Foreign Policy Blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Maersk and NotPetya

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

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

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

Vulnerabilities

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

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

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

It cost the company several million dollars before they noticed.

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

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

Piracy

One shipping firm was hacked by pirates — sophisticated pirates.

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

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

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

Propellers and Charts

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

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

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

Taking Control

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

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

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

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

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

Solutions

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Kyrgyz presidential elections are a positive sign for democracy in the Central Asian region. However, a recent quarrel between Kyrgyzstan and Kazakhstan tarnishes the picture and threatens regional integration efforts. President-elect Zheenbekov is confronted with crucial decisions concerning the formation of a government.

The presidential elections in Kyrgyzstan held on 15 October were remarkable in many respects. In a region that is first and foremost associated with autocrats only to be toppled by revolution or natural demise, Kyrgyzstan made history this year by holding Central Asia’s first ever competitive election. Surrounded by Kazakhstan where Nursultan Nazarbayev has been reigning since 1990, Tajikistan with its lifetime “Leader of the Nation” Emomali Rahmon in power for a quarter century, and Uzbekistan, where Shavkat Mirziyoyev was elected with 89% after Islam Karimov’s decades long leadership came to an end, Kyrgyzstan witnesses the region’s first peaceful transfer of power from one elected president to another.

The outcome was no less astonishing than lead-up to the election, as Sooronbay Zheenbekov, incumbent president Almazbek Atambayev’s personal pick, unexpectedly gathered 54% of the vote; avoiding a runoff with businessman Omurbek Babanov in a second round.

Although widely perceived as free – mainly due to a modern voting system based on bio-metric registration – OSCE addressed the burdensome nomination process for candidates and reported minor violations such as vote-buying on election day.

Owing to the competitiveness of the vote, the election campaigns between the two major opponents Zheenbekov and Babanov were characterized by the dissemination of compromising material and the massive abuse of administrative resources. For instance, after a rally in the southern city of Osh on 28 September during which he addressed the Uzbek minority, Babanov was accused of inciting ethnic hatred, a sensitive issue after the2010 riots which resulted in hundreds of casualties.

Having commenced his business career in Kazakhstan, once holding a Kazakh passport, Babanov was an easy target when it came to questioning loyalty to the Kyrgyz state, especially after reports of his clandestine meeting with Kazakh and Russian oligarchs on the banks of lake Issyk-Kul in early September were leaked into the public.

However, what might have struck Babanov with the strongest blow was Nazarbayev’sinvite to Astana on 20 September, after which incumbent president Atambayev deplored the alleged Kazakh meddling into Kyrgyz internal affairs; pointing to the Kazakh government’s corruption.

Kazakh-Kyrgyz quarrels: potential threat for regional integration?

What might have been intended as a pre-election gambit to discredit Babanov has developed into a fully-fledged international dispute between two member states of the Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). After Atambayev’s remarks, Kazakhstan on 10 October reintroduced border controls and customs checks to Kyrgyzstan and partially suspended the import of dairy products, which has led to massive congestion and economic damage to Kyrgyz companies. As Kyrgyzstan reciprocated, Southern Kazakh and Northern Kyrgyz regions experienced shortcomings in a myriad of sectors. Labour migrants’ free movement on both sides of the border is restricted. Kyrgyzstan has alerted the WTO Dispute Settlement Body to Kazakhstan’s commitment violations.

After Kazakhstan’s threats to re-impose sanitary and phytosanitary controls as well as checks of Kyrgyz national residence permits, Atambayev questioned his country’s membership in the EEU Customs Union and reminded his partners that “we have other neighbours as well”. To lend weight to Atambayev’s words, the Kyrgyz government officially renounced a USD 100 million technical aid package from Kazakhstan – granted on a Supreme Council Meeting of the EEU in December 2016 –  to assist the Kyrgyz process to harmonize itself with the Custom Union’s standards after Kyrgyzstan had refused to sign the new EEU Customs Code Treaty.

Kazakhstan, being less dependent on Kyrgyzstan economically than vice versa, has nearly unlimited escalation range to put pressure on its southern neighbour. However, Bishkek announced that it could consider tapping the Kirov water reservoir located in northern Kyrgyzstan, which would deprive bordering Kazakh regions of their water supply.

One of the most remittance dependent countries in the world (30% of the GDP in 2016, estimated at 37.1% for 2017), Kyrgyzstan relies heavily on its EEU membership. However, Uzbekistan and Tajikistan, whose nationals also predominantly work in former Soviet neighbour countries, have shown the ability to manage fairly well in this respect outside the EEU.

Although the probability of Kyrgyzstan leaving the EEU can be assessed at a minimum, the current spat has revealed latent resentments between the member states and does not bode well for the organisation, and may daunt potential candidate states, such as Tajikistan.

Regional dynamics

Kazakhstan’s harsh reaction to Atambayev’s diatribe might be induced by the recent rapprochement between Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan, which experienced a certain thaw under President Mirziyoyev. Kazakhstan, largest by territory and economy among the five post-Soviet Central Asian republics, sees its dominant regional role challenged by an increasingly engaged Uzbekistan. Bishkek could further reinforce its relations to Tashkent in order to lower its dependence on Kazakhstan. Russia would be well-advised to mediate in the regional developments in order not to see its economic (EEU) and security (CSTO) integration efforts jeopardised.

Domestic challenges

A Kremlin press release suggests that the election outcome suits Russia. Zheenbekov appears to be a convenient president in Moscow’s view. During his campaign, he asserted that he would continue Atambayev’s policies, although it is hard to determine what has constituted the latter’s tenure apart from delivering stability to Kyrgyzstan after the 2010 revolution.

Zheenbekov will struggle to find broad support among the population after a divisive election campaign and a comparably thin mandate having received the smallest vote for an elected president in the country’s history (at a turnout of 56%, only about three in ten Kyrgyz effectively voted for him). With his major opponent Babanov being backed by a third of the electorate, Zheenbekov is walking a tightrope.

Atambayev’s conspicuous bias has fuelled rumours he might want to stay in the government – potentially as new prime minister or faction leader of his social-democratic part – as the competencies of prime minister and parliament had been widened after a constitutional referendum last December. Other potential candidates for the post of prime minister are incumbent Sapar Isakov or Omurbek Babanov, who served in the same role in 2012. On the one hand, this latter scenario would accommodate a large part of the electorate. On the other, Babanov, whom Zheenbekov blustered to imprison after the election owing to his alleged corrupt business activities, might instead want to prepare for the next elections on the opposition bench.

Zheenbekov, who is widely perceived as Atambayev’s puppet has to form a government by 1 December,  and does not enjoy his entire party’s trust. By barring party leader Atambayev from pivotal executive positions, he would, on the one hand, refute critics who doubt his autonomy, but on the other would possibly lose even more support from the social democrats. If Atambayev strives for further curtailing of the president’s constitutional authority, Zheenbekov might see himself confronted with the decision to give in or risk the disintegration of the ruling party. This could play into the opposition’s hands for the next elections.

 

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Tobias Vollmer. 

The post The Kyrgyz presidential elections: domestic and regional dynamics appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Spain is on the verge of imposing direct rule over Catalonia, with potentially explosive consequences. GRI’s Marc Hernando Santacana asks: How did we get here?

The dramatic developments since the independence referendum may feel sudden, but nationalism in the Catalan region of Spain is nothing new. There was the Modernist political movement of the early 20th century – and the 1976 demonstrations demanding political amnesty, greater freedoms, and a new Statute of Autonomy.  In more recent years, a clear sequence of events has resulted in an ever-greater part of the population embracing the idea that Catalonia might be better off on its own.

The 11 September movement

In 2010, based on an appeal by the conservative Partido Popular, Spain’s Constitutional Court cut back a significant proportion of a revised Statute of Autonomy for Catalonia that had already been approved by referendum, and that then-President Rodríguez Zapatero had promised he would support. The Catalan responded with a one million-strong demonstration that cut across the political spectrum. Then the Catalan started to make demands for a more favourable taxation system, arguing that Catalonia was losing economic potential under the existing arrangements. The simmering discontent culminated on Catalonia’s National Day, 11 September, when 1.5 million people took the streets. They were asking for the “right to choose”: a referendum that would gauge public opinion on independence. This demonstration even saw the participation of Spanish national parties such as the Socialist Party, since it was not officially a pro-independence rally.

Every 11 September since then has seen civil society groups organize public demonstrations that shifted towards expressing outright demands for independence. In 2014, a first attempt to hold a referendum took place. The Constitutional Court ruled the referendum illegal even before it took place, but the result – 80% in favour of independence – nonetheless had a political impact.

Soon afterwards, regional elections were held and the parties supporting independence gained a majority of seats in the Catalan Parliament.

The new cabinet took further steps towards a hypothetical independence process that was supposed to last two to three years. Meanwhile, tensions hardened between separatists and unionists. And there were other driving forces at play as well. These included “the economic crisis, the loss of legitimacy of Spanish political institutions and elites, the attractions of identity politics, and comparative grievances”, as LSE Spanish Studies Professor Sebastian Balfour told GRI at the time.

The perception grew that Madrid did not have Catalonia’s best interests at heart. Earlier this year, a plot under the name of “Operation Catalonia” was uncovered, causing widespread indignation in the region. According to judicial records, Spain’s former Minister of the Interior Jorge Fernández Díaz had conspired with high ranking police officials to delegitimize some Catalan political figures and, consequently, the process of independence.

In June 2017, the date of the current referendum was set for October. Spanish authorities indicated they were prepared use any means necessary in order to prevent it from happening. On 1 October, this was taken a step further when Guardia Civil troops actually used forced to stop people from voting.

Two political camps

Two distinct political groupings have formed over the years in relation to the independence issue. There is the nationalist movement, backed by political parties such as Junts pel Sí and the Candidatura d’Unió Popular and civil society organizations such as the National Assembly of Catalonia and Òmnium Cultural. This is opposed by the unionist movement, which includes the Partido Popular and Ciudadanos; the sole civic group supporting it is called Catalan Civil Society. In terms of the population, the demographics joining both causes are fairly homogeneous in terms of geographical origin and social status.

The two largest outliers within the Catalan borders are Podemos and the Socialist Party of Catalonia. They have been quoted both in favor and against the separatist movement. The real wildcard, however, might be the European Union. As a supranational organization, it might have the most leverage in terms of an agreement being reached, but thus far has largely stayed out of the fray.

Little prospect for compromise

In the initial aftermath of the referendum, there was some expectation in Catalonia that President Charles Puigdemont would unilaterally declare independence within the week. Instead, he equivocated: seeming to make the declaration, then suspending it and calling for talks with Spain. However, the Spanish side refuses to negotiate unless the referendum result is annulled. This has led to a new escalation, where Spain intends to invoke Article 155 of the Constitution, imposing direct rule on Catalonia – unless the region agrees to hold snap elections.

This way out has also been rejected by Puigdemont, who instead has gone out to join mass demonstrations, calling Madrid’s threats of direct rule “an attack” and an attempt to destroy democracy. He has nonetheless reiterated that his offers of dialogue are “genuine”.

Neither party seems willing to make compromises. Under these conditions, more forceful actions by Madrid are likely, which will further alienate the Catalan population, making a compromise even more difficult. An intervention by a greater authority – the EU – seems increasingly necessary.

 

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Marc Hernando Santacana. 

The post The origins of the Catalonia crisis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The latest terrorist attack in Mogadishu has brought the threat of Al-Shabaab to the forefront of world news and signalled the weakness of the Somali American-backed government.

More than 300 people died on 14 October in Mogadishu after two bomb trucks exploded in the crowded district of Hodan. While no group officially claimed the attack, experts agree that it was almost certainly directed by Al-Qaeda affiliated militant group Al-Shabaab. The deadliest terror attack in Somalia since 2007 highlights the persistent threat of Islamist militant groups and their ability to carry out sophisticated assaults on soft targets. The threat of Al-Shabaab has increased in southern and central Somalia as well as outside the country’s borders. In 2016, Al-Shabaab became the deadliest terror group on the African continent, followed by Boko Haram. While Al-Shabaab has suffered setbacks in recent years, the latest attack in Mogadishu shows that the organisation is resurgent and has the capabilities to carry out acute attacks. The incident also undermines the credibility of Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmaajo)’s government, less than a year after his election.

Al-Shabaab’s enduring presence in Somalia and beyond

Al-Shabaab continues to wage a violent insurgency against the government and US-backed forces in Somalia. Since 2010, the group has suffered territorial losses at the hands of the US coalition and the African Union Mission in Somalia (AMISOM) but its ability to carry out deadly attacks has not diminished. In September the group attacked a military base outside the capital, killing eight soldiers. The choice of targets (busy public areas, security forces) reflects Al-Shabaab’s attempts to destabilise the government and inflict maximum damage to shock public opinion. While small-scale targeted attacks by Al-Shabaab are common in Somalia, the scale of 14 October bombings is unprecedented. It signals the growing sophistication of Al-Shabaab’s tactics and the failure of the Somali government to address the threat. Al-Shabaab still controls many parts of southern and central Somalia as well as several strategic supply routes.

Al-Shabaab has also extended its influence outside the country and poses a transnational threat in East Africa. The group launched several attacks outside Somalia’s border, notably in Kenya, where it has assaulted security forces and beheaded civilians. Al-Shabaab militants are believed to be present in several other countries in the Horn of Africa, including Ethiopia, Tanzania and Uganda. The organisation regularly targets AMISON troops, recently killing 24 soldiers in an ambush attack. In Somalia, Al-Shabaab has limited the expansion of Islamic State and imposed itself as the primary security threat for the population.

Flaws in Somalia’s security strategy

The Somali president has vowed to respond to the threat of Al-Shabaab following the recent attacks. His election in February raised hopes for the security of the country and the stability of the region. The reshuffle of security services and the nomination of new heads of police, military and intelligence signaled the government’s ambition to tackle terrorism. Extra resources were invested in securing Mogadishu. Between February and September, the number of attacks in Somalia decreased.

The latest attack has nonetheless dealt a blow to Farmaajo’s record. Since February, the new government has faced several controversies. The extradition of a commander of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (a separatist group fighting advocating self-determination for Somalis living in Ethiopia) to Ethiopian authorities has sparked accusations of breaches of national and international law and has weakened the president’s ambitions to unify the country. Divisions within Farmaajo’s government over security have also come to light. Two days before the 14 October attack, the Defence Minister and the chief of the armed forces resigned over disagreements on how to combat Al-Shabaab. In late August, the death of 10 civilians in a joint US-Somali security raid against the terror group brought to light the weaknesses of the government’s tactics. Factional violence, as evidenced by recent clashes between rival governmental units, represents an additional challenge for security forces.

The impact of the attack on the Somali government

While the attack could unite Somalis behind President Farmaajo in a show of solidarity, it is also likely to raise further questions about the government’s counterterrorism strategy and embolden the president’s opponents. Divisions between federal states and central government could deepen and Farmaajo’s political opponents could exploit the situation to hold a no-confidence vote.

The government will also face the task of maintaining its international allies’ support. In a statement released after the attack, the US State Department reaffirmed its commitment ‘to stand with the Somali government’. The US administration’s ambivalent stance towards Somalia nonetheless casts doubt over the US’ intentions to increase its support. AMISOM has vowed to assist Somalia after the attacks but continued support will depend on the Somali government’s ability to project credibility and convince its allies that it can address the threat of Al-Shabaab effectively.

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Cecile Guerin.

The post What the terrorist attack in Mogadishu tells us about the resurgence of Al-Shabaab appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

 

 

As part of the 69th anniversary of the Armed Forces Day in South Korea, special army soldiers staged a skills demonstration performance at the 2nd Fleet Parade Ground in Pyeongtaek.  (The National/UAE)

On October 1, China kicked off its celebration of the 68th anniversary of the founding of the People’s Republic with a giant basket of flowers in Tiananmen Square.  A few days earlier in South Korea, military officials displayed their latest weaponry to commemorate the 69th anniversary of the country’s Armed Forces Day, which normally falls on October 1.  Next door in North Korea, things were quiet, despite predictions by some analysts that Pyongyang would specifically choose to spoil their neighbors’ celebrations with another nuclear test.

North Korea’s latest nuclear test, its sixth, took place on September 3 and was widely considered to be its most powerful yet – around 16 times more powerful than the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima in 1945.  The test quickly caught the attention not only of South Korea and China, but of the U.N. Security Council, which unanimously passed a U.S.-drafted resolution on September 11 to impose new sanctions on North Korea.  

China, a U.N. Security Council member, immediately ordered North Korean companies and Chinese joint ventures with North Korean companies operating in its territory to close down by early January.  China also cut oil exports to North Korea, banned textile trade, and closed some bank accounts in China held by North Koreans, froze others, and banned the opening of new accounts.

Yet despite the ostensibly strong actions taken by Beijing, their national day passed peacefully.  Perhaps Beijing’s large shipment of corn (up 4,586 percent in August from a year earlier) and wheat (up 5,405 percent from a year earlier) to North Korea in August helped saved the day.  For Seoul, their approval of $8 million in aid for North Korean infants and pregnant women (just days after the vote on sanctions) may have also saved their Armed Forces Day from provocation.

The recent humanitarian aid granted by Beijing and Seoul may have saved the October 1 celebrations, but the latest round of economic sanctions is intended to be enforced and squeeze Pyongyang into submission.  Unfortunately, this late in the game, Pyongyang is unwilling to give up or bargain away its security blanket of nuclear capability.  Having ruled out both the capitulation of Pyongyang over its nuclear toys and the likelihood of preemptive strikes and the destruction this could entail, some analysts are predicting the regime will collapse under its own weight.  But what are the chances of collapse and how would it occur?  

The prospects for North Korea’s collapse have been mooted before, including an 11-day simulation conducted this same time last year by Wikistrat, a geopolitical crowdsourced consultancy.  By crowdsourcing information from more than 70 of its analysts, Wikistrat simulated various collapse scenarios and mapped out the expected response of major state actors in the region.

The simulation revealed a majority (65%) of Wikistrat analysts predicted the collapse of North Korea would occur within five to ten years.  The top three causes put forth were: 1) Retaliatory Foreign Military Intervention; 2) Kim Dies of Poor Health; and 3) Internal Coup.  While the death of Kim Jong-un ranked high among the causes of North Korea’s fall, most analysts (85%) expected Kim to preside over the country at the time of collapse.

Following a collapse, Wikistrat analysts predicted Moscow may have the most to gain from North Korea’s collapse, with Japan, a U.S. treaty ally, looking to the U.S. for direction.  They also predicted any Chinese action could be preempted by South Korean forces moving rapidly to exert influence, although such unilateral action would be tremendously destabilizing.  As to the securing of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), the analysts believe these were best left in the hands of Beijing – provided efforts were done either in cooperation with the U.S. or carried out in such a way that Washington, Tokyo and Seoul were convinced the threat had been eliminated.  Indeed, most Wikistrat analysts argued the U.S. would have little incentive to contest Chinese primacy over most aspects of a North Korean collapse.

But collapse is not a foregone conclusion – the Wikistrat simulation noted Beijing’s strong desire to keep the Korean peninsula divided, maintain stability in North Korea (to prevent the U.S. or South Korea from intervening), and ensure the North Korean regime remains more or less under Chinese tutelage.

Recent humanitarian aid from Seoul and Beijing appear to confirm their preference for the status quo over preemptive actions, and may ward off any further launches during Xi Jinping’s 19th Party Congress starting on October 18.  Yet as North Korea’s leverage grows with each advance of its nuclear program, and if economic sanctions are enforced and enlarged, the ability of Seoul and Beijing to maintain stability on the peninsula will weaken.  Further gaming out of specific outcomes should be undertaken urgently by all concerned powers to consider the worst possible scenarios, and prepare their respective citizens should the inflammatory rhetoric between Washington, Beijing and Pyongyang continue and lead to military action.

The post Wisdom of the Crowds on a North Korean Collapse appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Shipan Kumer Basu with Israeli diplomat Mendi Safadi

In recent times, the Bangladeshi Hindu community has been persecuted immensely by the Awami League government. Due to this horrendous oppression experienced by the Bangladeshi Hindu community, Shipan Kumar Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, seeks to topple the Awami League government and has asked for Israeli assistance in doing this: “We will establish diplomatic relations with Israel if they will help us topple the Bangladeshi government. Israel will then be able to establish business ties with Bangladesh. Israel has nothing to lose and on the other hand, there will be another friend.”

Basu claims that there is grounds to overthrow the Awami League government since the removal of the Hindu Chief Justice was unconstitutional, a move that is presently being challenged in court: “Recently, the Hindu community has faced many atrocities committed by the ruling party and their personnel. A young Hindu college boy was kidnapped and his body was found in the main office of the ruling party. A Hindu teacher was raped in front of her husband at work. Her husband, who came to see her at the school, was severely beaten up and locked in a different room. There have been numerous incidents like this in our country after the constitutional amendment crisis.”

The constitutional amendment crisis began when the ruling party in Bangladesh sought to impose the 16th amendment, which the Bangladeshi Chief Justice considered unconstitutional. The 16th amendment empowers the parliament to remove Supreme Court justices if allegations of incapability and misconduct are proven to be true. The Bangladeshi Chief justice believed that an independent judicial body and not the parliament should determine whether allegations of incapability and misconduct are proven to be true since the sham elections of 2014 illustrated that the parliament was not an impartial democratic body.

The ruling Awami League Party was furious with the Chief Justice for this ruling. Since they appointed him, they expected him to be on their side rather than to be an impartial judge. Since then Bangladeshi Chief Justice Surendra Kumer Sinha was Hindu, the entire Hindu community within Bangladesh has been targeted. According to Basu, “The hatred within the Awami League Party against Hindus has risen to new dimensions. As long as the Hindus followed the Awami League like slaves, they were given the status of being second class citizens within the country. Now, when the Hindus have risen up and spoken against the Awami league Party, they have become wild and ferocious against the Hindus and have started to crush them with their feet.”

“An Awami League leader recently threatened in a public rally that if the Hindus don’t vote for him, he will kill all of the Hindus,” Basu related. “Silence is not a solution for this situation. The Hindus are in real trouble in Bangladesh and if drastic action is not taken immediately, all of the Hindus will be compelled to flee to India. The State of Israel has stood up for the minorities of the world that are in distress. In our hour of need, I invite the State of Israel to solemnly stand by the neglected and tortured Hindus of Bangladesh, so they can be relieved of the suppression, torture and crisis they endure in their own country.”

The post Bangladeshi Hindu activist: Let’s establish diplomatic relations with Israel appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A Kurdish flag burned in Kirkouk on October 16 2017 – STRINGER/REUTERS

The Economist published a piece this week on the actions by Iraqi forces against Kurdish interests in the Kurdish region of Iraq after a referendum for independence from Iraq took place recently. With dwindling ISIS control of territory in Iraq and Syria, the interests of those who have allied themselves with Iran, Saudi interests and US interests have already begun the rush to secure territory for a future Cold War. While combat between the Iraqi army and Kurdish forces was limited in the recent move by Iraq’s government to secure economic and strategic interests in the Kurdish region, actions by the pro-Iranian government in Baghdad seems to be working in conjunction with Iraq’s neighbours to isolate and nullify Kurdish forces and interests in the Kurdish part of Iraq.

Kurdish forces and its people have been the tip of the spear in many ways against ISIS and extremism in the region, despite getting little physical help early on and limited help in combatting extremism. The question of Kurdish independence has always existed, but with independent Kurdish forces taking on the role the Iraqi Army fled from a few years ago in their region, the Kurds are in the strongest position they have had in a long time to defend independence if they wished to enforce their claim. Intellectuals like Bernard-Henri Levy wish for the world to focus on those that have helped the world, and their role in this conflict has set them apart distinctively in human history. With Kurdish Peshmerga fighting massive odds against ISIS forces and being the government that took steps to protect minority communities from genocide, it seems as if fairness for Kurds were to take place, their destiny should be theirs to determine as their safety has been theirs to secure since 2014.

The Economist author points out that the attack on the Kurds may have to do with their faith being different than that of Iran and their allies in Baghdad’s government. While that is the case to some degree, the actions taken against them in the last few years were done by those of a different culture as opposed to a different perspective on faith. The view that the Kurdish part of Iraq is more liberally focused and their protection of different faiths and minority cultures also need to be considered in assessing the reasons why Kurds seem to be the target of everyone in the region in the future post-ISIS era. A miscalculation of divisions in the region goes further in error, as if the Sunni-Shi’a divide is going to be the next major catalyst in endless wars in the region, the Sunni Arabs will be put into a position of having to constantly defend themselves being in a weaker position in their native communities. An expansion of conflict seems to signal that the end of one war is the beginning to the next major war. With a lack of understanding of the region, it seems as if the Kurdish Peshmerga will have to also continually defend their communities in the future as well.

The post The Next Chapter to Endless Conflict appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

   Japan Coast Guard security team members display tracking and capture drills in October 2016  (Kazuhiro Nogi/Pool Photo via AP, File)

The sovereignty of the South China Sea has been hotly debated in recent years among China and the littoral nations (especially the Philippines and Vietnam).  Beijing lays claim to some 90 percent of the South China Sea under its infamous “nine-dash line” which was first published as an eleven-dash line by Chiang Kai-shek’s Nationalist government of the Republic of China (ROC/Taiwan) in 1947.

Other littoral states lay claim to waters within their exclusive economic zone (EEZ), which extends no more than 200 nautical miles from their shores, as prescribed by the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea.  In July 2016, an arbitral tribunal at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in The Hague ruled China’s claim under the nine-dash line had no legal basis.  Beijing refused to accept the ruling, and maintains their claim not only over the waters of the South China Sea, but the considerable oil and gas and mineral resources that lie below, estimated at some 11 billion barrels of oil and 190 trillion cubic feet of natural gas rated as proved or probable reserves by the U.S. Energy Information Administration.  While much of the attention focuses on oil and gas drilling rights, another resource is often overlooked, that of fish.

Late last month, two Vietnamese fishermen were killed after a Philippine coast guard vessel opened fire on their boat.  The boat was carrying crew members hailing from the south-central Vietnamese province of Phu Yen.  According to a Filipino regional military spokesman, six Vietnamese fishing boats were fishing illegally some 30 nautical miles off the northern coastal town of Bolinao in the Philippines on September 22.  After the Philippine coast guard initiated pursuit, one of the Vietnamese ships turned to ram the front of the coast guard boat, at which point the Philippine coast guard opened fire.  Five Vietnamese fishermen were subsequently arrested.

The latest incident is not the first – in recent years fishing boats have witnessed increasing aggression over contested fishing rights.  In 2013, a Taiwanese fisherman was killed by a Filipino coast guard crew after allegedly sailing into Philippine waters.  And in March 2016, a Chinese coast guard vessel came to the rescue of a Chinese fishing boat caught fishing some 4 kilometres off Indonesia’s Natuna island chain.  As the Chinese fishing boat was being towed away by the Indonesian vessel, a Chinese coast guard vessel came to the rescue and rammed the Chinese fishing boat, eventually prying it free.  Such incidents as the above are becoming more common, as Chinese President Xi Jinping asserts China’s claims over “traditional fishing grounds” as part of his Great Rejuvenation project, and fishermen from many countries venture farther away from their shores to chase a dwindling catch.

Indeed, some scholars question when the disputes will end.  Johan Bergenas argues in his recent article The Next Resource War May Be Over Illegal Fishing. Is the U.S. Ready? that “major powers are ignoring the international laws and norms that guide the harvesting of fish. According to the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization, every fifth fish is caught illegally. As a result, countries have begun using military force to protect what they believe to be critical national assets. This is a recipe for disaster, with the potential to give rise to another entry on the long list of wars fought over natural resources.”

Both Vietnam and the Philippines are conducting investigations into the death of the two Vietnamese fishermen and hope to announce the results shortly.  The 2013 killing of the Taiwanese fisherman resulted in Taipei recalling its envoy to Manila and suspending any hiring of Filipino workers, yet the incident was confined to diplomatic and commercial interests – no military action was taken.

Indeed, it is difficult to imagine nations going to war over their fishermen, especially those who are fishing in waters not their own.  Hopefully, other nations will join Jakarta’s lead in tracking their own fishing boats.  But with fishermen (some armed) sailing farther and farther away (some with government subsidies) from their own shores, and increased militarization of the Paracel and Spratly island chains by Beijing, Hanoi and Manila, a single shot could spark a fishing war.

The post Fish Wars? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

After Kurdistan held a referendum for independence, the US administration has come out against it, stressing that they support a “united, democratic and prosperous Iraq.” The problem with this position is that the present Iraq is anything but united, democratic and prosperous. To the contrary, it is an undemocratic failed state on the verge of collapsing that is increasingly divided along sectarian lines and commits massive human rights abuses on a daily basis. Since the Kurds are opposed to this and sought to separate from Iraq as a result, the central government in Baghdad is presently uniting together with Iran and Turkey against Kurdistan’s citizens. They recently held a joint military exercise along Kurdistan’s border together with Iran and Turkey.

It is critical to note that the present Iraqi government is nothing more than a proxy regime for Iran, and Iran is threatening the Kurds on a daily basis. Iran is opposed to Kurdistan’s independence for it is a direct threat to the Shia Crescent and Iran’s colonial ambitions in the Middle East region. With Iraqi oil, Iran is number one in oil. Without Iraqi oil, OPEC ranks Iran as number 3. This means that if they control Iraq, they will have one third of the world’s energy resources in their hands.

Syrian Kurdish dissident Sherkoh Abbas illustrated that Iranian influence in Iraq creates a number of problems for Western countries: “They can increase the price of oil and harm the European and American economies especially in times of need. Also when economies are trying to get out of recession, they can put them back in recession. It is a threat to the international community. They can promote Iranian terrorism around the world. They can intimidate countries that make deals with them. They can black-mail and throw their weight around.” Abbas warned that if Iran also gets access to the Kurdish areas in Northern Iraq, the situation can potentially return to what it was in the 1970’s, with people waiting miles in line to get gas due to Iranian threats.

The only way to prevent this threat from coming into fruition is to support an independent Kurdistan. The Kurds will have an open oil policy and won’t use their resources to threaten other countries. Under the KRG leadership, the Kurds have nationalized their oil, have instituted a free market economy and have managed to sell it to Turkey. Kurdistan is now the second biggest market for Turkish investment and many Turkish companies are based in Iraqi Kurdistan. Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani has also used the oil to build relationships with other countries as well. The Kurds have utilized this resource in order to build the fundamentals of a state. They have not used their resources to threaten others. Due to the clean oil the Kurds provide, many major oil companies prefer to do business in Kurdistan rather than to work in other areas of Iraq. If the Kurds are granted independence, the threats posed by Iran gaining access to much oil can be significantly reduced.

Nevertheless, despite this reality, the US has remained silent in the face of Iranian threats against Kurdistan in addition to opposing Kurdistan’s referendum. For the first time, democratic countries and non-democratic countries are uniting against Kurdistan’s democratic right, which is the referendum. The US has not done anything to help the people who fight ISIS alone. Right now, only the oil and business trade protects them. If the US continues to keep silent, then Iran will win the game. As a result, the Kurds are angry with American policy makers for they seek American protection. An anonymous Kurdish source stressed: “The US has not done anything for us. Russia is better than the US for they changed their policy towards Kurdistan. They respect the decision of the Kurdish people and they asked Turkey not to put sanctions on us. They support an oil pipeline from Kurdistan to Turkey to the Mediterranean Sea. If Turkey decides to block the pipeline, then Russia is working to help us use Syria. If the US does not change policy, the Kurds will become pro-Russia. The US will lose if this happens. Right now, it is not in our interest for we want the US to help us and not Russia.” However, if the Kurds are pushed into a corner, they may have to move away from America.

As Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani proclaimed, “Once again, we reiterate our willingness to engage in serious dialogue and we are against resorting to violence in order to address disagreements. All standing issues should be dealt with through negotiations and peaceful means. Our calls for dialogue and negotiations must not be answered with threats, amassing forces and preparations for war.”

The post Oil and business deals protect Kurdistan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

It is easy to brush off North Korea’s behavior as irrational, but the fact that the Kim regime consolidated and has maintained power since 1948 says otherwise. If North Korea was truly an irrational actor, it would not have been able to survive this long. And to have maintained a three generation dictatorship while being viewed very poorly by the majority of the international community is impressive to say the least. The Kim family, specifically Kim Il-sung, has always acted in a way to best meet their grand strategic goals. The two most important being the consolidation of national power in the Kim family and the international recognition of North Korea. In order to meet those goals they had to prevent any internal or external challenge to their leadership.

To face the internal threat, Kim Il-sung created the modern cult of personality and their militaristic culture. North Korea is thought of as an atheist state that does not tolerate religion, but this is not the case. They want the people to worship the Kim family and nothing else. Those who do not give the Kim family the proper respect can expect to receive punishment and will have a poor quality of life, even by North Korean standards. This worshipping of the dear leader allows the Kims to stop any internal challenge to their dictatorship. Their subjects consist of those who are either brainwashed hardliners in favor of the regime or those who pretend to be out of fear. Any potential insurgency or foreign powers attempting to foment resistance is stopped because no citizen would dare challenge the government. We can further see this strategy of consolidating power in Kim Jong-Il’s “military first” policy. According to CNN in 2015 North Korea had 1.1 million active soldiers and an additional 7.7 million in reserves. This could be seen as an act of deterrence. Creating such a militaristic society ensures that anyone who challenges the regime will suffer high costs.

The second part of their grand strategy is the international community’s recognition of their regime. I think it would be hard to argue that they have not achieved this goal. Kim Jong-un’s current regime is probably more repressive of its people and more internationally isolated than Saddam’s Iraq. They even have the weapons the U.S. wrongly accused Iraq of having in 2003. However, the U.S. refrains from intervening in North Korea even though our military is far superior. The obvious reason to this is China and the Soviet Union. The support of these two powers throughout the years has allowed North Korea to survive this long. However, the relationship between these countries has not been all sunshine and butterflies. North Korea knows that it can’t rely on China to protect them forever, which is why their nuclear program is so important to them. They continually engage in acts of violence and make threats so that they are not forgotten and are always taken seriously (at least as a threat).

North Korea is a belligerent nation doing everything in its power to ensure the continuation of the regime. Their economy is in shambles, they suffer from famine, and there are no signs they are undertaking measures to put their country on a productive path. To do so would run counter to everything they want to achieve. All their citizens are theirs to torment if it means the Kim family remains in power. I have heard some argue that the economic sanctions placed on North Korea do nothing but hurt the people and serve as propaganda tools for the Kims. I would take the realist approach and say that there is no way to help the North Korean people without causing suffering on a much larger scale. So I would argue for continued sanctions and more economic isolation of North Korea. At the same time I would encourage constant dialogue with them. Always letting them know that positive engagement with the U.S., South Korea, and Japan means sanction relief, while continued hostile acts leads to tougher sanctions and further detriment to their nation. Maintaining this balance and given time, I believe the Kim family will have no choice but to look for a way to make economic reforms without losing power. This could lead to a lessening of hostilities, but unfortunately I can’t see any future where the Kim’s aren’t in power that didn’t come at a very high cost.

The post North Korea’s Grand Strategy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

This fall, two of the EU’s biggest neighbors decided to celebrate the new school year with a slew of retrograde education policies. Ukraine sparked off a minor diplomatic crisis on Europe’s eastern frontier after Kiev unveiled politically charged plans to prevent minority-language students from learning in their native tongues. Earlier, Turkey drew strong international condemnation by imposing restrictions on school curricula and by requiring students in the ever-growing pool of religious academies to learn about the concept of jihad. Making matters worse, a lack of funding and a stilted bureaucracy have bogged down the very body supposed to oversee cross-border educational issues, UNESCO. With populism on the rise from West to East and with nations like the US more politically polarized than ever, these developments are a tocsin.

Both Ukraine and Turkey seem to have missed the memo that education is meant to bridge divides, not deepen them. Their new laws threaten to create splits not only among local communities, but also in nations beyond these countries’ borders. In Ukraine’s case, the government’s plans to forbid some 400,000 students who are currently receiving their entire schooling in a minority language – mainly Russian – has provoked severe criticism not only from Moscow, as expected, but also from Hungary, Romania, and other countries whose nationals would be affected by the law. The government has called it a necessary law to ensure that all students develop a working knowledge of the country’s majority language.

Critics have called Kiev’s move a divisive provocation at a time when the government should be promoting bilingualism – and focusing on deeper educational reforms. The most furious response to the legislation came from Budapest, where Foreign Minister Peter Szijjarto claimed Kiev had “stabbed Hungary in the back” and threatened that the government would bar Ukraine’s efforts to further integrate with the EU. Additionally, in an awkward turn of events for Brussels, the incident has firmly placed the Visegrad Group, along with Romania, Greece, and Moldova, on the same side as Russia in this dispute – a first.

The politicization of education is arguably far worse in Turkey. Since last year’s failed coup, the public school system has emerged as a key battlefield in the government’s attempt to squash dissent. This September, students went back to school with a contentious new curriculum that expunged the theory of evolution and introduced the concept of jihad. Critics called the new law a blow to secular education at a time when attendance at imam hitap schools, used to train Muslim preachers, has soared from 60,000 in 2002 to more than 1.1 million today.

To be fair, during its first 10 years in power, the ruling AK party oversaw impressive improvements in the national education system. Now, however, progress has started to backtrack, with Turkey scoring second to last among all member states in the OECD’s latest Program for International Student Assessment (PISA). Parents cite issues of inept teachers, overcrowded classrooms, and inadequate language courses. The fact that more than 30,000 teachers have been fired for allegedly holding dissident sentiments hasn’t helped. The government’s latest set of legislation has now only further divided the nation between religious and secular factions – and isolated the entire country.

Meanwhile, although most European countries continue to score highly on core educational competencies, the state of public education – and growing national polarization – in the US reminds us that such a state of affairs is by no means a given. The American public school system already delivers abysmal results for students who live in the poorest districts. The Trump administration seems bent on dismantling Obama’s education legacy, with Betesy DeVos handing favors to for-profit universities and removing protections for transgender students rather than focusing on more meaningful reforms.

With even the US educational system threatened by regressive political agendas, the role of UNESCO in promoting learning is more important than ever. However, for the past eight years, the outgoing director general, Irina Bokova, has presided over an organization crippled by lack of funds, an ossified administration, and vehement disputes among its member states. UNESCO tumbled into its “worst ever financial situation” in 2011, when the US pulled finding – which had made up 22% of the agency’s budget – over the body’s decision to grant membership to Palestine. Seven years later, UNESCO still lacks a predictable budget and continues to be involved in the political turbulence of the Middle East and other hotspots.

At the very least, one of the contenders to take over the helm at UNESCO, former French Minister of Culture Audrey Azoulay, has put education at the center of her platform, emphasizing that learning is foremost a tool to break down silos and expand people’s minds – not to politicize and divide. Acknowledging the difficulties of steering UNESCO at a time of disinterest from the US, she has highlighted that it is in the interest of Americans – and other nations – to promote education globally as the best way to counter radicalization.

As the agency’s motto states, the best way to prevent conflict is to construct the “defenses of peace in the hearts of men.” It will be for the future UNESCO director to remind Ukraine and Turkey of this motto – that schools are not meant to be an incubator for political division but a place for open engagement.

The post Ukraine and Turkey: when politicization starts at school appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to gets his pants on.”
–Winston Churchill

On October 4th, the House Judiciary Committee introduced a bill that would extend the controversial Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which is set to expire at the end of December, for six years. As NSA states on their web site, Section 702:

…allows the Intelligence Community to conduct surveillance on only specific foreign targets located outside the United States to collect foreign intelligence, including intelligence needed in the fight against international terrorism and cyber threats.

And this is important because…?

The “so what” factor in all of this is that senior intelligence officials consistently say this is one of the most important programs we have for dealing with the terrorist threat. Last month I attended the annual Intelligence & National Security Summit in Washington D.C. The event is in its fourth year and was co-hosted by AFCEA  and INSA (The Intelligence and National Security Alliance). During the conference, Admiral Mike Rogers, the head of both NSA and U.S. Cyber Command stated, Section 702 produces a “significant segment of NSA’s ability to generate insights on counterterrorism, counter-proliferation, what nation-states and other actors are doing”. He also said he had told Vice President Pence that week, “Sir, I know of no ability that this organization has to replace that which we’re able to access because of the authority under 702. Sir, if this were removed, and it was not reauthorized…I can’t overcome that”. Rogers understands the concerns and acknowledged in the course of conducting 702 operations they may encounter U.S. citizens but NSA takes care not to violate U.S. citizens privacy.

Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence Susan Gordon said “there’s nothing more important” than to reauthorize Section 702. She also said if you are not talking to one of the terrorist targets, “you’re not in existence in this world.”

New FBI Director, Christopher Wray, concurred with his peers during the summit and said the place 702 is most important is that place in the terrorist planning process where we can detect and prevent a plot citing the detection and prevention of the New York Subway bombing as an example.

Speaking at the same conference, Tom Bossert, Assistant to the President for Homeland Security and Counterterrorism, said the terrorism threat was not going to “sunset” so 702 shouldn’t. He also said President Trump wants to have the legislation pass. Bossert pointed out that terrorists use of gmail is very prevalent today. This should come as no surprise to anyone since the news is filled with reports of terrorists using email and social media to recruit and as their command and control system. He said 702 gave him the ability to “pounce” in the very small window in between the “idea” and the “attack” of a terrorist plot.

If Section 702 is so important why is it controversial?

In the aftermath of the Snowden leaks, many Americans were left with the impression that NSA was using this authority to collect and read not just the emails of “bad guys” but also all emails sent by U.S. citizens. A Joint statement issued at the height of the controversy by the Director of National Intelligence and the head of NSA unsuccessfully sought to defuse the situation saying:
“Press reports based on an article published in today’s Wall Street Journal mischaracterize aspects of NSA’s data collection activities conducted under Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. The NSA does not sift through and have unfettered access to 75% of the United States’ online communications.”

When the initial media reports came out in 2013, I knew immediately it was a distortion of the truth. First, the information in the Snowden leak was old news. I discovered the existence of the program during the Bush administration several years earlier while doing my daily reading of unclassified national security related topics that could be found by anyone interested, in mainstream media reporting. It didn’t get much traction at the time, probably because it was not reported in a salacious manner. As a retired intelligence professional, I admittedly now sit on the sidelines; but I’d seen nothing in either the Bush or the Obama administration to suggest they had suddenly gone J. Edgar Hoover on the nation.

Second, as someone who spent 28 years working in intelligence, despite what you see in Hollywood movies and TV shows, I knew it was against the law for the intelligence community to spy on U.S. citizens, a fact that was constantly pounded into our brains.

Third, one of the challenges of conducting intelligence analysis is that so much information is collected that most of it does not get looked at. In 2007 a senior Intelligence community official stated at a conference that of all the intelligence that’s collected only one tenth million percent of it is looked at by analysts.

He put that information out because he was speaking at a conference asking industry and academia for help in finding a solution. The intelligence community says analyzing large amounts of information (current buzz word is Big Data”) is still a major problem; that is also one reasons artificial intelligence (AI) is a new craze in the intelligence world.

Specifically looking at the Section 702 controversy, the previously mentioned Joint Statement indicated, “In its foreign intelligence mission, and using all its authorities, NSA “touches” about 1.6%, and analysts only look at 0.00004%, of the world’s internet traffic.”

Fourth, NSA was embarrassed by the leaks and in the spirit of transparency, released into the public domain the documents Snowden leaked as well as their training program they set up for the 702 program. I’m a Geek but even I did not read all the hundreds of thousands or so documents released (neither did Snowden); but there were several things in the statement that jumped out at me and I think the public should have on their radar as the program comes up for renewal in December.

o Section 702 specifically prohibits the intentional acquisition of any communications when all parties are known to be inside the U.S.
o The law specifically prohibits targeting a U.S. citizen without an individual court order based on a showing of probable cause.
o The law only permits NSA to obtain information pursuant to Section 702 in accordance with orders and procedures approved by the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court.
o When conducting 702 FISA surveillance, the only information NSA obtains results from the use of specific identifiers (for example email addresses and telephone numbers) used by non-U.S. persons overseas who are believed to possess or receive foreign intelligence information.
o Foreign terrorists sometimes communicate with persons in the U.S. or Americans overseas. In targeting a terrorist overseas who is not a U.S. person, NSA may get both sides of a communication. If that communication involves a U.S. person, NSA must follow Attorney General and FISA Court approved “minimization procedures” to ensure the Agency protects the privacy of U.S. persons.

Why is Section 702 still controversial?

In a recent article on this topic, the Washington Post indicated, “House members generally agree that the authority is useful and that it should be renewed. But a number of them have one major privacy concern: The law allows the FBI to query the Section 702 database for emails and phone-call transcripts of Americans without first obtaining a warrant.”

In an attempt to address this situation, the proposed House bill, “would not restrict the query process itself. But the legislation, called the USA Liberty Act, would require the FBI to obtain a warrant to review any communications that are returned in response to a query seeking evidence of a crime. The drafting of the bill was led by the panel’s chairman and vice chairman, Reps. Bob Goodlatte (R-Va.) and John Conyers Jr. (D-Mich.).”

Civil Liberties groups are also lining up to express their concerns. Think, I’ll end here. It will be interesting to see how the arguments pro and con will develop. As always my views and opinions are my own.

The post GailForce: Standby for More Debates on Privacy vs Security appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Manhattan Project: Code Name “Trinity,” Trinity Site, Alamogordo Bombing and Gunnery Range, N.M., July 16, 1945, 53 milliseconds after detonation.

Based on the amount of news coverage, you may not have heard of it, but on July 7, 2017, the United Nations adopted the Nuclear Prohibition Treaty. The agreement bans the use of nuclear weapons, and the threat of their use, as well as their testing, development, possession, sharing, and stationing in other countries. The treaty was approved by 122 countries; the Netherlands voted no, and Singapore abstained. (The treaty enters into force only after 50 signatories ratify it.) There is, however, one major hitch: all the world’s nuclear-armed countries boycotted the negotiations, as did all the members of NATO (save the Netherlands, which was mandated by its parliament to participate) and Japan and South Korea (all countries under the U.S. nuclear umbrella), and they refused to sign it. Under the standard rules of international law, of course, treaties do not bind countries that do not sign them.

So, how did the nuclear powers respond to the announcement that these other countries had signed the treaty? In the case of the United States, Britain, and France, they issued a joint statement:

“We do not intend to sign, ratify or ever become party to it. Therefore, there will be no change in the legal obligations on our countries with respect to nuclear weapons. For example, we would not accept any claim that this treaty reflects or in any way contributes to the development of customary international law.”*

They don’t sound enthused.

The roots of this treaty can be found in many countries’ frustration with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) of 1968. That treaty rested on a three-part foundation. Countries without nuclear weapons (cleverly labeled the Non-Nuclear Weapon States, or NNWS) agreed not to acquire them; countries with nuclear industries (that is, the Nuclear Weapon States, NWS) would help them with the development of nonmilitary nuclear technology if they wanted it; and the NWS would work toward the eventual elimination of their own arsenals. The first two parts of the agreement have gone fairly well, if not perfectly. (Notable imperfections include Israel, India, and Pakistan, which never signed the NPT, and North Korea, which signed it but then withdrew.) Some countries, however, seem to see a failure to make progress on the third.

To be sure, actively deployed nuclear arsenals have been substantially reduced since the end of the cold war. (The United States had tens of thousands of deployed nuclear warheads in the 1980s; today the figure is about 1,650, although there are more in stockpiles or awaiting dismantling.) Progress, however, has slowed in recent years. As the remaining arsenals get smaller, military leaders become more reluctant to lose the relatively few remaining weapons, and the countries that have always had smaller nuclear stockpiles, such as China, or countries that are just starting to develop arsenals, such as North Korea, start to look competitive. Russia relies heavily on its nuclear deterrent given the inferiority of its conventional forces. Moreover, given the rising tensions in Europe (and new questions about U.S. reliability), Germany has been considering whether it can lend financial support to the France’s and Britain’s nuclear defenses, thereby joining the nuclear club indirectly and somewhat clandestinely. In addition, the advancing age of the existing warheads is forcing decisions on expensive modernization programs, which may be necessary if arsenals are to be maintained at all. These trends have contributed to the notion that the arsenals remain too large, and too dangerous, despite the reductions that have occurred.

But what is the purpose of such a treaty if the nuclear powers do not sign it? Nina Tannenwald of Brown University (someone who believes that the acceptance of a moral “taboo,” rather than mutual deterrence, is what has prevented the employment of nuclear weapons since 1945) argues that the treaty’s promoters had a longer-range view. Their aim was to implant in people’s minds the notion that nuclear weapons should be under an absolute prohibition, framed in humanitarian terms rather than security terms, the way that chemical and biological weapons are. This, in turn, is to give further impetus to the nascent transnational grassroots movement to eliminate nuclear weapons, symbolized by the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN). In doing this, the treaty’s advocates actually prefer to set the standards without the participation of nuclear powers inasmuch as the latter would work to dilute or stall any agreement (much as they have the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty, which has yet to come into force more than two decades after its adoption by the UN General Assembly because certain nuclear powers, including the United States, have not ratified it). This is a model that has had partial success (and could still have further success) in banning antipersonnel landmines and cluster bombs.

The U.S. government says the treaty could undermine the Non-Proliferation Treaty, alliance commitments, and the benefits of deterrence. Other suggest that the effort would have served better if it had addressed more immediate concerns. Will the treaty have an impact? Not in the short term, no, but its advocates do not seem to expect that. In the long term, it is harder to say. Much will depend on the degree to which active citizens get involved in the ban movement (and whether growing involvement results in a “norm cascade”). That in turn could depend on the level of tensions in international relations generally—and on the consequences if a nuclear weapon is actually used.

*“Customary international law,” like common law, is not based on formal documents. It is a subjective element rooted in long-accepted practice and opinio juris, the shared belief of experts and practitioners that something constitutes law. Treaty law, on the other hand, is specific and rooted in expressed consent.

The post What If the UN Banned the Bomb and No One Noticed? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Former Somali president Hassan Sheikh Mohamud passing the baton to current president Mohamed Abdullahi Mohamed (Farmajo)

 

All betrayals are not made equal. In recent weeks, a political disaster of epic proportions has befallen upon Somalia. The Somali government has committed what many – including some of its staunchest supporters – consider a treasonous act.

Somalia’s National Intelligence and Security Agency (NISA) has extradited a Somali citizen, a highly decorated military officer, a war hero who was wounded in the 1977 war against Ethiopia and an officer of the Ogaden National Liberation Front (ONLF) to Ethiopia without any due process.

Initially, the government denied and dismissed all information related to the illegal rendition as “vicious rumours intended to undermine government’s credibility”; claiming their objective is “Qaran dumis” or to destroy the nation.

Once the truth hit the streets that Abdikarim Sheikh Muse (Qalbi-Dhagax) was handed over by his brethren to a brutal regime with a long record of human rights violations, it unleashed a collective public fury the likes of which Somalia had never seen. The public space became saturated with songs, poems, and skits expressing extreme disillusionment on a popular president – Mohamed Abdullahi Farmajo – who only a few months earlier was celebrated as the long-awaited saviour of the nation.

Making Matters Worse

Desperate to shake off this scandal, Prime Minister Hassan Ali Khaire convened a Council of Ministers emergency meeting. To the utter dismay of many who were still hopeful that their government will do what is right, the Council of Ministers made the problem even worse. They accused Qalbi-Dhagax of being a terrorist who “committed serious crimes in Somalia” and who “was in cahoots with al-Shabab to further sabotage the nation”. Furthermore, they declared ONLF, which is an internationally recognised liberation movement that has offices throughout the West, Middle East and Africa, a terrorist organisation.

While irredentism or Somalia’s historical struggle to reclaim all five parts of its nation as partitioned by the “colonial masters” is, for all intents and purposes, dead; the loyalty, the commitment to advocate for the rights of all Somalis in the region to live freely and off the chains of oppression is alive and well. It is in that spirit of solidarity that Somalis of all walks of life support the ONLF cause and the group’s right to work towards liberating their homeland.

Let us hypothetically assume that all allegations against Qalbi-Dhagax were true and that he was a ruthless “terrorist” who carried out clandestine operations to sabotage Somalia and has killed and committed rape as the cabinet (no judge or jury) has declared, how do such allegations justify his rendition to Ethiopia? Why would the government not prosecute him in Somalia?

If he is guilty of these serious crimes, why he was living in Mogadishu for years as an ONLF officer without ever being arrested? Qalbi-Dhagax was not an anonymous figure. He was not in hiding. Clearly, the cabinet’s decision to hand him over to Ethiopia is not a well-thought-out one.

If the cabinet does not withdraw the politically motivated charges directed at Qalbi-Dhagax and implant them into the law instead, anyone who supports him or the ONLF either verbally, in writing, by marching or even by simply rejecting the charges government directed at them could get charged with “aiding and abetting” terrorism and subsequently could be renditioned to Ethiopia. 

Lies and deception

To understand the foreign-dominated, self-refuelling system that propels the Somali political process one should think of an aircraft carrier with a massive flight deck where the Somali president is granted the discretion to walk, march or even run to any direction he wishes as that will neither alter the carrier’s course nor its destination.

For over a decade, the same strategy has been used to lure each Somali president into a glorified failure. I call it the “3F seduction”: False security, false esteem, and false authority. That is to say, while he, the president, in on the deck of the aforementioned aircraft carrier, he can dress for the part and quixotically claim to be in charge. Meanwhile, the system continues its course.

The Qalbi-Dhagax case is not only good for Ethiopia, it is good for all other failed institutions: UNSOM, AMISOM, other clandestine operatives and economic predators who perpetuate the status quo in Somalia -the overtly most-aggressive beneficiaries being the UAE and Erik Prince of Blackwater port management partnership.

Can Farmajo be rescued?

Most of those who knew the new president (this author included) were confident that he would prove himself the right catalyst for a genuine Somali-led reconciliation process and revitalise Somalia’s decaying sense of nationhood. Unlike his predecessors, President Farmajo came in with a certain level of experience and significant political capital and public trust.

He knew any substantive reform would have to be instituted and implemented within the first year. He was not to waste time or to squander opportunities. The expectation was to reclaim Somalia by pushing for the establishment of an Independent Reconciliation Commission, made of credible citizens of good character with no political affiliation or ambition; by pressuring the Parliament to establish a constitutional court; by establishing an Anti-Corruption Commission composed of trustworthy patriotic citizens; by creating a Somali military counterintelligence branch that keeps track of all foreign militaries, paramilitaries and mercenaries in the country and their activities; and by reaching out to Somaliland.

Back in February, I described the newly Parliament-elected president as “a champion of enlightened patriotism that is optimistic and relies on itself to restore the corroded dignity of a self-destructive nation”. Two weeks later, after he appointed a man who was an employee and part-owner of Soma Oil and Gas as prime minister, I saw the writing on the wall but opted to give one last chance to the new president.

Seven months of dazzle have only proven that President Farmajo and his team have mastered how to seduce public sentiments – mainly overenthusiastic youth – with glittering generalities such as justice, peace, and accountability, without any specifics. It is common to hear President Farmajo make assertions such as: “Ours is a government of the people. We are accountable to the people.” But, when the masses were outraged by the government’s decision and demanded answers, the president of the people sought refuge in silence. He is yet to make a single statement regarding the Qalbi-Dhagax fiasco. Farmajo seems to have plunged into that all too familiar cesspool of presidential betrayals. He has succumbed to a system that was designed to perpetuate failure and keep Somalia where it is or worse. And in doing so, he has written his legacy in the pages of infamy by becoming the first ever president to commit betrayal of such magnitude against the Somali people.

At this point, aside from divine intervention, the only remaining conceivable game-changer is the Somali Parliament. The speaker of the parliament has appointed a committee to review this grave matter. The Somali people are now waiting to see whether its representatives are going to do the right thing.

** This article was originally published by al-Jazeera under a different title

 

The post Farmajo Follows Footsteps of Failure appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Flags of Catalunya

The focus on an event, movement or death of a leader has always been the rallying cry for many movements that sought to change the status quo. Even in a relatively peaceful country like Canada, the words of a one Lord Durham in a report in the 1800s that suggested the elimination of French Canadian culture in North America has become a touchstone for historic divisions in the country. Even in what some refer to as post-modern societies, the ties to culture, language and history are as strong as ever in those regions that have had to fight for it to exist. To a greater extent, many ancient cultures are facing complete ext ermination because of their language, culture and origin, and are fighting in 2017 just to survive.

The 2017 referendums in Catalonia and the Kurdish region of Iraq may be historic in their push to birth new nations in regions where borders are disappearing. New states may arise from these entrenched cultures in regions where borders may be re-characterized as being a weaker version those traditionally guarded by nation states.

The separation of Catalonia from Spain was not a likely outcome, but recent reaction where force and the denial of the right to vote in an unofficial election may become the rallying cry separatist campaigners needed in their push for independence. Catalonia’s legislative challenges to push for a vote for separation would have likely been dulled in political horse trading and the constitutional courts for decades. Video of Catalans being suppressed in the activity of voting in their own communities may become a historic touchstone for the future of the independent Catalonia movement. The overreach in preventing the vote by the government in Madrid has likely enflamed the already tense divisions between Catalunya and the capital. The feeling that independence and an expression of nationhood may be met by violence, even if it was based on activities that were seen as not completely legal, sets a horrible precedent for those who wish to separate, and even those who wish to remain as part of Spain but are proud of their Catalan heritage. A surprisingly bad policy move, one that may even break up the country if not addressed in an appropriate manner immediately.

The Kurds have recently conducted a referendum on independence where a majority voted to become an independent state. With Iraq and Iranian forces in Iraq pushing to contain any active separation, and Turkey threatening further coercive measures, the Kurds who were a key ally to almost everyone in the region in the fight against ISIS and extremism have now become underserving targets of all power brokers in the region. Despite earning their place through hard fought battle, helping regional minorities not to succumb to a complete genocide and their focus on democratic values, there is little to no recognition of the rights of the Kurdish people in forming a nation state.

There had been a great deal of coalition rhetoric in claiming support for Kurdish forces in fighting ISIS. Unfortunately, the constant minimal level of military support from Western allies has done nothing to earn the minimal amount of respect they deserve in being the tip of the spear against radicalism and genocide in Iraq and Syria. The main catalyst any society would claim as their fight for independence for the Kurdish people comes from fighting the most powerful fascist army since the end of the Second World War. The war the Kurdish people have helped win for most of the world might be forgotten in Western media, but it is doubtful Kurdish society will ever forget their victory. Denying them freedom from future incursions and the determination of their own safety and security is something no society would tolerate after years of hard fought conflict. For both regions and their people in 2017, there is now a point in history that will never be forgotten, and with that generations of independent thought and literature encouraging strong, free and independent nations.

The post The Unforgettable Moments of Martyrs appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Pictured on left is Diosdado Cabello, newly appointed to Venezuela’s inaugural Constituent Assembly. President Nicolas Maduro created this new authority to consolidate power and subvert opposition influence. Photo: Credit Juan Barreto/Agence France-Presse

When I last wrote about Venezuela in May, protests raged across the country. They derived from the ruling regime-controlled Supreme Court attempting to wrest power away from the National Assembly, Venezuela’s federal legislature and last vestige of opposition voices in the government. The move was met with harsh criticism at home and abroad, and President Nicolas Maduro quickly abandoned the maneuver, although protests and discontent lumbered on in the spring and summer.

Yet by mid-August, protests dwindled significantly in both in number and size. Was this because the opposition, and supporters of democracy in Venezuela, accomplished its goals making protests unnecessary? Unfortunately this was not the case, and the reason for the decline in demonstrations is far more sinister: Maduro and his political supporters found a way to make them obsolete.

In July, Maduro spearheaded the creation of a new governing body called the Constituent Assembly. The regime mandated that this group would have authority to rewrite the country’s constitution, and, according to the New York Times, “govern Venezuela with virtually unlimited authority.” On July 30 Venezuelans elected members of the Constituent Assembly. While the candidates did represent different occupations and every region of the country, they all had one thing in common: every single one was considered a trusted ally of the ruling regime. There were no opposition legislators on the ballot, and voters could not reject the creation of the assembly.

What’s more, the regime made no efforts to hide the fact that an express goal of this new authority it created was to wipe away the last remaining presence of the opposition in government. Maduro granted the Constituent Assembly the power to fire any official it considered to be disloyal, and to disband the National Assembly altogether. Diosdado Cabello, a former military chief and one of the new group’s most powerful members, said on television, point blank, “There is no possibility that the opposition will govern this country…Mark my words — no possibility.”

On August 18, only 2 weeks after it began operating, the Constituent Assembly gave itself the power to write and pass legislation. Nicholas Casey of the New York Times reported that this move “essentially nullifies the opposition-led legislature and puts [Maduro’s] party firmly in control of the country.” Casey further states that this latest power grab “is a decisive step in the quest by Mr. Maduro’s allies to dismantle the country’s legislature.” While Maduro has often acted to suppress his critics in the past, it seems that now his government isn’t even trying to maintain the appearance of adhering to the democratic process.

Beyond the political maneuvering, Venezuelan citizens continue to suffer under crippling economic conditions. And one definitely affects the other. Largely in response to the actions described above, on Aug, 25 the U.S. government placed new sanctions on Venezuela restricting trading of Venezuelan bonds in American financial markets. While not expected to have a significant impact, it may further hinder the Maduro’s regime ability to address its massive debt and pay off its loans.

And as if often the case in authoritarian regimes, those who are in the most need are those who are not getting help. The value of Venezuela’s currency continues to shrink while prices keep rising. Many cannot afford basic necessities, and many turn to the black market for goods and currency which further strangles the economy. The value of minimum wage earnings has plummeted by an astounding 88% in the last 5 years.

Has Maduro achieved checkmate in Venezuela? Has he eliminated the possibly of being removed from power? Just as those critical of his rule seemed to be gaining momentum, he found a way to pull the rug out from under them. Let’s hope the opposition is taking this opportunity to regroup and develop a new approach. International pressure should continue to be brought to bear, and aid to the Venezuelan people must be provided. More attention needs to be paid to the immense hardships facing them.

And democracy must make a comeback. It is long past due.

The post Latest on Venezuela woes appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.