domestic calls for independence and Beijing’s pressures to endorse the 1992 Consensus.

The post Tsai Ing-wen and the Need to Balance Cross-Strait Relations appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Russian President Vladimir Putin meets with U.S. President Barack Obama on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in China (ALEXEI DRUZHININ | AFP | Getty Images)

Russia has announced the suspension of an agreement it had with the U.S. to convert weapons-grade plutonium into nuclear fuel. It did this as a result of the collapse of the Syrian ceasefire deal involving both the U.S. and Russia.  As a result, both powers have allowed yet another regional proxy conflict, post-Ukraine, to undermine the longer-term foundations of global security.

Recriminations have been exchanged between the U.S. and Russia regarding the actual commitment of the other to sustain and implement the recent Syrian ceasefire agreement. While some may attempt to point out how one party or the other is actually more at fault for this failure, this misses the point entirely. The point is that the disagreement between Russia and the U.S over Syria has actually increased global insecurity for all parties.

One would think that any headline or topic involving the three words “U.S.”, “Russia”, and “nuclear” would immediately command worldwide attention and foster a policy of more restraint with respect to resolving conflict between the two powers. Unfortunately, this hasn’t been the case. On the one hand, the failure of the plutonium deal mirrors the Russian cancellation of its rocketry usage to launch U.S. satellites into space several years ago. The failure of the continued rocketry deal has long-term implications, potentially involving joint space exploration, something which affects all of humanity.

Conversely, the failure of the plutonium deal is much worse in that its aftereffects are more likely to be felt sooner rather than later. While nuclear deals between Russia and the U.S. may not necessarily be considered as “sexy” as they once were during the Cold War in terms of garnering frontpage headlines, they are no less critical in fostering global security than resolving any myriad number of regional conflicts.

To emphasize this point, Russia has also simultaneously suspended the 2010 Implementing Agreement concerning cooperation on feasibility studies of the conversion of Russian research reactors to use low-enriched uranium fuel. Additionally, Russia has suspended the 2013 Russian-US Agreement on Cooperation in Nuclear- and Energy-Related Scientific Research and Development. All three of the suspensions were announced within the span of a few days, perfectly illustrating the unforeseen, magnified consequences continued U.S.-Russian hostilities will have for the “foreseeable” future.

The failure of the plutonium deal not only will have ramifications with respect to non-state actors like terrorists, but longer-term strategic relations between the U.S and Russia directly. This is because the failure will not only potentially impact both states’ efforts at nonproliferation globally, but will actually increase the U.S.-Russian security dilemma itself. Though the agreement, known as the Plutonium Disposition and Management Agreement (PDMA), is not as crucial as the INF or New START treaties, its abrogation has dissolved the perceived boundary between the “nuclear” and “conventional” compartments in Russia-U.S. relations.

Even though some in the U.S. may indeed consider China to be a longer-term threat to U.S. interests, the sharp decline and rapid pace of deterioration in U.S.-Russia relations threatens to overshadow even the importance of U.S.-China relations. China’s primary instrument of its “comprehensive national power” is its economic base. Russia’s is its nuclear component, something even China doesn’t have (yet). Because of this, U.S. options for resolving conflict with Russia in general are getting ever smaller in number.

While many may be frustrated with Russian actions in Syria, the position taken by some that the U.S. needs to try military means to stop Russian moves in Aleppo brings to mind the word “Armaggedon”. There is no way to possibly foresee the afteraffects of direct U.S. military action against Russian forces in Syria, especially coming in the wake of the recent U.S. bombing of Syrian government forces. A power that is explicitly bent on using its nuclear parity with the U.S. as a key element in its great power resurgence campaign would probably not respond too well to being attacked, especially after its ally has already been attacked, accidentally or not.

Russia has used the plutonium deal impasse as an avenue to demanding not only decreased NATO military levels in Eastern Europe to year 2000-levels and repeal of the Magnitsky Act, but also to demand an end to (as well as compensation for) all sanctions imposed on Russia post-Ukraine. This countermove has, in one fell swoop, annihilated the justification for continued sanctions against Russia by some, namely that they will somehow miraculously affect Russia’s calculus and bring it more into compliance with Western wishes. Needless to say, while Russia’s maneuvering may indeed seem contemptible to some, it has nevertheless caught Western leaders off-balance, yet again.

Exasperated, many will ask, “How then to best “manage” Russia if both military and economic means are off the table?” A clue may be found in many proponents’ views towards U.S.-China relations. At the risk of sounding simplistic, both Russia and the U.S. will need to adopt a more realistic, sober, and patient approach to the other based on cooperation where possible, while also recognizing that competition in other areas will inevitably exist. This also forms the crux of the “great power pragmatism” school of thought which Putin originally came into office believing in and adhering to.

This competition exists because of the inalterable nature of great powers’ national interests which, unsurprisingly, remain intact despite threats from other great powers. Patience then, above all else, will be required from both parties when playing this long-term chess game, while simultaneously recognizing their shared roles and responsibility for upholding regional and global security.

Conversation: The State of U.S.-Russia Relations (courtesy of STRATFORvideo)

The post The Snowball Effect of Continued U.S.-Russia Strategic Mistrust appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On October 8, a song and dance performance commemorating the 80th anniversary of the Long March of the Red Army of the Communist Party of China will be presented at the San Gabriel Mission Playhouse in San Gabriel, California. Organized by the American Chinese Culture Association (ACCA, 美中文化协会), the event is also being protested by local Chinese American human rights activists.

“I was one of the immigrants who fled China to be free of the Chinese Communist Party’s persecution,” activist Rocky Chang told Christopher Yee of the Pasadena Star-News, “It’s shocking that they’re starting to infiltrate the Chinese-American community to promote communist ideologies.” Unlike China the United States does not practice censorship, so the show is unlikely to be cancelled, but seems certain to face further protest. Similar events in Australia marking the 40th anniversary of Mao Zedong’s death were cancelled by organizers in September following protest by human rights activists in the Chinese Australian community.

Publicity for Long March 80th anniversary gala (Chinese Daily USA)

Like organizers in Australia, those in Southern California have a clearly propagandist purpose and clear ties to Chinese Communist Party and pro-Beijing organizations such as the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification (CCPPNR, 中国和平统一促进会) in Beijing. ACCA president and lead organizer Lin Xu (林旭, aka David Lin) had the following to say on the Long March and the purpose of its commemoration in Southern California (Chinese Daily USA; see also Channel G&E, International Daily News, World Journal):

“The spirit embodied in the Long March is the most core value in Chinese culture…. Eighty years ago, Red Army soldiers completed the Long March and shocked the world, opened up a bright road for China’s future, and laid the foundation for the birth of the People’s Republic of China. This great historical event is the pride of the Communist Party of China leading the Red Army of Chinese workers and peasants, the glory of the Chinese army, and the pride of the Chinese nation.

“With the increase of China’s influence in the world and the progress of human history, the Long March of the Red Army will become the heritage of world civilization and will be recognized and respected by all mankind. Like the biblical Exodus, this story will be known around the world and immortalized in history. This is precisely the purpose and meaning of today’s commemoration of this history—it belongs to the future and to all mankind!”

Lin Xu (center) with Chinese vice-consul Wang Lei (left: Chinese Daily USA)

Lin Xu and co-organizers of the Long March event also organized a forum in June in Los Angeles to commemorate the 95th anniversary of the founding of the Chinese Communist Party. Speaking at the forum, Liu Qing (刘青) of CCPPNR praised the Communist Party for its “great achievements” and stressed the importance of “united front work” in bringing Chinese people in China and abroad together under the party’s leadership. Ding Lixin (丁立新), president of Hollywood Chinese TV (HCTV, 好莱坞中文卫视), spoke on “expanding Chinese propaganda and enhancing the Chinese Communist Party’s international image.”

Hollywood Chinese TV president Ding Lixin (HCTV/DuXuan.cn)

In 2014 Lin with co-organizers Deng Guifeng (邓桂凤) of the Jiangxi Association of America (美国江西联谊会) and Li Lanping (李兰平) of the Shaanxi Association of America (美国陕西同乡会) appeared in a “Joint Statement of CCPPNR and Worldwide Overseas Chinese Associations”  (signatures #3, #54, and #113) condemning the pro-democracy Occupy Central movement in Hong Kong, supporting the Chinese central government and its puppet government in Hong Kong, and opposing interference by “foreign forces” in “China’s internal affairs.”

Lin was an organizer for an anti-Japanese protest in Los Angeles on the occasion of Japanese prime minister Shinzo Abe’s visit to the United States in 2015; and in 2004 appeared in the Communist Party’s official newspaper People’s Daily speaking out in support of mainland Chinese claims on Taiwan and against Taiwan independence. Mr. Lin and his associates enjoy the right do all of these things in the United States, of course—a right denied to those in China whose opinions might differ.

The post Chinese Propaganda Comes to Southern California appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo Credit: Wikimedia

A quick end to an election campaign marked by baffling twists and turns: António Guterres, former Portuguese prime minister, will be the new UN Secretary-General. With Ban Ki-Moon’s tenure due to finish by year’s end, a plethora of candidates had positioned themselves for one of the top jobs in international politics. Once the flush of victory subsides, Guterres will see himself confronted with a mountain of challenges.

While the U.S. presidential election has produced an unlikely surprise candidate in Donald Trump, the campaign to head up the world’s eminent international organization has been somewhat of a rollercoaster itself. For the longest time, two things seemed inevitable: the incoming Secretary-General was going to be a woman, and she had to be from Eastern Europe. Not so much, as it turns out.

Several straw polls held in the Security Council saw strong female candidates such as Helen Clark, Christiana Figueres, and Irina Bokova turn from favorites to afterthoughts. To add insult to injury, the Bulgarian Bokova was then dropped by her own government at the eleventh hour. Due to Bokova’s poor support among Security Council members, current EU commissioner Kristalina Georgieva then came forward to cobble together a long-rumored last minute candidacy.

By contrast António Guterres, starting out as an assumed also-ran, was able to curry the most amount of favor with the members of the Council. Having headed the UN refugee agency for ten years, he reportedly impressed with his eloquence and affable nature. In the end, he did not receive a single vote of discouragement. On paper, Guterres can make a strong case for himself. A former prime minister, he knows how to maneuver among political heavyweights. As a long-serving administrator at the organization, he probably also knows a thing or two about the behemoth that is the UN bureaucracy. Yet, the challenges are enormous.

The incoming Secretary-General will find a UN in turmoil. The organization has come under increasing pressure over its failure to take serious allegations of sexual abuse levied at peacekeepers. After years of denial, the UN has also had to acknowledge its involvement in spreading cholera in the aftermath of the Haitian earthquake in 2010. Frustrations have grown over what many perceive to be a culture of impunity at the organization. Now, new reports have surfaced indicating that UN peacekeeping forces failed to protect civilians in South Sudan, abandoning their posts and allowing South Sudanese government troops to rape and kill scores of people.

The problems, however, go deeper. The standoff over Syria appears to be just another reminder that when push comes to shove, the great powers often leave the United Nations with little room to maneuver. Marginalization is a state of affairs the UN finds itself in all too often. With an international system that seems ready to abandon the idea of multilateralism, Guterres will have to show exceptional qualities to re-establish his organization as one of the central players in international politics. Add to that the perennial issue of a shortfall in funds, and the Portuguese has a full plate already.

As far as climate change and the UN’s mandate to further global development are concerned, the table is pretty much set. With the United States, China, India, and now the European Union having ratified last year’s Paris agreement, the next few years will likely see the United Nations return to more of a management role on climate change. A more decisive role of the private sector is to be expected.

Likewise, Guterres will have to oversee the implementation of the Sustainable Development Goals, launched at last September’s General Assembly. These are the areas in which the quiescent Ban made his mark, having been put in his place early by the great powers. It will therefore be interesting to see how Guterres aims to make a name for himself.

The Secretary-General post requires three things at once: Guterres needs to be a diplomat, a bureaucrat, and a politician. By all accounts, Ban struggled in all three roles. A natural communicator, Guterres should at least be able to make a more convincing case that we do need a strong UN. Can he return the organization to past glory? Maybe.

One thing is clear, however. The chance to hand the reigns over to a female Secretary-General was missed. Ban himself had indicated that he wanted his successor to be a woman. Another thing we also know: the UN will only be as strong as its most powerful members allow it to be. Whether male or female, the Secretary-General is too often at the mercy of the great powers. And that is the great challenge, making the UN fit for purpose in a 21st century world. Here comes António Guterres.

The post Can António Guterres Save the UN? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The late Jordanian writer, Nahed Hattar.

Understanding the religious passions dominating the Middle East’s political sphere seems to be a prerequisite for testing the spread of democratic institutions and the norms necessary to support them. King Abdullah II of Jordan (a direct descendant of Prophet Mohammad) repeatedly says that the war on terror is foremost a war inside Islam. Recently, he visited the family of the late writer Nahed Hattar to pay condolences, affirming that Jordanians “denounce the cowardly criminal act” that targeted him on September 25.

In his initial confession to Jordanian police, the killer, who was known for his extremist thoughts and behavior, said he targeted Hattar “after hearing that he posted an offensive caricature on his Facebook page and decided to kill him.”

One of the central features of civilized behavior is that one should not use violence to solve conflicts. It seems the Middle East, where debate, argument, and dialogue are rare as instruments of the intellectual dialect, did not read the speech of King Mohammed VI of Morocco (another direct descendant of Prophet Mohammad) addressed to the Moroccans on August 20, when he reminded the citizens of the problems plaguing the region, such as succumbing to extremist and terrorist groups: “Is it conceivable that God, the Most Merciful, the Most Compassionate, could order someone to blow himself up or kill innocent people?” King Mohammed VI stressed that those who call for murder and aggression, those who excommunicate people without a legitimate reason, those who interpret the Quran and the Sunnah to suit their purposes “are actually lying to Allah and His Messenger.”

He also asked his people this pivotal question, which was ironically not irrelevant to the theme of the cartoon which Hattar has shared on his Facebook: “How could anyone of sound mind believe that the reward for jihad is a number of virgins? How could one possibly accept that anyone who listens to music will be swallowed by the depths of the earth, and other such lies? As attested by the history of mankind, it is impossible to achieve progress in a society which is plagued by radicalism and hatred.”

Hattar, who was facing trial for sharing a cartoon on his Facebook page, was on his way to attend a court hearing when he was shot dead. The cartoon featured an illustration of God under the title “God of Daesh,” using an Arabic acronym for ISIS. Right after sharing the cartoon, the Jordanian Prime Minister, Hani al-Mulki, ordered his interior minister to summon the writer and to initiate legal proceedings against him. The cartoon has sparked outrage in social media and the Jordanian Ifta’ Department issued a statement criticizing “the insult to the divine entity, Islam, and religious symbols.” Meanwhile, several Twitter users called for legal action to be taken against Hattar: “He should be imprisoned,” “killed,” “executed.”

The appalling hate speech in social media platforms deserves a moment of contemplation of the reality of Middle Eastern societies, with the spread of extremist dialect sweeping through for decades. Before turning himself in, Hattar published an apology and an explanation on his Facebook page, saying that he shared the cartoon to mock the terrorists and how they view heaven and that it was not meant to insult God. As a matter of fact, social media accounts were celebrating Hattar’s death, saying he deserved it for blasphemy, and right after the assassination, people started tweeting: “He deserves being killed this Christian pig,” “God’s revenge took his life,” “We will not accept anything other than this.”

Hattar’s assassination sheds light on virtual media and how it is used as a weapon by the terrorists to promote their ideologies of extremism. It also marks a new challenge for the state: terrorists are not only on the borders with Syria and Iraq, but amongst Jordanians themselves, inciting the murderer of Hattar, as well as rejoicing the crime. In fact, Jordan’s police has declared it arrested several people accused of circulating videos and posts on social media “promoting hate” days after the assassination, including a relative of the shooter who created a Facebook page called: “Yes to Free the Killer of Hattar.”

Seeking toleration in the Middle East for a greater range of speech and lifestyles will be hardly obtained and this sense of hate speech makes it harder still to grasp the possibility of social cooperation. Moreover, convincing hate promoters to view their interactions with the other as positive-sum processes is rather a joke as there is much more to terrorist forms of violence than just terror: intellectual terror, propaganda, hate speech, political mobilization, and destruction of peaceful economic structures, are all but few examples. Meanwhile, the state is not clear about where it stands, what message it wants to convey, what efforts have been made to confront and remedy social division and extremism, and the role of media in rebutting the fanatic discourse to maintain moderation, if any, especially putting an end to extremism and hate speech toward the other.

Middle Eastern societies do not tolerate freedom of expression, experimentation, falsification, and theory formation to nation building. They do not accept doubt and dispute as centerpieces of a functional democracy. They think of democracy in the same way that they think of belief—as a moral judgment, as assertions; not as science—as a method of trial and error, and as a public marketplace of ideas. This brings us back to issue of responding to political violence and how to convince these societies that violence is immoral, fruitless, or both.

I do not see how we can reach a “common interest” with the extremists as our vision of toleration, pluralism, and political stability may not be the mirror image of their own vision. Settling the nature of the game will take hard political choices, whose costs will be significant. And this is exactly why the King of Jordan, for instance, says that the war on terror requires both military and ideological measures.

The post The Semantics of God in the Middle East appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A man places a flower on a Colombian national flag during a march along the streets of Cali, Colombia, on July 15, 2016, in support of the peace talks between the government of Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and the FARC guerrillas (AFP Photo/Luis Robayo)

In 2016, leaders and elected officials, often called “elites” by their political opponents, have seemed to been out of touch with large groups in their own communities. The Brexit vote was an example of a large division in British society not being seriously recognized by its leaders. It resulted in the resignation of a Prime Minister and the eventual exit of the UK from the EU.

Explanations against the result of the referendum often take the same line of logic, explaining away valid and invalid issues that motivated the Leave camp to vote for Brexit. A continued push against the result of the referendum has created greater divisions as referendums themselves are now being seen on as bad policy, despite having many of the same structural issues as democratic elections themselves.

An agreement to end the longest war in Latin America was recently presented to the people of Colombia. President Santos asked the Colombians to vote on whether or not to accept an agreement to end the conflict between Colombia and the FARC rebel group. The peace agreement—four years in the making—sought to end hostilities between the FARC and Colombia, but was rejected by a slim margin of voters.

The movement against the current deal was partially motivated by former popular President Alvaro Uribe, a survivor of an assassination attempt himself, who was seen by many Colombians as having fought hard against the FARC and ELN during his term in office. After so many years in conflict and hundreds of thousands of causalities, the FARC is seen by many in Colombia as a narco-terrorist group that would have faced no real consequences or pay for its crimes committed over decades under the current peace agreement.

Having those same people within the democratic process in Colombia without any reconciliation process, or proper constituency in Colombian society to represent, should have been acknowledged during the peace process and negotiations. The result of the ‘No’ vote has made President Santos recognize that the process should have acknowledged the concerns of many Colombians that were not engaged with sufficiently in the peace process. Whether it will result in a more inclusive agreement for Colombia will be determined, but all parties will need to be engaged with in the process for it to have a chance at success.

To have ill will against a referendum or to excuse away the results of popular votes does little to re-enforce democratic values or to create a coming together of communities when the losing side attempts to de-legitimizing the side that won. As it would not be acceptable to give greater powers to groups that did not earn it by the popular will, elections and referendums are subject to checks and balances.

The legal structure of a society as well as the power of a parliament or legislature governs how democratic countries operate. Language that presumes that checks and balances do not exist after a vote or referendum loss directly alienates voters as it shows that their vote, their ideas, their community, and themselves do not count in determining their country’s future.

The post The Popular Will and Colombia’s Referendum appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Mayor Ed Lee (left) and PRC consul-general Luo Linquan (2nd from left) raise the Chinese flag over San Francisco City Hall (Xinhua, Oct. 1)

Question: When was the last time the mayor of a major Chinese city attended an American Independence Day celebration or raised an American flag over the city hall? Answer: Never.

San Francisco mayor Ed Lee and other local politicians, however, pulled out all the stops to pander to China in observance of National Day, the anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic of China (PRC) in 1949. Among other highlights, Chinese history since 1949 has left us with the chaos of the Great Leap Forward and the Cultural Revolution, the massacre on Tiananmen Square, the imprisonment of countless dissidents and human rights activists, forced live organ harvesting, the slow death of Hong Kong under mainland Chinese control, and the current tension in the East and South China Seas due to mainland Chinese territorial greed: hardly cause for celebration in the United States.

Nevertheless, in a video posted by the Communist Party’s English-language mouthpiece China Daily, (0:20-0:24), Mayor Lee can be seen with other notables holding his hand over his heart as the Chinese national anthem is played at a Sept. 28 National Day event hosted by the PRC consulate-general in San Francisco. Lee’s attendance at the event was not reported by any local San Francisco or other domestic U.S. media, nor was it mentioned on @MayorEdLee‘s Twitter page or his official website. After all, some San Franciscans might wonder why the mayor of an American city would be holding his hand over his heart for the national anthem of a foreign dictatorship with one of the world’s worst records of human rights abuse.

State-run Chinese media, on the other hand, reported the mayor’s presence at the event with glee. Under the headline “San Francisco’s Chinese Community Celebrates the 67th Anniversary of the Motherland,” the Communist Party’s official newspaper People’s Daily featured photos of Mayor Lee, PRC consul-general Luo Linquan (罗林泉), and other notables including San Francisco businesswoman Florence Fang (Fang Li Bangqin / 方李邦琴), previously noted at this blog for her pro-PRC activities particularly regarding Taiwan. In Chinese media Fang has expressed her undying patriotism for China despite living in the United States since 1960 and serving as a U.S. federal official, vocally supported mainland Chinese claims on Taiwan, and called Taiwan a “fake democracy.”

Florence Fang (right, in white) joins San Francisco mayor Ed Lee and PRC consul-general Luo Linquan to celebrate Chinese National Day (China Daily, Sept. 30)

Ed Lee is a noted beneficiary of mainland Chinese money. Lee was a close associate of recently-deceased San Francisco power broker Rose Pak, who maintained deep ties with the PRC government and moneyed mainland Chinese interests as an overseas executive director with the China Overseas Exchange Association, a foreign affairs organization under the direction of the PRC State Council Overseas Chinese Affairs Office. Pak’s activities on behalf of Beijing included blocking persecuted Falun Gong practitioners from participating in the annual Chinese New Year parade she controlled as “de facto head” of the city’s Chinese Chamber of Commerce

In 2013, complaints were filed against Lee with the San Francisco Ethics Commission and the California Fair Political Practices Commission for potentially illegal travel gifts linked to Rose Pak totaling $18,000 to cover expenses for a trip to China. Among Lee’s benefactors for trips to China in addition to Pak are the Wuhan Municipal Government in China; and PRC “power couple” Gordon Tang and Huaidan Chen, who funnel contributions to U.S. politicians through their San Francisco-based company American Pacific International Capital (APIC). In August this year, a complaint was filed with the Federal Election Commission against Tang, Chen, and APIC for allegedly illegal campaign contributions to Jeb Bush’s “Right to Rise” PAC totaling $1.3 million.

Among others in attendance at the National Day event according to People’s Daily and China Overseas Network was California state assemblyman and former San Francisco supervisor David Chiu, like Mayor Lee a beneficiary of Rose Pak’s dubious largesse for trips to China; and who like Lee made no mention of the event on his official webpage or his @DavidChiu Twitter page. Lee, Chiu, and others in attendance at the event listened attentively as the PRC consul-general praised the leadership of “Comrade Xi Jinping,” China’s most authoritarian and most anti-American leader since Mao.

A further associate of Rose Pak’s at the event, according to pro-Beijing Hong Kong newspaper Sing Tao Daily, was Chi Honghu (池洪湖), likewise noted previously at this blog for his pro-PRC activities including persecution of Falun Gong practitioners in San Francisco. As noted, Chi is the founding chairman of the San Francisco Bay Area Committee to Promote the Reunification of China (旧金山湾区中国统一促进会, CPRC-SF), an overseas chapter of the China Council for the Promotion of Peaceful National Reunification in Beijing; and served with Pak as a consultant with the China Overseas Exchange Association.

Chinese National Day activities in San Francisco also included a Chinatown flag-raising ceremony on Sept. 26 and a National Day dinner on Sept. 27, likewise emphasizing mainland Chinese patriotism, Xi Jinping’s authoritarian “Chinese Dream,” and support for mainland Chinese claims on Taiwan and the South China Sea. Featured at the dinner was a singing of the Communist Party anthem, “Ode to the Motherland.” As if these events were not enough, the PRC consul-general and mayor Lee met again on Sept. 30 to raise the Chinese flag over San Francisco City Hall.

This year’s flag-raising over city hall also went unreported by local San Francisco media. In 2014, however, Lee was strongly criticized for raising the PRC flag over city hall as pro-democracy demonstrators were being tear-gassed in Hong Kong. The previous year, the mayor of suburban San Leandro halted plans to fly the PRC flag over his city hall following protest by human rights activists. Nothing stops Ed Lee from pandering to China, however, and he again flew the flag over San Francisco city hall in 2015 and 2016.

In Vancouver this year, a pandering display of the PRC flag and red scarves by city officials for National Day angered many Chinese Canadians. “My family and I suffered greatly under that national flag,” said former mayoral candidate Meena Wong, “During the infamous Cultural Revolution, the red guards wearing red scarves came to our home and took everything valuable. They abused my aging grandmother and threatened my parents.”

Events in commemoration of Taiwan’s “Double-Ten” (Oct. 10) National Day are also planned by the Taiwanese American community in the San Francisco Bay Area. In contrast to mainland China, Taiwan is a democracy and a friend of the United States with a positive record of respect for human rights. Unlikely to do anything that might upset his pro-Beijing benefactors, however, Mayor Lee is not expected to attend any of these events or to raise the flag of Taiwan over San Francisco City Hall.

The post San Francisco Politicians Pander to China on National Day appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Hopelessness is a dangerous dead-end. As with people, nations need a sense of hope to exist and deal with the inevitable challenges confronted throughout their development and existence. But that sense of hope must be grounded on reality; otherwise, it turns into delusion.

With the so-called election being around the corner in Somalia, it is fair to say that this systematically eroding nation is in the thick of that season of delusional self-assurance. Positive change is inevitable without making any change in method and mindset.

Many candidates are lined up to replace the de facto President, Hassan Sheikh Mohamud, whose term has ended on September 10th, who is enjoying an extension without mandate, who himself is a candidate. The Parliament is sidelined as in 2011 right before the transitional period came to an end. Worse, there is no Constitutional Court to judicially arbitrate.

These candidates, by and large, have only one thing in common: the conviction that “The president must go.” This sentiment which resonates with the majority of Somalis has ironically rendered any substantive inter-candidate debate on critical issues unnecessary, at best.

Most seem confident that a replacement would automatically bring about the direly needed change to repair brokenness and rectify ills. However, history reminds us of successive disappointments that resulted from such false assumption in the past decades.

Four years ago, I have privately counseled and publicly cautioned that the newly elected President was bound to fail if his government does not provide direly needed public services, make genuine reconciliation and transparency to end corruption his top priorities. And fail, he did.

Against this backdrop, President Mohamud has been expanding his authority by issuing unconstitutional decrees that are intended to become part of the policies shaping the electoral process. His effective tactics worked like this: He would issue a decree that clearly overreaches the legislative authority of the Parliament, and then swiftly, before any public outcry or any candidate could react, IGAD and UNSOM would issue their respective congratulatory statements. Implementation ensues.

Meanwhile, in order to present a façade of legitimacy, the coopted Speaker of the Parliament is granted a symbolic seat at the so-called National Leadership Forum. The NLF is an IGAD concocted and international community supported political sham that grants a handful of regional actors and government officials with clear conflict of interest the exclusive political authority to decide Somalia’s existential fate. Make no mistake; this can only lead into a never-ending process of transitioning out of transition, bloodshed and perpetual dependency.

Smoke-screened by this political theatrics, the reinvention of President Mohamud is smoothly underway. He is in effective hands of professional image-makers who are capable of making miserable failures look like exemplary successes. In this recent article with all dramatic visual and sound effects, President Mohamud, the man under whose watch Ethiopia got a blank check to run the Somali political affairs and al-Shabaab became more lethal than ever before, claims to have a new plan to restore security and defeat that terror group.

On their part, the Council of Ministers has completed the National Development Plan or the cosmetically enhanced version of the cash-sucking New Deal Somali Compact 52 days before their term expired. The subsequent political fanfare by the advocates of status quo was hardly surprising.

Never mind that the current leadership are yet to designate national currency and are yet to address how having US dollar, the Ethiopia’s Bir, and Kenya’s Shilling–the national de facto currencies—contribute to inflation and make life economically unbearable for the average Somali. People are led to believe that these same leaders whose ‘national budget’ is made of salaries and operation costs, who are yet to set up a single government-funded clinic or feeding and housing centers for the nearly one million internally displaced persons (IDPs) in Mogadishu alone, are set to improve the Somali per capita income and reduce poverty.

Meanwhile, suits are pressed, shoes are shined and suitcases are packed. The Somali leadership team is anxiously waiting for the next great conference being convened somewhere across the seas.

Ever since certain members of the political elite accepted that clan-based federalism is a viable governance system; that false narrative has neither faced serious scrutiny nor serious setback. Well, at least not until the government, IGAD, and UNSOM have at various times attempted to lure, pressure, and coerce the traditional leaders of Hiiraan to merge into an arbitrary union with Middle Shabelle and immediately form a federal-state before the upcoming election. Apparently this trio has forgotten Hiiraan’s historical reputation as the womb of Somali patriotism.

So, Hiiraan became ‘Laf dhuun ku taagan’ or the ‘bone that stuck in the throat’ of the trio and a major setback against the political formula engineered to make the reconstitution of the Somali state impossible, and inter-clan perpetual enmity and bloodshed the political order.

In identifying the right person, it is critical to establish criteria through which each candidate could be evaluated. None should be granted advantage based on name recognition, clan affiliation, or cash cushion. Election or selection should be criteria-based:

– Does he or she have a clear vision, grand strategy and a viable implementation plan to help him or her shake up the current externally manipulated political order?

– Is he or she willing to cut the umbilical cord of dependency and spearhead a nation willing to mainly rely on itself?

– Is he or she willing to put genuine reconciliation, public service and transparency on top of his or her priority list?

– Is he or she willing to pushback against IGAD & UNSOM diktats and accept the fact that the authority to govern comes from the people, and that he who grants you that authority can also take it away from you?

– Does he or she recognize the existential importance of having one or two strategic partners instead of an array of states and interest groups of conflicting interests?

If these criteria seem too difficult to meet, rest assured, they are. No one should be misled to believe otherwise.

The succeeding president and government will not make substantive change so long as they do not put genuine reconciliation, followed by constitutional convention that addresses all critical issues ignored by the current counterfeit document, at the top of their priority list.

The new constitution must overhaul the political order of the day. It may acknowledge the social relevance of clan structure but must declare in no uncertain terms the separation of clans and state and ensure that clans have no political authority and that clan-based distribution of political power is done with. In their very nature, clans promote exclusive rights and perpetual zero-sum strife against other clans.

Somalia may not get a candidate who meets every aspect of the criteria but it cannot afford not to raise the bar. It is time for the public to demand accountable leaders with transformational vision. It is time to resist getting intoxicated with political rhetoric. It is time to end the mirage-chasing game.

The post Chasing Mirages Across Somalia appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

This is the concluding part of a three-part series. Read the first two parts here and here.

With most South Asian nations sharing a history that is marred by ethnic, religious and geographic disputes, forming a seamless Union of cooperating members was not going to be easy even in the best of circumstances. Increasingly dwarfing, however, all intra-SAARC issues is the escalating India-China rivalry in the region.

For the purpose of brevity, let’s restrict ourselves to the rivalry between the two giants with regards the three South Asian nations mentioned in the previous section.

Landing a blow to the recently growing bilateral relations between the two countries, Chinese President Xi Jinping on September 6 cancelled his scheduled visit to Nepal in October.

What was not lost upon the region’s analysts was the timing of the decision—coming as it did around the three-day India visit of the new Nepalese Prime Minister Mr Pushpa Kamal Dahal, also known as Prachanda.

While the ostensible reasons for the move appear to be the Chinese disappointment with Nepal’s apparent lack of preparedness and commitment to joining ‘One Belt, One Road’—a project connecting China with the rest of Eurasia – and the Nepalese administration ‘not implementing the agreements and understandings’ agreed upon between the two countries during former Nepal prime minister Mr. K P Oli’s visit to Beijing in March, it is understood that the Beijing is upset about the recent turn of events in Nepal that lead to the ouster of Oli, considered to be pro-China.

This, Beijing feels, after China quickly transported about 1,000 metric tonnes of petroleum to Nepal to allow it to tide over the severe shortage of fuel and other essential commodities during the Madhesi blockade of entry points with India. The Chinese government had also gone out of its way to pledge support to Nepal’s ‘geographical integrity and sovereignty’ during the crisis.

The Beijing-friendly Oli, shortly after resigning just before a trust vote that he was expected to lose, said that the opposition parties “hatched a conspiracy for narrow interests, and I am stunned by that”. The ‘conspiracy’, China believed, was the handiwork of India.

His ouster and Prachanda deciding to choose India for his official visit, even though a norm in the Indo-Nepalese context, is seen as a victory of sort by the Indian establishment, which expects Nepal to move closer to India again.

Meanwhile, the impoverished nation of 28 million awaits reconstruction and rehabilitation after the deadly 2015 earthquake.

A similar contest between the dragon and the elephant is active in Bangladesh too.

China has a deep interest in and is heavily invested in Bangladesh. It is, in fact, Bangladesh’s largest trading partner. It has bagged a $705 million contract for a two-lane tunnel under the Karnaphuli River and the $4.47 billion Padma Bridge rail link project. The Beijing-led Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) recently granted a $66 million loan for two power distribution projects and the improvement of transmission lines in Bangladesh.

China is also Bangladesh’s main supplier of military hardware, supplying five maritime patrol vessels, surface-to-air and anti-ship missiles, 16 fighter jets, 45 tanks and two corvettes in the last five years. The new Ming-class Chinese submarines are likely to be added to the Bangladesh naval fleet later this year.

However, China has recently suffered two stunning setbacks in the country.

India’s state-owned Bharat Heavy Electricals Limited (BHEL) bagged a $1.6 billion power station construction contract in Bangladesh after undercutting its Chinese rival, the Harbin Electric International Company. The 1,320MW thermal power station will be the largest foreign project by an Indian power company. The Indian government’s external lending arm, the Exim Bank, would provide more than two-thirds of the funding at the low soft interest for the project.

The deal is seen as the ‘second big win’ by India over China in Bangladesh, after the cancellation of the long-deliberated China-Bangladesh deal to build the huge Sonadia deep-sea port near Chittagong, the country’s major port.

The Sonadia port was seen in India as a part of China’s ‘string of pearls’, a network of Chinese military and commercial facilities in the Indian Ocean region. New Delhi views these ‘pearls’ as a Chinese strategy to encircle India. The port would have been dangerously close to India’s Andaman and Nicobar Islands, a strategically important archipelago of 572 islands that houses a military base and surveillance and monitoring stations.

The Indian government has now expressed interest in building a $15.5 billion deep-sea Payra Port project, to the west of Bangladesh’s choked Chittagong port, and very close to the Indian coastline.

The Indian response to the Chinese presence in Bangladesh extends to other areas of cooperation too. Indian Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi, during his visit to Dhaka in June 2015, signed 22 agreements with the Sheikh Hasina government – including deals on ending a four-decade border dispute between the two countries, maritime security and the establishment of special economic zones in Bangladesh.

India and Bangladesh have also agreed to India building a transit route to its northeast region via Bangladesh by rail, road, and waterways.

At the Bangladesh Investment and Policy Summit in Dhaka on 24 and 25 January 2016, an Indian team of businessmen and investors promised over $11 billion for infrastructure projects in Bangladesh, including an LNG power plant and a gas pipeline from India to Bangladesh.

The last is yet to be written in the India-China geopolitical rivalry in Bangladesh.

But the biggest and the most volatile geopolitical theatre for the bitter contest between the two giants is the proposed $46 billion (41 billion Euros) China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).  The corridor is devised to link Pakistan’s southern Gwadar port on the Arabian Sea to China’s western Xinjiang region.

But it passes through what India claims is its territory illegally occupied by Pakistan (Pakistan Occupied Kashmir, or PoK).

The area also serves as the home to two of the many Pakistan-based groups that the US and the European Union have designated as terrorist outfits – Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT) and Jaish-e-Mohammad (JeM). Beijing’s refusal to designate JeM chief Masood Azhar at the UN Security Council in April 2016 had greatly irked India.

In a one-to-one meeting on September 5 with Chinese President Mr Xi Jinping on the sidelines of the G20 summit in Hangzhou city, Indian Prime Minister Mr Narendra Modi is said to have conveyed that New Delhi and Beijing “would have to be sensitive to each other’s strategic interests“.

Prior to the G20 Summit in China, Indian prime minister’s public mention of Balochistan during his Independence Day speech to the nation on August 15 had triggered a wave of alarm both in Pakistan and China.

A rather innocuous statement thanking the people of Balochistan (and not Pakistan, its parent nation) for good wishes to him was noted because CPEC, on the Pakistani side, ends in that restive province.

During a seminar in the Paroon area of Panjgur district on September 2, activists of one such group, the Balochistan Republican Party (BRP), said Islamabad wants to build the CPEC in the region “on the dead bodies of Baloch people with Beijing’s help“.

Pakistan has long accused India of creating trouble in the region via funding and arming insurgent groups that are fighting for independence for the region.

Talking to India’s leading news daily The Times of India recently, South Asia expert Hu Shisheng said:

“My personal view is that if India is adamant and if Indian factor is found by China or Pakistan in disrupting the process of CPEC, if that becomes a reality, it will really become a disturbance to China-India relations, India-Pakistan relations“.

In other words, one of the most serious global military escalations could just be a corridor away.

There is a heated game of one-upmanship going on between India and China in Sri Lanka and Maldives too. But about that at a later time.

Clearly, after being grounded by India-Pakistan tensions for the most part of its two-decade history, the Association has now been completely turned into a sideshow of the India-China geopolitical one-upmanship.

The contest, I’m afraid, is between two very ancient civilisations and current global powers. Everything suggests that it would outlast the India-Pakistan rivalry by a civilizational distance. And that can have far-reaching consequences for the utopian idea called the South Asian Union.

Note: This piece was written prior to a deadly terror attack on an Indian military facility on September 18, which killed 17 Indian army personnel. All the four killed terrorists belonged to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad terror group. This led to India and five other nations pulling out of the 19th SAARC Summit, leading to the cancellation of the same.

The post The Tattered Mirage of a South Asian Union is Dying Fast – Pt. 3 appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Source: BBC

On 18th June, former Chinese Ambassador to France Wu Jianmin, a senior diplomat, lost his life in a car accident. This shocked the Chinese diplomat community. Wu is a famous representative of the dovish faction in the contemporary diplomatic community of China. Many foreign observant analysts believe that he is the most rational diplomat in contemporary China. Different parties have mourned his death after the accident, including his hawkish counterparts who used to debate with him. Putting aside all sorts of conspiracy theories surrounding Wu’s death, it is worth examing the ‘Wu Jianmin phenomenon’ itself.

Wu Jianmin used to be the French translator for Mao Zedong and Zhou Enlai  and became a member of the first batch of diplomats representing the People’s Republic of China at the United Nations in 1971. After that, he served as the Chinese ambassador to Belgium, the Netherlands, France and other European countries. Thus Wu is widely perceived as “the expert of Europe” in China. He did not theorize his ideas like Henry Kissinger or other diplomat-turned scholars. His speeches were mainly based on his personal experiences. However, we can still summarize four fulcrums in ‘Wu’s Diplomatic Thought’:

First, Wu believed that ‘peace and development’ remains the core theme of contemporary international political agenda. Given any circumstance, war is not a wise option to choose. This is true even when the country gets involved in a sovereignty-related dispute. Directed by this thought, Wu upheld the belief of ‘win-win cooperation’ when discussing the topic of ‘power-transition moment in China-U.S. relationship’ and the South China Sea dispute. He implemented Deng Xiaoping’s principle of ‘joint development’ and believed that war could not solve problems. That is why he is often characterized as a dove.

Second, regarding the strategy of China’s development, Wu has always emphasized the importance of having an open-door policy. He believed that the closed-door policy in the earlier period of modern China has resulted in a lack of understanding of the outside world, which caused the country to lag behind the others without realizing it. Wu believed this was at the root of various man-made disasters during the Mao era and  was glad to see improvements under Deng.

Deng’s ‘Reform and Opening’ policy allowed China to be integrated with the world. The rise of China in recent years is indeed benefiting from an open policy rather than the reverse. Thus, when there were political problems in China or another country, Wu advocated maintaining close contacts with the international community at all levels. Because of this. he was criticized by the Leftist as endorsing the U.S.-led globalization.

Third, Wu insisted that the strategy of ‘keeping a low profile’ proposed by Deng Xiaoping after the Tiananmen incident is still significant today, although Chinese leaders are no longer talking about the concept anymore. Generally speaking, Wu disagreed with the aggressive doctrine in Chinese diplomatic policies. He stressed that ‘China has no intention to compete for hegemony with the U.S.’ and quoted former Prime Minister Wen Jiabao’s saying, ‘Keeping a low profile must be China’s policy for at least another hundred years’.

Such attitude was considered by hawks as ‘weak’, and some radicals even condemned Wu as a traitor. Wu simply did not think China had the power to seek hegemony in the foreseeable future. He did not deny that there would be a day when China could compete for it, thus he is not a liberal. Yet, to the nationalists in China, Wu’s stand was already empowering the ambition of others while downplaying China’s glory.

Fourth, Wu was on his guard towards nationalism. He was aware that there is a rise of national sentiment and populism in China and the world, and frequently spoke up and pointed out that “populism will lead to politicians that are puppeteered by nationalism” and eventually leading to the disappearance of rationality. Wu believed that “the nature of populism is to oppose reform; the nature of nationalism is to oppose opening up.” In fact, this observation was the topic of his last public speech. However, we cannot ignore the fact that the Chinese Communist Party needs nationalism as a totem to maintain its legitimacy, particularly in today’s China where the lack of faith in society is accompanied by slower economic growth. The sentiment of nationalism will only intensify, while Wu’s view and position within the system were increasingly marginalized.

The notable difference between Wu and other Chinese diplomats is that, not only that he insisted the four ideas above when he was in office, but became more active in preaching them after his retirement. He continuously preaches these ideas through ‘Track II Diplomacy’. In 2003, he served as the Dean of the Diplomatic Academy after leaving office, taught courses like ‘communication studies class’ in the hope that the ideas listed above could be theorized into a discipline. He was the Vice President of the Tenth Foreign Affairs Committee of the CPPCC National Committee and former President of the International Exhibitions Bureau, which is a multinational organization headquartered in France that coordinates World Expo. Wu became this institution’s first president from China, which has a unique symbolic meaning.

To the significant section of internet users in China, Wu was famous for his involvement in the public debate after his retirement and is perceived as a leading public intellectual in Chinese diplomatic community. Wu was not only diligent in writing and giving speeches on different occasions, he is also active in debating with the hawkish scholars and commentators in public media. This has become one of the most discussed issues by Chinese internet users. In 2014, Wu and the PLA Major General Luo Yuan, who is a famous representative of the hawk faction, had a fierce debate on the topic of ‘Chinese Diplomatic and Strategic Situation’ on Phoenix Television, pushing the ‘hawk-dove debate’ to a climax.

In April, Wu criticized the Global Times, a leading semi-official mouthpiece of the Chinese Communist Party, for inciting nationalist sentiment, misjudgment of world situations, which Wu believed were not conducive to China’s diplomacy. Later on, the chief editor of Global Times Hu Xijin, who is a self-claimed member of the Hawk faction, refuted Wu’s views on the Internet. Wu’s hectic schedule of constant traveling to deliver speeches after speeches and long working hours may even be a contributing factor in his fatal accident.

In fact, Wu Jianmin and Luo Yuan are both far away from Chinese diplomatic decision-making level and do not possess a direct policy impact. Whereas, their official contacts allow the Chinese government to take advantage of them to test the air from two sides, to convey messages so as to make policy evaluation. Hence, the hawk and dove faction in the Chinese diplomatic community are actually complementary to each other. They are responsible for balancing different situations in needs.

Whether Luo Yuan, Hu Xijin or other hawkish representatives who used to refute Wu’s view in public all express regret on the loss of a ‘critical friend’, saying that ‘a gentleman gets along with others but not necessarily agree with them’. They also dismissed the sensational news material hyped up by the opportunistic media outlets. From these observations, we could try to imagine Wu’s elegance and grace when he was alive. This also tells us that these two factions are not defending their own interests but competing for readers.

Professor Wang Jiangyu from the National University of Singapore once pointed out that Wu’s significance in contemporary Chinese diplomacy is as a ‘check and balance to nationalism and populism’. It is not easy to find another influential diplomat who is willing to take this path. Some members in Chinese diplomat community suggest that Fu Ying, who used to be the Deputy Foreign Minister and gained a reputation of elegance and visionary, could be the candidate to succeed Wu’s role after her retirement. Fu has shown a preference in attending different forums with a ‘dovish’ image, which makes her quite different from typical retired ambassadors. However, what makes Wu special is that he knew the rule of the internet age. He knew how to arouse attention. This is difficult for those who has long been in official roles.

Without Wu’s balance, it is expected that in the short term, the voice of the hawk faction will become more dominant. If Wu was alive, the responsibility of advising citizens not to overreact to the South China Sea dispute would have fallen on his shoulders. Unfortunately, we cannot hear a credible sound that is capable of assuming this role now. If one day, due to the fear of nationalism and populism, all Chinese commentators from dovish faction are sidelined, China’s future will become a real source of concern.

The post Wu Jianmin’s Rational Diplomacy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Rodrigo Duterte shakes hands with Vietnamese President Tran Dai Quang at the State Palace in Hanoi on September 29. (KING RODRIGUEZ/ Presidential Photo)

Known for his off-the-cuff inflammatory remarks, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte latest rants have caused international concern, resulting in capital flight and drops in the stockmarket and currency. Dubbed “Duterte Harry” for his crackdown on drug pushers, he has managed in a mere three months on the job to insult a number of world leaders, including the Pope, who he blamed for traffic jams: “I wanted to call him: ‘Pope, son of a whore, go home. Do not visit us again’.” Immediately prior to a meeting of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) in Laos he reacted to a suggestion that Barack Obama might question him over human rights issues, calling the U.S. president a “son of a whore,” which he later explained was not meant to be a personal attack. And when the European Union government warned Duterte to end mass killings of suspected drug dealers and users, he reacted sharply. “I have read the condemnation of the European Union. I’m telling them, ‘F**k you,'” which Duterte was filmed saying during a speech to local businessmen in his hometown of Davao City on September 20.

In recent weeks, Duterte’s bombastic remarks have spooked both domestic and foreign investors, with the Philippine peso sinking to a seven-year low and global funds selling Philippine stocks for 23 straight days.

Duterte has also threatened to pull out of the United Nations, and told U.S. special forces, which are helping Philippine counterinsurgency troops fight an Islamic insurgency, to leave the country, saying “These US special forces, they have to go in Mindanao.” He has also vowed to end cooperation with the U.S. military in patrolling the disputed South China Sea, confirmed by a statement from Philippine Foreign Secretary Perfecto Yasay Jr., arguing “To engage the Philippines with another state, say the United States, in so far as a joint patrol in the area where we have made our claims, or the exclusive economic zone, can be considered as a provocative action by other claimants, particular China, which will impede the peaceful settlement of our disputes.”

While pivoting away from the U.S., Duterte is looking to boost economic ties with Russia and China, and told his defense secretary on September 13th to buy weapons from Russia and China rather than America. Duterte also plans to hold bilateral talks with Beijing to discuss conflicting claims on the South China Sea.

And so it was in this context that Duterte paid his first official visit to Vietnam (his fourth country to visit) last week to meet his counterpart, Tran Dai Quang.  The two-day visit to Hanoi, marked the 40th anniversary of bilateral relations between the two countries.  Fortunately, he did not produce any more publicized zingers—these took place after he returned to Davao and likened himself to Hitler with promises to kill 3 million Filipino drug addicts.  

What the visit did accomplish, though, was to build on their strategic partnership agreement signed last year.  Both countries are claimants to vast areas of the South China Sea, with Manila leading the way on dispute resolution through its filing of a case in 2014 before an international tribunal in The Hague. In July, the tribunal finally issued a ruling in favor of the Philippines and against China’s nine-dash-line claim, which was determined to have no legal basis.

After arriving back in the Philippines, Duterte told reporters, “We reaffirm commitment to maintaining and promoting peace, security, stability, safety and freedom of navigation and over flight as well as unimpeded commerce in the region, particularly in the South China Sea”. The two countries also agreed to enhance maritime cooperation while protecting the livelihoods of both Filipino and Vietnamese fishermen.  

Philippine Foreign Secretary Yasay echoed Duterte’s doctrine of peaceful cooperation—while also acknowledging Vietnam’s claims, “we are very happy that Vietnam has made the same commitment in ASEAN to the rule-based system and peaceful settlement of their claims in the East Vietnam Sea. While we are not taking sides in so far as our respective claims, we respect Vietnam’s claims as much as Vietnam respects our claims.”

So while the previous administration in Hanoi had previously angered Beijing by seeking legal advice from Manila in order to potentially file their own claim at The Hague, the new leadership under Quang appears to be backing off confrontation with Beijing, along with Manila. Any jointly-coordinated legal or military effort between Hanoi and Manila appears now to be out of the question for fear of provoking the dragon next door, while we await the outcome of hopefully peaceful bilateral negotiations. From what has been reported, the unpredictable Duterte’s visit to Hanoi went smoothly, and talk of peaceful settlement of the dispute with Hanoi has seemingly calmed the waters (for now) of the South China Sea.

The post Duterte’s Friendly Visit to Vietnam appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Not really. The FBI report stated that in the 30,000 e-mails that the agency reviewed, agents found three that included internal markings of (C), two of which had been subsequently changed to unclassified. In response to questions before the House Oversight Committee on July 7, 2016, however, Comey conceded that the documents were not properly marked and that a reader could reasonably assume that they were not classified.

“[Rep. Matt] Cartwright: So, if Secretary Clinton really were an expert at what’s classified and what’s not classified and we’re following the manual, the absence of a header would tell her immediately that those three documents were not classified. Am I correct in that?

“Comey: That would be a reasonable inference.”

What are we talking about here? Properly marked documents list at the beginning the full range of classification markings that apply to that document. (See the Able Archer report.) The complete list of markings is then repeated at the top and bottom of every subsequent page. In addition, every head, every subhead, and every paragraph is marked at the beginning according to the degree of classification of the information in that particular head, subhead, or paragraph. Many of these internal markings may be at a lower level of classification than the overall document, but none will be higher or the whole document would have been reclassified at a higher level. The three e-mails that Comey was talking about had one or more paragraphs that began with a (C) but were otherwise unmarked. This is simply not an option. Something or other had to be wrong with the marking of those e-mails.

John Kirby, the State Department spokesperson, stated on July 6 that the department had found two of those e-mails and that they were “call sheets.” (Comey said on July 7 that he was not aware of Kirby’s remarks.) Call sheets are talking points developed for the use of the secretary for phone calls made to foreign leaders. In this case, the foreign dignitaries were former UN secretary-general Kofi Annan, who was stepping down as the special envoy for Syria at the time, and Joyce Banda, who as vice president of Malawi had just succeeded to the presidency following the death of the incumbent.

When they are developed, call sheets are classified at the Confidential level simply to prevent any word of them from getting out and thus to avoid any embarrassment to the foreign dignitary if the secretary should decide for any reason not to make the call. Once the final decision to call is made, unless the topic requires otherwise, the call sheets are recategorized as Unclassified or SBU. In these cases Kirby blamed human error. Apparently, someone was slipshod in changing all the internal markings. Politico has provided an example of one of the “classified” lines from the call sheets: “(C) Purpose of Call: To offer condolences on the passing of President Mutharika and congratulate President Banda on her recent swearing in.”

The FBI report referred to a third e-mail that had not been reclassified by the State Department. Since the State Department has claimed to be aware of only two, it is still possible that the third should have been unclassified as well. Again, internal markings without overall markings is not an option.

If Clinton was not sending or receiving classified documents, what is the issue? The problem concerns the discussion of classified subjects via unclassified e-mail systems.

Some observers have described this case as a conflict between State Department professionals and Clinton amateurs. I think it is more accurate to understand the underlying dynamic as a conflict between State Department security professionals and State Department diplomacy professionals. Clinton and her immediate team sided with the diplomacy professionals either consciously (assuming they were aware of the conflict) or as a consequence of diplomacy, not security, being the essence of what the State Department does.

The charges made by Comey were not strictly limited to Clinton (although she was the target of investigation) but addressed a State Department “culture.” Comey is often quoted as saying that Clinton was “extremely careless” in the handling of very sensitive, highly classified information. Actually, the quote, referring to “Clinton and her colleagues,” was that “they” were extremely careless. Later in his statement Comey expanded this charge beyond Clinton’s immediate circle: “While not the focus of our investigation, we also developed evidence that the security culture of the State Department in general, and with regard to use of unclassified email systems in particular, was generally lacking in the kind of care for classified information found elsewhere in the government.”

The FBI report added some details: “The FBI interviewed multiple officials who authored and/or contributed to e-mails, the content of which has since been determined to contain classified information. USG [i.e., United States Government] employees responsible for initiating classified e-mails in question included State Civil Service employees, Foreign Service employees, Senior Executive Service employees, Presidential appointees, and non-State elected officials.” In fact, Comey is not the first to have remarked on the State Department’s approach to information security.

It is easy to ascribe laxness to an organizational culture, but that begs the question of what is driving this culture. Suzanne Nossel, a former State Department official—writing a year before the release of the FBI report—has attributed at least part of the blame to the nature of the State Department’s communications technology and, specifically, to the mismatch between that technology and the evolving nature of diplomacy in the modern era. Diplomacy today is mobile, continuous, and at times time-urgent. The technology, on the other hand, is stationary and only intermittently available.

In its paper form, highly classified intelligence is kept locked up and can be viewed only in specially designated areas, such as a Sensitive Compartmentalized Information Facility (SCIF). (The secretary of state’s office is a designated SCIF.) In its electronic form, such intelligence can be viewed or communicated at your desk via a special, secure computer network or via a special, secure telephone line. Most significantly, there is no approved way to communicate on classified topics if either the sender or the recipient is not at his desk, or if it is not during business hours.

So, then, what do diplomats do in such circumstances if a message has to be delivered or a decision has to be made immediately? According to Nossel, one response is that more information is now categorized as “sensitive but unclassified” (a counter to the general trend of overclassification) and, ipso facto, can be transmitted over unclassified systems. When time is of the essence and Top Secret topics cannot be avoided, however, State Department officials communicate on unclassified systems but try do so circuitously, that is, in ways that will be unintelligible to anyone who hacks into the system from outside and is unaware of the context of the conversation.

References to this very problem appeared in the FBI report. For example, “[Name deleted] stated the right method of communication was whichever method allowed for the fastest possible dissemination of the message. He also stated that information he received from other USG agencies was ‘technically probably classified’ but that ‘you can’t do business that way.’ When interviewed by the FBI, authors of the e-mails stated that they used their best judgment in drafting the messages and that it was common practice at State to carefully word e-mails on UNCLASSIFIED networks so as to avoid sensitive details or ‘talk around’ [deleted] classified information.”

Clinton, herself, described this situation to the FBI in much the same way. “Upon reviewing an e-mail classified [after the fact] SECRET//NOFORN dated December 27, 2011, Clinton stated no policy or practice existed related to communicating around holidays, and that it was often necessary to communicate in code or do the best you could to convey the information considering the e-mail system you were using.”

Evidently, Clinton engaged in this sort of discussion of Top Secret topics eight times in the course of her four years at State. Until the e-mails are declassified, which could be decades from now, we will not know how well or poorly she and other State Department officials concealed the true subjects of their messages. Should diplomats be discussing Top Secret topics in this manner? No, probably not. Will this sort of thing continue? Yes, without a doubt, until the technology (and State’s technology budget) advances to the point where it meshes with the needs of modern diplomacy.

Finally, many have asserted that people other than Clinton, such as General David Petraeus, have been punished “for doing far less,” that she is receiving special treatment because of who she is. In fact, this was never likely to end in prosecution. The first point to highlight is that—as noted above from the FBI report—every category of official in the State Department has done exactly the same thing at some time or other, and some quite regularly. Those officials are not being purged from the system, nor do they concede that they have done anything wrong. Indeed, they believe that they are the ones who make the system work despite itself. If Clinton has received special treatment, it is in the form of extraordinary scrutiny and public denunciation that others in similar circumstances have been spared. As Comey told the Senate Homeland Security Committee, “I think if we recommended prosecution it would have been a two-tiered system of justice.”

Generally speaking, officials are punished for knowingly giving classified information to those who have not been authorized to receive it or for mishandling massive amounts of classified information. According to court records, Petraeus gave Paula Broadwell, his biographer—whose job, after all, was to make details of his life public—notebooks that contained “classified information regarding the identities of covert officers, war strategy, intelligence capabilities and mechanisms, diplomatic discussions, quotes and deliberative discussions from high-level National Security Council meetings… and discussions with the president of the United States.” According to a recording made by Broadwell, he openly said of the notebooks, “Umm, well, they’re really—I mean they are highly classified, some of them. They don’t have it [marked] on it, but I mean there’s code word stuff in there.” In Petraeus’s case, the attorney general opted to charge him with a misdemeanor, but the FBI had recommended a felony charge.

In the Clinton case, Comey, in his public statement, said: “In looking back at our investigations into mishandling or removal of classified information, we cannot find a case that would support bringing criminal charges on these facts. All the cases prosecuted involved some combination of: clearly intentional and willful mishandling of classified information; or vast quantities of materials exposed in such a way as to support an inference of intentional misconduct; or indications of disloyalty to the United States; or efforts to obstruct justice. We do not see those things here.” Comey reaffirmed this conclusion in his later memo to FBI employees. “At the end of the day, the case itself was not a cliff-hanger; despite all the chest-beating by people no longer in government, there really wasn’t a prosecutable case.”

Attorney General Loretta Lynch stated that she met with Comey, career prosecutors, and the agents who conducted the investigation. It was “their unanimous recommendation,” not Comey’s alone, that the investigation be closed and that no charges be brought against any individual within the scope of the investigation.

The post Clinton and Why the State Department Doesn’t Follow Its Own Rules (Pt II) appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Bangladesh’s Jamaat-e-Islami leader Mir Quasem Ali was hanged on September 3 for ‘war against humanity’ during the 1971 Liberation War against Pakistan.

This is the second part of a three-part series. Read the first part here.

“Cooperation within the framework of the Association shall be based on respect for the principles of sovereign equality, territorial integrity, political independence, non-interference in the internal affairs of other States and mutual benefit.” -Point (1) of the ‘Principles’ subset of Article II of the South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC) charter.

‘Respect for territorial integrity’ and ‘non-interference in the internal affairs of other states’, really?

The Indian subcontinent is chequered with a history of border and territory disputes. If there is no shared border, there are prickly issues related to shared ethnic and religious groups in each other’s territories.

Two very topical, and yet, off the cuff, examples here illustrate the intertwining and conflicting interests of the South Asian nations, whether or not with a shared border, and the consequent impact of the same on the functioning of SAARC.

Bangladesh expressed its strong protest against Pakistan’s reaction to the execution of Jamaat-e-Islami (JeI) leader Mir Quasem Ali on September 3.

Ali, a prominent member of the pro-Pakistani militia during Bangladesh’s war of independence from Pakistan in 1971, was found guilty of torture and mass murders. Bangladeshi accounts say that the Pakistani army and its supporters in JeI had killed about three million people, though the number varies in other accounts.

Pakistan termed the trial as a ‘flawed judicial process’.

“The act of suppressing the Opposition through flawed trials is completely against the spirit of democracy,” Nafees Zakaria, Pakistan’s foreign office spokesman told the international media.

Quick to retort, Bangladesh called Pakistan’s acting high commissioner in Dhaka, Samina Mehtab,  and handed over a strongly-worded note verbale.

“By repeatedly taking the side of those Bangladesh nationals who are convicted of crimes against humanity and genocide, Pakistan has once again acknowledged its direct involvement and complicity with the mass atrocity crimes committed during Bangladesh’s liberation war in 1971,” read the communiqué.

The trial of Islamist leaders who took a violently pro-Pakistani stance in the 1971 war is going on for a while now—and the two countries have sparred all along.

In a different setting, the historical friction between the two nations had taken the turn of a very contemporary fight after the terror attack in Dhaka in July this year.

During the Muslim holy month of Ramzan, gunmen had entered a chic restaurant in the city’s diplomatic enclave on July 2 and killed 21 hostages and two police officers—before the Bangladesh security forces raided the restaurant and ended the standoff. Four terrorists were killed and one was captured alive.

Those killed were from around the globe, including one Indian, nine Italians, seven Japanese, one American and two local Bangladeshis.

Amid talks of the ISIS connection, while Bangladesh blamed the home-grown Islamist terrorists belonging to JeI group for the worst-ever terror attack in the country’s history, it also talked about the radical group’s connection with Pakistan’s spy agency ISI.

“They (Pakistani establishment) are openly supporting war criminals. So, politically they are with Jamaat-e-Islami, politically they are with the militants. So, that is a sad thing in the regional politics,” said Bangladesh Information Minister Hasan-Ul-Haq Inu a day after the attack.

“And recently few diplomats, who were working undercover at the Pakistan Embassy, were thrown out of the country because they were involved in armed networks,” he added.

The issue in his later statement relates to the two Islamic countries expelling each other’s diplomats in a tit for tat fashion in late 2015.

Following the Dhaka attack and the continuing strained relations, the home minister of Bangladesh ‘skipped’ the SAARC Home Ministers Conference held on August 3 and 4 in Islamabad.

This was followed by the finance minister of the country too opting to ‘skip’ SAARC finance ministers meeting in Islamabad on August 25, citing ‘domestic compulsion’.

On the other hand, and even before these latest snubs by Bangladesh, countless experts on Pakistani news channels have dubbed the former, a part of Pakistan for the first 24 years of the latter’s existence, as a colony of India. The view reflects the growing relationship between India and Bangladesh ever since the Sheikh Hasina government has come back in 2010.

That described the current relationship between two SAARC members who were once the same country. Today, leave aside a common goal, they don’t even share a border!

An equally telling example of churning with SAARC relates to two nations that do share borders—India and Nepal.

India’s Prime Minister Mr. Narendra Modi had the Nepalese lawmakers, and the people of Nepal, eat out of his hands during his rockstar-like visit in August 2014 to the Himalayan nation, and his address to Parliament.

“We have not come here to interfere with your internal matters, but we want to help you develop,” Modi said to his hosts.

His popularity hit the stratosphere when he said that India was open to accepting a revised version of the Treaty of Peace and Friendship signed by the two countries in 1950: “Kathmandu had only to bring forth the amendments and New Delhi would sign on the dotted line since it implicitly trusted Nepal“.

At that time, Nepal was busy framing a new Constitution, which was to take into consideration  the concerns of all communities of the nation.

The coming together of all parties for Modi’s speech and the surplus warmth towards the visiting leader suggested an era of good times for the two nations.

The bond of warmth got a shot in the arm after India reacted faster than all to provide expertise and relief material within a matter of hours after a massive earthquake hit Nepal in April-May 2015.

At that time the only sour note seemed to be local Nepalese’s anger towards a section of the Indian media for being patronizing and meddlesome during the rescue operations.

Problems started taking a serious nature after the adoption of a new Constitution by the parliament, followed by a 16-point agreement between the Government and the opposition, which spelled out the roadmap for the new Constitution.

There was an instant and violent rejection of the new Constitution by the various Madhesi (an ethnic group living in the Nepalese south) parties and Janjatis (essentially tribals) because of, what they called, non-representation of their aspirations.

At the same time, India felt that the outcome was contrary to Mr. Modi’s advice for a consensus-driven rather than a numbers-determined approach towards finalisation of the Constitution.

Nepal, on the other hand, viewed India’s reaction to the promulgation of its new Constitution, and a hurried visit by India’s foreign secretary, as a brazen attempt by India to meddle in Nepal’s internal matters.

The new Constitution was formally adopted in September 2015.

The Madheshi groups responded by blockading the border points between India and Nepal. Kathmandu saw it as Indian handiwork and accused its southern neighbour of deliberately worsening the embargo by not allowing vehicles to pass through even those check-points where no protests were held—a charge that was quickly, and predictably, denied by the Indian government.

A four-month border blockade by the Madhesis ended only after amendments to the constitution that sought to address their concerns about ‘rightful’ representation in Nepalese political framework were made.

India welcomed the amendments. It remains to be seen what kind of welcome Modi gets on his next Nepal visit, whenever that happens.

Is there any greater ‘interference in internal affairs’, whether real or perceived, than interference in matters related to judiciary or constitution of one nation by another—as highlighted by the squabbling SAARC members in the two examples?

In an atmosphere of such mistrust and misgivings, it is barely surprising that 95% of  trade of SAARC nations is with non-SAARC nations. The corresponding figure, for example, for the Southeast Asian nations within the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region is about 25%.

Note: This piece was written prior to a deadly terror attack on an Indian military facility on September 18, which killed 17 Indian army personnel. All the four killed terrorists belonged to the Pakistan-based Jaish-e-Mohammad terror group.

To be continued…

The post The Tattered Mirage of a South Asian Union is Dying Fast – Pt. 2 appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Kevin Lamarque (Associated Press)

There has been a lot of discussion of Hillary Clinton’s e-mails and her handling of classified material—a lot. Press coverage of Clinton has focused on the e-mail issue so much that it is the first thing people mention when pollsters ask about her. The topic is certainly worthy of discussion, but much of it has been misinformed, involving some combination of willful distortion and innocent misunderstanding about some fairly esoteric topics. I would like to take some time to examine some points about Clinton’s e-mails, the government classification system, and the reason why the State Department often does not follow its own rules when it comes to information security. This is not an exercise in excuse making but an effort to understand what has been happening at the State Department and why.

First, some people view FBI director James Comey’s public statement of July 5, 2016, explaining the FBI’s investigation and recommendation regarding Clinton’s handling of classified information, as an attack on Clinton. It is, I believe, more accurately understood as a preemptive defense of the FBI as an institution. So many exaggerated claims and assertions had been made about Clinton’s e-mails in terms of criminal liability that he would have opened his agency to attack if he had simply recommended against prosecution and left it at that.

Thus he went into an unusual degree of detail about the investigation and its thoroughness to prevent charges of bias. Comey said as much toward the end of his statement: “I know there will be intense public debate in the wake of this recommendation, as there was throughout this investigation. What I can assure the American people is that this investigation was done competently, honestly, and independently. No outside influence of any kind was brought to bear.” In a later memo to FBI employees, he stated: “The hard part was whether to offer unprecedented transparency about our thinking. . . . I struggled with that part, but decided the best way to protect the FBI, the Department of Justice, and the American people’s sense of justice was to announce it the way we did—with extraordinary transparency and without any kind of coordination.”

Despite what some people have suggested, Clinton’s use of a personal e-mail account, in and of itself, was not a violation of the law, nor was it necessarily unusual. Examining the period between 2001 and 2008, before Clinton came to the department, the State Department Office of Inspector General (OIG) “identified more than 90 Department employees who periodically used personal email accounts to conduct official business.” The OIG report—which addressed department-wide practices, not just Secretary Clinton—went on to quote a former department official as saying, “State’s technology is so antiquated that NO ONE uses a State-issued laptop and even high officials routinely end up using their home email accounts to be able to get their work done quickly and effectively.”

According to the OIG report, it was a violation of department policy to use an unauthorized system without seeking official guidance or approval from the department’s Bureau of Information Resource Management (IRM) and Bureau of Diplomatic Security (DS), which Clinton did not seek. (The report’s wording implies that the burden was on the secretary to initiate these actions, yet the IRM director was clearly aware of the situation.) Even there, however, the FBI report suggested some ambiguity: “While State policy during Clinton’s tenure required that ‘day-to-day operations [at State] be conducted on [an authorized information system]’ according to the Bureau of Information Security Management there was no restriction on the use of personal email accounts for official business. However, State employees were cautioned about security and records retention concerns regarding the use of personal e-mail. In 2011, a notice to all State employees was sent on Clinton’s behalf, which recommended employees avoid conducting State business from personal e-mail accounts due to information security concerns.” [Emphasis added; insertions and deletions made by FBI.] Was it required or recommended, or were there no restrictions? Apparently it is still hard to say.

The mishandling of classified material is a different matter. That can involve serious violations of the law, and that was the main focus of the FBI investigation. We shall return to that shortly, after reviewing a few intermediary points.

The State Department has two e-mail systems, a classified system for classified documents and an unclassified system (@state.gov) for other documents and messages. It is not permitted to transfer documents from the classified system to the unclassified system, and in any event they cannot be transferred without the direct assistance of system administrators.

Clinton regularly used the classified system for classified documents (or, more precisely, she assigned people to do it for her). The controversy arises from her use of a personal server in place of @state.gov and, more particularly, from the occasional use of that server—or any unclassified system—to communicate on classified topics. We will return to that topic below. First, why did she use a personal server?

My own initial assumption was that she wanted to control access to her communications. Clinton has been the target of political attacks for a quarter century, and some of those who attack her are not shy about taking information out of context or distorting it in the process. Thus one might expect her to want to limit access to her communications. Yet this does not seem to have been the case. Rather, just as she has said all along, she said to the FBI that she used the private server as a matter of convenience, and the FBI appears to have accepted this explanation.* The decision seems to be rooted in Clinton’s quite profound lack of expertise in, or curiosity about, information technology. She did not fully comprehend the possible consequences, and—probably because she was the secretary—no one forced her to confront them.

The decision to use a personal server, of course, raised two issues: possible exposure of her communications to hacking by hostile powers (or others) and complications concerning the proper archiving of what the State Department now calls “record emails.” Record e-mails are those that are to be marked for archiving. Not all e-mails are preserved. Department employees are instructed to delete personal e-mails and most “working emails,” which concern day-to-day administrative matters. Employees determine on their own which messages to delete and which to archive.

While Clinton was aware of these issues, they did not cause her concern. With regard to archiving, she simply believed that her e-mails could be found in the archives of the officials with whom she communicated (which undermines my initial theory that she used the private server to prevent access to her communications). This is really not a satisfactory means of record keeping, but then many people underestimate the difficulty of maintaining records, and even if frustrating, it is not designed to prevent record keeping. After all, the FBI did find many of Clinton’s deleted e-mails by looking in the archives of people with whom she corresponded, just as she said they would. (Many of the deleted e-mails that were deemed to be business-related have turned out to be earlier versions of e-mail chains that had already been turned over.) Incidentally, this was the exact opposite of Colin Powell’s practice. According to an e-mail he sent to Clinton in January 2009, he used a personal e-mail account precisely in order to prevent his messages from becoming “an official record and subject to the law” and for that reason advised Clinton to avoid “systems that captured the data.”

As for security, Clinton did not consider it a problem. According to her FBI interview, “CLINTON understood the email system used by her husband’s personal staff had an excellent track record with respect to security and had never been breached.” Although the FBI could not find evidence of any breach of her account, Comey stated that the nature of the technology might have allowed talented hackers to enter without leaving traces (although the FBI did find evidence that another e-mail account on the server had been hacked). On the other hand, David Sanger reported in the New York Times (after 10 paragraphs of how vulnerable Clinton’s private server was) that the Russians had access to the @state.gov e-mail system that she was supposed to be using for more than seven years, from at least 2007 through the end of 2014, so they probably have her e-mails and everyone else’s anyhow.

For the record, Clinton has stated that it was a mistake to have used her own server. Given the hullabaloo over the decision, it is safe to assume that she is not likely to do this again.

The process of classifying and declassifying government documents is complex and highly arbitrary. The rules are vague enough to be open to interpretation, and the incentives generally favor “overclassification.” In other words, permitting the release of information that should have been classified has repercussions; classifying a document that did not require it does not. Thus there is a lot of material that is needlessly classified. Some analysts speak of a disconnect between the classification system and the actual needs of national security.

The arbitrariness of the system has been taken into account by people who deal with it regularly. For example, George Washington University’s National Security Archive, which frequently requests the declassification of old documents for historical purposes, routinely submits multiple requests for the same document in the hope that different officials will declassify different portions. On one occasion, the archive received the beginning and the end of a document from which the entire middle had been redacted. The very next day, in response to a separate request, it received a version of the same document with the middle intact but with the beginning and end removed. Thus within 24 hours the archive had received the entire document. The markings on the two copies indicated that both versions had been reviewed, redacted, and released by the same official.

The current Clinton case presents another example. The notes from Clinton’s FBI interview contain the sentence: “CLINTON believed information should be classified in the case of covert military action, the use of sensitive sources and where sensitive deliberations took place.” The FBI report, which was based in part on the interview and was released as part of the same package, contains virtually the same sentence except that the words “covert military action” have been redacted. Among the redactions from the interview notes, on the other hand, is Clinton’s date of birth.

That said, of course, not everything is overclassified, and the subject is not to be dismissed out of hand. Officially there are three levels of classification as defined by the National Security Act of 1947: Confidential (C), Secret (S), and Top Secret (TS). Bureaucrats often treat Confidential and Secret information in a fairly cavalier manner. This is the sort of thing that you read in the newspaper every day, attributed to a government official who will not give his name because he’s violating the law by giving classified information to a reporter. (Although, to be sure, some unauthorized leaks to the press are actually authorized releases masquerading as unauthorized leaks. Bureaucracy works in strange ways.)

Top Secret information is treated much more seriously. Fred Kaplan has related that when he began a job on Capitol Hill years ago, he was granted access to Confidential and Secret information from the first day, while he was restricted from seeing Top Secret material until his security clearance actually came through. Perhaps because there is only one category that everyone treats so seriously, a number of “unofficial” gradations have been invented within it, degrees of Top Secret, if you will. These include: Special Access Programs (SAP), Sensitive Compartmentalized Information (SCI), and the anatomically challenging EYES ONLY. Incidentally there are two grades of unclassified information as well, both of which may be sent on (authorized) unclassified systems: Unclassified (U) and Sensitive But Unclassified (SBU).**

Various categories of secretiveness can pile up. To take a random example, a 1991 assessment of the 1983 Able Archer war scare*** was marked: TOP SECRET UMBRA GAMMA WNINTEL NOFORN NOCONTRACT ORCON, which roughly translates as: Release Would Cause Exceptionally Grave Damage to National Security; Highly Sensitive Communications Intelligence; Contains Intercepts of Soviet Communications; Warning Notice—Intelligence Sources and Methods Involved; Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals; Not Releasable to Contractors or Consultants; Dissemination and Extraction of Information Controlled by Originator. As of last year, the document is freely available, albeit in redacted form.

*The argument that Clinton must have lied about it being convenient because she was really using multiple devices is false. She used multiple devices over the course of four years, one at a time.

**SBU is a State Department designation. Other agencies, including the FBI, use For Official Use Only (FOUO).

***Yes, there was a war scare in 1983, when the Soviets began to suspect that President Reagan was preparing to launch a nuclear missile strike and went on alert. Don’t feel bad, U.S. intelligence was not aware of it at the time either.

The post Clinton and Why the State Department Doesn’t Follow Its Own Rules (Pt I) appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Dominik P. Jankowski and Maksymilian Czuperski

The transatlantic community faces threats on multiple fronts, rendering NATO as essential as it has ever been. Because of these changing regional security dynamics, the Alliance should consider some additional reforms to its internal structure and capacities, so that it can achieve necessary readiness. There is still much to ponder. On the road from the 2016 Warsaw Summit to the 2017 Brussels Summit, the Alliance should embrace six core approaches—a new strategic “six-pack”—in order to strengthen the process of NATO’s long-term strategic adaptation.

First, NATO should become a key platform for a new transatlantic grand bargain. The ongoing presidential race in the United States has once again revealed growing criticisms of NATO in some American political circles, especially among supporters of Donald Trump. A new transatlantic bargain should lead to more fair and balanced burden sharing, both in terms of devoting necessary financial resources as well as investing in the right capabilities. Following the decisions of the Warsaw Summit, the Alliance will, in fact, need additional heavier high-end capabilities. A NATO Defense Planning Pledge—which would not replace the NATO Defense Investment Pledge, but concentrate more on a desired military output—could become a starting point for a renewed transatlantic bond.

Second, NATO needs a clear political-military strategy to counter the Russian “Anti-Access/Area Denial” (A2/AD) systems. Even if A2/AD is by no means a new concept, it poses a formidable challenge to the political and military credibility of NATO, as it restricts the freedom to maneuver. Therefore, it should be considered an aggressive posture. In fact, Russia has harnessed an array of stand-off weapons—including air defense, coastal defense, cruise missiles, tactical ballistic missile platforms, and naval and submarine forces, as well as electronic and cyber warfare—which can turn areas falling within their range into strategically and operationally isolated “bubbles”.

Third, in an A2/AD and hybrid environment the Alliance needs a renewed and more ambitious exercises policy. NATO drills should not only provide assurance to Allies, but also serve as an element of a deterrence policy. An updated approach to exercises should not only include visibility, high-end capabilities and large-scale formations, but also be employed in a non-permissive environment on the eastern, northern and southern flanks. In short, what NATO needs are regular drills of the Follow on Forces in A2/AD “bubbles”.

Fourth, NATO needs additional robust intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance (ISR) capabilities, which are a fundamental requirement for effective situational awareness, strategic foresight, and early warning. In response to the current threats and challenges, NATO should consider employing a Regional Intelligence Analysis Centre (RIAC) on its eastern flank, which would supplement the work done by the NATO Intelligence Fusion Centre (NIFC). An additional ISR presence in the region, e.g. an AGS forward-operating location in Poland, would also support the planning and execution of current and future activities on the eastern flank.

Fifth, the Alliance needs a reviewed NATO Command Structure (NCS) that should be better suited to deliver on the collective defense tasks. Current regional security dynamics have challenged some assumptions on which the NCS was based, showing that its connectivity with the NATO Force Structure is not sufficient. Moreover, the Warsaw Summit decisions on strengthened deterrence and defense posture added new requirements for the existing NCS.

Sixth, NATO’s actions require a fully integrated approach to strategic communications (StratCom). The Russian pressure to redefine our values has now reached the stage of undermining the coherence of Euro-Atlantic communication. In the fog of misinformation NATO might be well prepared for classical cyber challenges, but the Russian-Ukrainian conflict shows that it also needs to be prepared for information war when the events are seamlessly melded with cyber, kinetic and electronic warfare operations. In fact, NATO’s activities should be enhanced by a creation of special StratCom departments throughout the Alliance member states to rapidly gather evidence, analyze and respond to disinformation campaigns.

As Europe confronts the prospect of future Russian aggression, terror, and domestic upheaval, NATO must remain a primary security guarantor on the continent. In fact, there is no viable alternative to NATO. But new security challenges cannot be borne by the Alliance of decades past. Indeed, NATO’s military adaption should be continued The Alliance must emphasize what is required of it, like intelligence, strategic communications and effective coordination and command, to confront these threats to transatlantic security. By developing a strategic “six-pack” NATO will stay on the right path and draw credible red lines that can keep Russian adventurism in check.

Dominik P. Jankowski is Head of OSCE and Eastern Security Unit at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

Maksymilian Czuperski is Strategic Communications Advisor Europe and Special Assistant to the President of the Atlantic Council.

The views and opinions expressed in this article are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official positions of the institutions they represent.

This article was originally published by The National Interest.

The post NATO’s Strategic ‘Six-Pack’ appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.