Foreign Policy Blogs

China’s African strategy

Speculations over China’s plans to set up a “logistical facility” in the East African country of Djibouti were put to rest following an announcement by the Chinese foreign ministry that the two countries have reached a consensus on the proposal. Although lacking a detailed timeline, the agreement will come as a natural conclusion to what has been an ever tightening of relations between the two countries, dating back to China’s involvement in anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden back in 2008.

However, unlike NATO countries and Japan who are also conducting anti-piracy missions in Djibouti, China currently has no permanent naval base in the region. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Hong Lei, “In fulfilling escort missions, [China] encountered real difficulties in replenishing soldiers and resupplying fuel and food, and found it really necessary to have nearby and efficient logistical support.”

Djibouti was the natural choice for the Chinese given that the former French colony already hosts a number of European outposts as well as Camp Lemonnier, the U.S. expeditionary base from where drone operations in Yemen and Somalia are conducted.

In recognition of Djibouti´s geostrategic importance, the country has been the recipient of many financial blandishments from China over the past few years. These include the $590 million injection of funds for the development of its port, aimed at transforming it into a major transshipment terminal, and investment in the $4 billion railway connection between Djibouti and its landlocked neighbor, Ethiopia. It also comes on the back of a deal to set up a free trade zone for Chinese companies in Djibouti and allow Chinese banks to begin operating in the country.

While undoubtedly important, China’s first overseas military facility in Djibouti only accounts for a small piece in a much bigger puzzle being put together by Beijing. Djibouti, and its much larger neighbor to the north, Egypt, mark the final stage posts in the maritime leg of China’s ambitious One Belt One Road (OBOR) project: a vast trade route encircling half the globe and connecting China with Europe along the ancient Silk Road.

Supported by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund, the overland route will see massive investments in infrastructure, stretching from western China through central Asia and the Middle East into Europe via Russia, Greece and Turkey.

For the maritime route to be successful, it will require that Chinese merchant ships are able to reach the Suez Canal unhindered after traversing the Indian Ocean. Djibouti’s position on the cusp of the Red Sea, leading into the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean, makes it a vital node in that network.

Given that investment in OBOR is expected to top one trillion dollars over the next 10 to 15 years, it is no surprise that the People´s Liberation Army has been slowly moving away from its traditional stance of protecting the homeland and towards establishing a force projection capability in line with its expanding overseas interests.

This newfound assertiveness, of which the base in Djibouti is China’s first statement of intent, is being watched with caution by Western capitals. But according to Shen Dingli, a professor of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, as quoted in the New York Times, it is keeping in line with the behavior of any power whose financial interests abroad are in need of protection.

“The United States has been expanding its business all around the world and sending its military away to protect those interests for 150 years,” Mr. Shen said. “Now, what the United States has done in the past, China will do again.”

However, while China is free to pursue its political ambitions, its presence will most definitely have a negative impact on Djibouti’s freedoms. Beijing’s strict policy of noninterference means that President Ismael Omar Guelleh knows that Beijing will not be critical of his bid to run for a fourth term as president this coming April.

Ever since he inherited the presidency from his uncle in 1999, Guelleh has used a combination of coercion and bribery to keep his hold on power. In 2010 he amended the constitution and scrapped term limits, reneging on earlier promises to run for no more than two terms.

Since then the country has continued its slide down the international rankings for press freedom and human rights and political instability has grown. In 2014, Djibouti suffered its first terrorist attack against Western personnel in the country, stoking fears that the presence of foreign soldiers in a poor, oppressed Muslim country could provide a fertile breeding ground for Islamic extremism. And last December, up to 19 opposition activists were killed when police opened fire at a religious procession, prompting the International Criminal Court to officially place Djibouti on its watch list.

While Guelleh has promised to transform the country into Africa’s Dubai or Singapore, feverishly courting Beijing and Washington for continued financial assistance, the upcoming presidential elections will most likely dispel the fiction that Djibouti and its people are actually benefiting from international attention.

The post China’s Military Pivot to Africa just got Serious appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

From Iraq to Syria, in Lebanon and in Yemen, both are competing for dominance in an ever-deepening tussle for supremacy across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Yet to understand what may happen in the coming years, is to push past the one-tracked, sectarian explanation of current hostilities, and to construct a more multi-faceted and profound, realist-oriented discussion of the conflict.

Toby Mathieson- in discussion with the Council on Foreign Relations- described Riyadh’s use of sectarianism as a ‘tool they use’ to mobilize Sunni support both at home, and across the MENA region. Former US State Department adviser, Vali Nasr, concurs, attributing Nimr’s execution to a Saudi desire to ‘rally Sunnis at home’, as well as to shore up Sunni support from a variety of regional actors.

For Riyadh, a mobilization of internal and external Sunni support is necessary for purely realist reasons – to reinforce the House of Saud’s legitimacy, and subsequently to guarantee its survival, in the face of a revitalized Iran.

The hastily convened ‘Islamic Military Alliance (sans Iran and Iraq) is a convenient sectarian front for what is ostensibly a zero-sum competition for leverage in the Middle East. Further evidence abounds with the Saudis’ role in attempting a rapprochement between wary Sunni ‘bedfellows’, Egypt and Turkey.

Quite simply, Saudi Arabia is using the highly divisive issue of sectarianism to shroud its true intentions – to prevent the hegemonic rise of a re-energized and unshackled Iran. Its policy actions for a number of decades point to such a conclusion.

The formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981 was designed to counter Iran’s rise after its 1979 Islamic Revolution, and to support Saddam in his nearly decade-long conflict with Iran.

Iranian rancor at Saudi support for Saddam still remains to this day. The Islamic Military Alliance must be viewed in the same light as the formation of the GCC.

An attempt to assuage intra-Sunni squabbles (in the case of Turkey and Egypt) is a further policy prescription by which Riyadh can present a united front against Tehran.

From an Iranian perspective, since the ascension of the Ayatollah Khomeini to the position of Supreme Leader, Iran has sought to buttress links with co-religionists across the region, forming a Shiite crescent comprising Assad’s Alawites and Lebanon’s militant group, Hezbollah.

This ‘crescent’ is wholly fuelled by Iranian desires to return to what Tehran sees as its rightful place within the Middle Eastern order – as the true regional hegemon; a re-Persianization of Iran’s status if you will. Covert support for Yemen’s Shiite Houthi rebels is additional sign of Iranian strategic designs on the MENA region. Iranian exportation of its Shiite ideology across the region must therefore be understood within the context of a regional balance of power, and Iranian attempts to dominate as it has done so before.

The Saudi kingdom is afraid. Its grip on power is predicated upon its religious legitimacy and the social contract that binds the House of Saud to its citizens, in a sentence – bountiful financial benefit in exchange for continued support. Both of these legitimizing tenets have been jeopardized in the past year, through the Hajj disaster and the global collapse of the oil price.

Riyadh has been forced to dig into its (admittedly huge) foreign exchange reserves. It has also announced its first cut to benefits. Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has even announced that Aramco will be partly privatized. Saudi decision-making has always been of a politically realist nature. For the Al Saud family, survival is the goal. Thus its extraneous actions will always be predicated upon ensuring the regime and the state’s survival.

Currently, Riyadh is also facing the very real threat of the Islamic State, which looms large on its border, and even within the kingdom. Thus aside from its regional hegemonic battle with Iran, the House of Saud is being bedeviled by what it views as a number of existential threats.

Nimr’s execution can thus be understood as a Saudi ploy to illustrate its might and its determination to meet what it perceives as existential threats, with overwhelming force. Playing the anti-Shiite card is one small part of this strategy.

Saudi insecurity has also been irretrievably heightened by the Iranian nuclear deal, which Riyadh fears will draw Tehran closer to the United States. Since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Riyadh has dominated America’s Middle Eastern relations. Thus with Iran slowly being accepted back into the international fold, a great Saudi fear is that in any future clashes between Riyadh and Tehran, Washington could conceivably side with Riyadh’s great enemy, a wholly unpalatable scenario for the Saudi rulers.

Today’s hostilities do not point towards a shift from cold to hot in what is already an extremely precarious situation.

The Saudis’ military capacity does not match up to the Iranians. Iran has around 500,000 ground troops, compared to less than 200,000 for the Saudis. From an economic perspective, oil sustains the Saudi regime. Oil revenue is used to buy support within the kingdom and friends outside of the kingdom.

The majority of this oil lies in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, a demographic disaster, as the area is predominantly Shiite. Therefore it is vital for Saudi Arabia not to incite trouble (or too much trouble) with Iran so as to ensure its safeguarding of the fundamental Eastern province.

Moreover, Iran will not want to jeopardize its recent welcome back into the international fold and the ensuing lifting of sanctions on the Iranian economy. As a longstanding US ally, Saudi Arabia would expect to receive American support, making overt Iranian aggression against Riyadh unlikely.

What will happen is an intensification of proxy Saudi-Iranian conflicts across the MENA region. Saudi military largesse in Yemen – estimated to be costing the kingdom in Riyadh the princely sum of $1 billion a month – is unlikely to be discontinued. The war shows few signs of abating, with recent talk of a ceasefire failing to staunch the frighteningly large amount of civilian deaths (said to be at nearly 3,000 according to the UN). Nimr’s execution has put a stake through the heart of any Yemeni peace process.

Nimr’s death is also likely to reduce the likelihood of an agreement on the Syrian track in Vienna, as both the Saudis and Iran both reinforce their stances behind their respective Syrian clients. Iran will harden its resolve to see Assad remain in power, while the Saudis will continue to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria, ploughing money and arms into extremist hands.

A solely sectarian-based argument as the catalyst behind the Saudi-Iranian conflict is missing the wider point of international relations. Of the recent spate of Saudi executions, only 4 (out of 47) were Shiite. Contrary to noise emanating from the White House, Nimr was not all that he was cracked up to be. He had clear, public links to Hezbollah al-Hejaz, an armed, Khomeinist group, highly active in the Saudis’ Eastern Province. Nimr has called for an armed struggle against the ‘illegitimate’ Saudi regime. Hezbollah al-Hejaz was even behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which killed numerous Americans.

Instead, the death of Nimr will serve to intensify the Middle Eastern, geopolitical competition of the past decade, as both sides seeks to shore up their claims of regional (and religious) leadership.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by GRI analyst Sam Julius.

The post Saudi-Iranian ‘Cold War’ Uses Sectarianism As Tool appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Written by Matthew Barbari

While Americans are focusing on the upcoming U.S. Presidential elections, the United Nations is beginning its own election season. With current Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon term ending this year, the search for his replacement has begun. The UN has stated that it wants this current election to be the most transparent. The difficulty with the nomination revolves around the approval needed from the permanent members of the UN Security Council—The United States, The United Kingdom, France, Russia and China—which have veto power over who is selected for the position.

Qualifications

There is a push for the Secretary-General to be from a region of the world that has yet to be represented, which is the case of Eastern Europe. They must have support from their government, as well as the support from most countries in the region. Previous experience in foreign affairs as well as the ability to communicate fluently in the official UN languages (minimum of 2) is required for the candidate.

This is also the first time that the calls for a woman Secretary-General are being adequately met. Many groups such as the 1 for 7 Billion campaign have called for a woman in the highest office of the United Nations. Under Ban Ki-Moon and the Sustainable Development Goals initiative, the issues of gender equality and the rights of women have been targeted as areas of improvement throughout the world.

Many critics of the UN would point out that only 25% of top UN positions are occupied by women. A major step in the fight for gender equality would be to have a woman as the face of the UN. These are the four current nominees with the best credentials and most support:

Irina Bokova

Bulgaria’s candidate for the position is considered to be the front-runner. The current Director-General of UNESCO as well as former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador, Bokova has a long and respected track record within the United Nations. With the ability to speak several languages fluently, as well as being highly respected for her communication and passion towards peacekeeping and dialogue, she enjoys support from the five Security Council permanent members.

Vuk Jeremić

Serbia’s candidate is the former president of the 67th Session of the General Assembly Vuk Jeremić. Jeremić is another strong candidate considering his work within the UN as well as his support for women’s education, calling for a United Nations Youth Assembly to hear Women’s Rights advocate Malala Yousafzai speak on her struggle for equal education rights in Pakistan. Jeremić had been selected as a potential candidate back in 2012 but was held back by his poor reputation among other countries in the region due to his steadfast denouncement of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence from Serbia.

Danilo Türk

The former President of Slovenia, Danilo Türk brings decades of experience working in the United Nations to his potential appointment as Secretary-General. Türk has overwhelming support from his home country as well as the rest of Eastern Europe. Starting as the Representative of Slovenia, Türk has been within the UN system for nearly 30 years, spending time as Assistant Secretary-General under Kofi Annan, as well as a member of the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. His experience and respect make him a very popular candidate and his history of supporting human and gender rights has garnered a lot of support.

Vesna Pusić

One of the founding members of the Croatian People’s Party, Vesna Pusić is a popular candidate for the next Secretary-General due to her support for gender equality, LGBT rights and liberal democracy. Having spent five years as the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs for Croatia she has some experience in foreign affairs. Her lack of United Nations experience is a negative as well as her very vocal support for the LGBT community might not be well received in Moscow.

The post Finding the next UN Secretary-General appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On Sunday, Pyongyang launched a long-range missile, despite the protests of the United States, South Korea and Japan that have immediately condemned the initiative as a further outrageous violation of the UN sanctions, preventing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) from using any ballistic missiles technology. The UN Security Council promptly summoned an emergency meeting to express its strong condemnation. While China still opposes expanding sanctions on the DPRK, Washington has recently stressed its determination to support South Korea and Japan against the threat represented by the DPRK nuclear ambitions.

During the last few weeks, Washington has coordinated an intense diplomatic offensive, urging for a Chinese intervention in response to the dangerous escalation characterizing the latest missile crisis. Few weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Beijing to make the case for a more proactive Chinese role over the issue of the North Korea’s nuclear program, the main threat to the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

While both countries have agreed upon the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, Beijing has strongly stressed the need of supporting diplomatic initiatives, aiming to strengthen the status quo in the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK’s nuclear program activities have intensified after the alleged announcement concerning the North Korea’s acquisition of thermonuclear weapons, causing the unanimous condemnation of Japan, the United States and South Korea while China and Russia have expressed serious concerns about consequences of the DPRK nuclear program.

Albeit, China and the DPRK have shared a certain level of ideological affinity, their strategic partnership has waned over the last two decades. Beijing remains the DPRK’s biggest trade partner, providing a vital food and oil supply lifeline. But after the leadership change in North Korea, relations have cooled down. Kim Jung-un took the power in 2011, and quickly set the North Korean nuclear program as one of the top priorities for the regime. However, despite the evident erosion of China’s ability to use its leverage on Pyongyang, Washington demands from Beijing a more steadfast role with regard to the evolution of the Korean crisis.

Chinese interest in the Korean Peninsula

Since the end of the Korean War, Chinese leaders have valued the preservation of the balance of the power in the Korean Peninsula as the most important precondition for regional stability. To preserve the status quo, China strongly opposes the rise of the DRPK’s as a nuclear power. The pragmatic Chinese leadership is not per se concerned with the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea but rather, it is worried about the consequences of a growing level of insecurity among the neighboring countries such as Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan, inclined to acquire nuclear weapons of their own  as a source of deterrence.

Eventually, the North Korean nuclear program could push Seoul and Washington to pursue a military intervention, resulting in a reunited Korea under the control of the South and an increased American military presence in  China’s backyard. Since the partition of the peninsula, the DPRK has played an important role as a buffer state between China and the South Korea where more than 30.000 U.S. troops are currently stationed. Moreover, this scenario could increase tensions between China and Washington and its allies, given Beijing’s growing perception a strategic containment fostered by Washington as part of the “pivot to Asia” launched by the Obama Administration in 2011.

From an economic perspective, the event of the collapse and assimilation of the North Korea would trigger a severe humanitarian crisis. This would be a serious challenge to the Chinese leadership, undermining its role in a delicate phase of transition that is currently characterizing President Xi’s rule. Consequently, preventing any alterations in the current Korean peninsula architecture is the main priority for Beijing.

The harsh rule that has characterized Kim Jong Un’ leadership keeps irritating Beijing especially after the execution of Jan Sung-taek in 2013. Due to his close relations with Beijing and role as a supervisor of the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) located in the northeast provinces, close to the border, the execution of Jan Sung-taek was considered by many China watchers as a clear attempt to undermine Beijing’s influence while sending a warning to those opposing Kim Jong Un’s rule.

After the Jan Sung-taek incident, Beijing’s attempts to maintain a strong paternal influence over Kim Jong Un have produced limited results. Few days ago the special envoy for Korean affairs Wu Dawei returned to Beijing empty-handed. Additionally, recent remarks from the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang have alimented the speculations about China’s tense relations with Pyongyang on the nuclear issue.

Washington’s view

The challenge represented by the DPRK’s nuclear program unveils Washington’s concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region. Besides threatening regional and global security, the advancement of Pyongyang’s acquisition of nuclear capabilities is eroding the international community’s perceived ability to compel nations to abide by rules and regulations expressed by the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As mentioned earlier, China does not fear the DPRK as a nuclear power, yet the implications for the United States are different. Pyongyang’s ability to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the foreseeable future would enable the DPRK to strike targets within the continental U.S. in addition to the existing nuclear threat to neighboring countries.

(Source: International Maritime Organization, retrieved from Agence France Press)

Indeed, South Korea and Japan have increased the level of cooperation with Washington through the expansion of trilateral military exercises, improving the level of preparedness required for intercepting missile strikes. In the recent years, the impact of the nuclear threat has induced South Korea to take a more assertive stand against Pyongyang’s provocations. Japan, under Abe’s leadership, has launched a comprehensive package of security reforms to allow Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to fight alongside the U.S. troops after more than 70 years of self-imposed restrictions.

Many analysts in Washington have stressed the correlations between the advancement of the DPRK’s nuclear program and the growing instability of the young Kim Jong Un’s regime. Over the last three years, Kim Jong Un’s leadership has been characterized by a furious attempt to follow the steps of his grandfather Kim Il-Sung, the dynasty founder worshipped by millions of North Korean as a demigod.

However, the sudden appointment of Kim Jong Un as successor has surely left many influent members of the Kims close entourage skeptical about his real ability to rule. Beyond the propaganda façade, characterized by the blind adoration toward Kim Jong Un, his trembling power has mostly relied on purging powerful members of the party and granting privileges to his closest associates, following a pattern laid out elites selectorate model theory, common in authoritarian regimes.

Nowadays, Washington is calling Beijing for more significant and impactful sanctions to force the DPRK to abandon its nuclear ambitions. In order to achieve this goal, China is expected to use its leverage to bring Pyongyang back to the table of negotiations. Additionally, from Washington’s perspective, given its aspirations as a rising power, committed to contributing to the global peace and security, China should share  the responsibilities with the United States. It remains uncertain how President Xi will deal with the issue, but it is certain that the success or failure of Chinese diplomacy will strongly impact the region’s security environment.

The post Beijing and Washington: An Uneasy Balance in the Korean Peninsula appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Last week, Twitter announced that it suspended 125,000 accounts since the middle of 2015 that it suspected of “threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS.” This statement was the first of its kind from one of the world’s most popular social media platforms and a favorite among extremist groups.

Twitter’s actions against ISIS accounts are not unique. Internet companies, especially those that manage massive social media platforms, have been combating a flood of terrorist propaganda that is saturating the digital landscape.

However, Twitter’s very public statement amounts to a declaration of war against ISIS contrasts with its contemporaries; many of whom chose to take a far less transparent stand in publicizing suspension activities against ISIS and other extremist groups.

ISIS has become so popular so fast that governments are struggling to keep up with the parasitic spread of its appeal. Twitter, being the preferred medium for recruitment, is facing a formidable challenge in its attempt to stop or, at the very least, stymie the proliferation of social media based propaganda operations.

The apocalyptic narrative ISIS is preaching has been buoyed by a grasp on the importance of creating and harnessing a prolific social media campaign that is capable of broadcasting a compelling narrative interlaced with religious extremism: in essence creating a Jihadist highlight reel showcasing its accomplishments to adherents across the globe.

The skills demonstrated on social media platforms are not that dissimilar to what the average millennial is capable of doing, but ISIS is the first terrorist organization to use it to such great effect. The ability of ISIS to spin the narrative to fit specific objectives makes offering up a counter-narrative very challenging—especially considering the lack of credibility Western nations have in regions where ISIS’ message is most popular. As long as ISIS is perceived to be winning the fight to establish a caliphate, whether based in fact or fiction, that message will continue to attract followers.

Twitter has dedicated a considerable amount of time and resources into identifying and suspending ISIS-related Twitter accounts. Unfortunately, given the nature of social media platforms and the anonymity of the internet in general, its efforts to curb ISIS participation is becoming a frustrating game of “whack-a-mole”; but that’s not to say that these efforts are without merit. The ramifications of not trimming the proverbial weeds, as it were, would be incredibly harmful, especially considering the alarming rate of metastasis in ISIS’s presence on social media.

It requires a tremendous amount of effort for ISIS to reconstitute social media networks that have been lost to account suspension—especially the type of massive crackdowns that Twitter announced. The rationale behind utilizing a comprehensive campaign of account suspensions to curb ISIS participation on Twitter is simple: if ISIS is spending its time recreating social media accounts lost to suspensions then it will spend less time spent actually operating those accounts to create and disseminate propaganda.

A study conducted by the Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World found that in September 2014, 8% of ISIS’s online activity was being dedicated to reconstituting its social media network as a result of increased suspensions. The Brookings’ study also states “the pace of account creations has lagged behind the pace of suspensions,” which is a positive sign that an increased suspension regime can have a significant impact.

Jared Cohen, Director of Google Ideas and Senior Fellow at The Council on Foreign Relations, while speaking at the Royal Institute of International Affairs discussed the idea of relegating ISIS to the outer fringes of the Internet, into the dark Web, the open-source network that lets you navigate the Internet anonymously—known as Tor.

These obscure and far-flung regions of the Internet, while difficult to track and monitor, are also difficult for the average person to access and require a higher degree of computer proficiency to operate—it’s not the prime digital advertising space that ISIS would prefer.

Traditionally, the process of radicalization has occurred directly, person to person. However, in the age of pervasive social media platforms and systemic access to the Internet, the gulf that previously separated a radical cleric in Raqqa and a potential adherent in Paris has been dramatically reduced. In the 21st century, it’s the indirect radicalization of an individual, or “self-radicalization,” that is proving the most difficult to combat.

The post Twitter, ISIS and Social Media Whack-a-Mole appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Sri Lanka has always been described as the Pearl of the Indian Ocean. It is never easy for a small island nation to remain a completely sovereign while being located just a few dozen miles off the coast of a behemoth-like country with 1 billion people. Thus, the power relations are distorted in all aspects. No wonder Sri Lankan scholars and journalists refer to India as “big brother.”

The cultural and religious affinities are present in a vibrant history of economic and social interactions. But concurrently Sri Lanka has also tried to remain independent from the politics and conflicts of India, ensuring that a unique identity was developed for the islanders. Sri Lankan Nationalism has been at the forefront of trying to protect that identity.

The long running relationship between the two countries has had quite a few hiccups. The latest has been over the furthering of the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. It has been under negotiations since 2003 as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), now renamed the Economic and Technological Cooperation Agreement (ETCA).

From the very beginning the CEPA has been  controversial in Sri Lanka. There has massive civil society protests against any government’s attempt to finalize the agreement. The current national unity government has also faced the same issue with ETCA.

Trade between the two countries is obviously one sided. In 2014, while Sri Lanka exported $700 million worth to India while India exported $3.1 billion worth to Sri Lanka. It is a massive trade gap for Sri Lanka, but it can do little about it. Indian products have a huge price advantage over Sri Lankan’s.

Ingrained in the memory of many middle aged Sri Lankans are the 1987 India-Sri Lanka Accords. The accords involved altering Sri Lanka’s constitution by adding the 13th amendment and introducing a large Indian Peacekeeping Force. To them, their motherland was once again invaded by Indians just 40 years after the British marched away. So now when the government says a new agreement could allow Indians to enter the workforce in the shipbuilding and IT  industries, they see another invasion.

However it is worthwhile to take a brief look into the fledging Sri Lankan shipbuilding and IT industries. The shipbuilding is limited to basically two main operations. First is the Colombo Dockyard Company which is considered to be one of the leading dry-dock complexes in the South Asian region with a significant annual revenue. Second is the Sri Lankan Navy small  vessel construction for its use in littoral waters. Expanding these operations in the short term  will be tough due to the lack of skilled labor.

On the other hand the IT industry has been booming and expanding ever since the mid 2000s. Today,Sri Lanka has up to 80,000 IT professionals as a whole.  Firms like WSO2, Millenium and Leapset/CAKE Labs are entrepreneurial, earning  millions of dollars in revenues, with operations even in Silicon Valley.

However, entrepreneurs do confess that there is a dearth of skilled graduates for recruitment within Sri Lanka. The government wants to increase the IT export revenue five fold by 2020 requiring massive expansions.

Yet where the investments will come is an issue. The Sri Lankan IT industry resists opening up to foreign investors and labor, fearing that it could destroy budding local entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka already has its own version of Uber, Pick me,  Uber’s biggest local competition.

Liberal minded intellectuals and government politicians are calling the ETCA agreement a step forward to making Sri Lankan industries more competitive. Nationalists are calling it a threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and identity.

However, Sri Lanka’s identity is already defined by a number of communities who have migrated to the island over the centuries. The Moors, Malay, South Indian estate workers, Gujarati and Chinese traders just to name a few.

Sri Lanka’s current fiscal status quo is starving for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). The island state risks to lose its fiscal autonomy if it has to default on its debt servicing and falls under the thumb of the IMF. If properly utilized by the government, ETCA can be used to present Sri Lanka as having a liberal attitude toward trade and foreign investment.

Nationalism has played a decisive role in Sri Lanka ever since it became Asia’s first democracy in 1933. Politicians know exactly how to use it to serve their own interests. Nationalism of the Sinhalese majority turned chauvinism sparked the civil war and massive nationalization of private enterprises and property.

It drowned the country’s dreams of becoming the “Gateway to Asia” despite its geographic location. Today, government action towards recreating that dream is being opposed by nationalism once again. Some politicians are manipulating nationalism, claiming to be defending the sovereignty that Sri Lanka is not losing, only to return to power.

The post Sri Lanka : Nationalism & Indian Free Trade appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

French President Hollande at the COP21 in Paris.

Written by Matthew Barbari

When delegates from nearly 200 countries convened in Paris in late November 2015, many were hopeful about the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties or COP21. It could be a watershed moment when the world would unite and finally put forth a plan to combat climate change.

While similar sentiment was shared before the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 and the meeting in Kyoto in 1997, there was a feeling that now—with China, India and the United States on board—a universal climate policy could be agreed upon.

This, however, is not the end of the story. While an agreement was reached, many experts within the scientific community remain dissatisfied. The watershed moment for politicians arguing for their respective countries was not what environmentalists had envisioned, with many criticizing the agreement as nothing more than too little, too late.

Dr. James E. Hansen, a highly respected authority within the climate science community, sees the prospect of the Paris Agreement as “just worthless words,” and criticizing it as “no action, just promises.” Hansen makes a direct reference to the provision within the agreement that allows countries to set their own standards of emissions to keep the global temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius. Further arguments are also made about how much money developed countries should provide to developing ones in order to limit the latter’s carbon emissions, as well as any prevent any catastrophic events that climate change could trigger.

Dr. Hansen argues that the notion that renewable energy sources will magically replace countries’ dependence on fossil fuels is silly as long as those fuels remain the cheapest source of energy production. Dr. Hansen also argues for an increase in nuclear energy, which puts him at odds with some within the community.

He believes that nuclear power is necessary to combat climate change as it provides a massive source of energy that does not involve burning fossil fuels. Those against nuclear power point to the massive construction costs of nuclear facilities, events such as the disaster at Chernobyl and Fukushima power plants or the issue of getting rid of nuclear waste.

While the Paris Agreement aims high, it also limits itself to being nothing more than a promise: no penalties are imposed should nations not reach their own targets for limiting carbon emission and developing renewable energy sources. There are also several provisions within the agreement that are not binding, such as the fact that countries can withdraw from the agreement at any time without any penalties.

Further issues arise with the 2 degrees target. Environmentalists argue that this temperature rise would still cause a drastic change in the global climate and that the cuts need to be more severe. This is the biggest concern with the Paris Agreement: it does not attempt to stop climate change but only to mitigate the damages.

Besides these criticisms, there is much positive about the agreement. First, there is a formal agreement, as previous attempts have seen major powers such as the U.S. and China walk out of meetings. The biggest challenge of a universal agreement is the different level of economic development of each individual countries combined to the inherent asymmetry of climate change effects. This is why the agreement pushes for each country to develop a climate policy for themselves.

While the agreement might not have gone as far as some would have liked, it shows that nations around the globe are now finally getting serious about climate change. And that is something to be hopeful about.

The post Paris Climate Agreement: Mixed Reviews appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Source: Getty Images

Written by Lillian Marx

In a move that the South Korean government has dubbed “immature,” this week North Korea began sending propaganda balloons across the border filled with trash, including cigarette butts and even used toilet paper. The garbage is accompanied by leaflets, some of which refer to South Korean leader Park Geun-hye as a “filthy president.”

The timed detonations reached border cities, including the capital, Seoul. While leaflet-packed balloons have caused some incidental harm–damaged cars and rooftop water tanks, for instance–the North’s propaganda campaign faces little chance of inflicting psychological damage on the Republic of Korea.

Balloons are a classic component of the inter-Korean propaganda war that has raged, on and off, since the Cold War. The tactic was dispensed with after successful inter-Korean summit talks in 2000, as was the practice of blasting broadcasts over loudspeakers across the border.

Independent South Korean activists continued to send balloons carrying everything from dollar bills, to Western entertainment media, to leaflets condemning the Supreme Leader. It was only when a North Korean torpedo struck a South Korean warship in 2010 that Seoul broke the propaganda ceasefire officially instituted in 2004 and reintroduced loudspeaker broadcasts.

When South Korea accused North Korea of planting mines in the DMZ last August, injuring two South Korean soldiers, Seoul again responded with broadcasts. When North Korea tested out a purported H-bomb this January, the South began the blasts and balloons anew–a move the North reciprocated, until the back-and-forth culminated in an exchange of artillery fire.

Now, as the South Korean Ministry of Defense warns that North Korea is preparing to launch the long-range missile it promised to deploy sometime in February, the propaganda war reflects, and in fact increases, the pitch of the tension. The pressure that built up in August was diffused after North Korea gave in to diplomatic wrangling and expressed regret for the maimed soldiers. But it would be entirely anathema to Kim regime legitimacy to apologize for the country’s nuclear program.

The content of contemporary South Korean propaganda remains similar in spirit to that of the Cold War–the contrast between a free and wealthy South and an oppressive North being the central message. But with loudspeakers blasting at a volume that carries K-pop, weather reports and denunciations of Kim Jong Un 12 miles beyond the border, the overall effect is as much profoundly annoying as ideologically persuasive.

President Park entered office with her signature policy of trustpolitik, which sought Korean reconciliation through mutual trust-building. Yet, for instance, the aggressive back-and-forth propaganda that followed North Korea’s nuclear test in January contributed to the overall risk of what U.S.  Department of Defense spokesman Commander William Urban termed a “cycle of escalation.” The intensifying animosity was coarsely expressed by a North Korean leaflet at the time: “Let us beat to death Park Geun-hye’s gang of dogs for resuming propaganda broadcasts and deteriorating North-South relations!”

The arrival of North Korea’s trash balloons this week accompanies the country’s far more belligerent promise to launch an earth-observation satellite into orbit (understood as a flimsy decoy for developing ICBM technology) before February 25. The trash stunt may be “immature,” but it perpetuates a level of tension that was tellingly illustrated by initial concerns that the deployments of detritus might be biochemically hazardous. This trash was just trash; meanwhile, South Korea has resolved to intercept any debris from the North’s anticipated rocket launch.

The post The Inter-Korean Propaganda War appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, a one-hour documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, presents the story of an institution that, as former Secretary of State James Baker says, is not easy to understand.

Visually and narratively attractive, packed with little-known facts and eye-catching clips, the film paints a faithful portrait of the U.S. Foreign Service while fair-mindedly probing a range of issues.

The documentary also poses the crucial question of how the Foreign Service can meet the challenges of the 21st century. By not giving facile answers, the producers portray a difficult situation honestly.

The documentary opens with an account of dangers and hardships so frequently faced by Foreign Service Officers, with many first hand accounts of traumatic events. This review in itself is a valuable reminder.

The program then imposes a certain context, raising the under-examined problem of balancing our diplomats’ security against their need to be out and about in countries where they serve. Our increasingly fortress-like embassies isolate our representatives, while mingling can incur deadly risks.

A lively historical review of early American diplomacy recounts Benjamin Franklin’s securing of French support for the Revolution, and the diplomatic coup of the Louisiana Purchase.

It proceeds to describe deleterious effects of the growing use of diplomatic postings for patronage. This led to the establishment of today’s professional U.S. Foreign Service, in the 1924 Rogers Act.

The first of several descriptions of core Foreign Service duties follows. Ambassador Frank Wisner cites the “maintenance of stability … the preservation of the peace, the protection of American interests …” in a segue to the story of George Kennan and the Containment strategy.

Kennan, a Russia expert, gave an analysis of Soviet and Russian behavior in his 1946 Long Telegram from the U.S. embassy in Moscow. His recommendation was not to attempt to roll back the Soviets’ influence, but to contain their efforts to expand it, which by his view of Russian history would either lead the Soviets to moderate their exploits, or cause their collapse.

The documentary does not spell out, perhaps because many Foreign Service Officers only sensed implicitly, how the Containment doctrine shaped basic expectations for the whole Service. This reviewer saw this in 1988 in Trinidad and Tobago, when the DCM asked an Embassy staff meeting to “take a step back and talk about what we are really trying to do here.”

As often happens in staff meetings, a hodge-podge of facts and concerns was bandied about. Then one officer piped up: “all the Caribbean islands could sink and no one in Washington would care, but there are Russians and Cubans competing with us for influence, and we have to win that competition.” No one had actually been told that officially, hence the prior hemming and hawing. But discussion ended, because everyone knew that Containment defined our overriding mission.

Kennan’s influence marked a high point in Foreign Service history. Former Under Secretary Thomas Pickering calls the story the “best known example” of a Foreign Service Officer “setting the course” for foreign policy. In fact Containment was the last systemic guidance U.S. foreign policy has had. Its comprehensive purpose disappeared with the U.S.S.R., and nothing has replaced it.

The documentary goes on to review the Foreign Service’s ongoing duties, with many fascinating vignettes. Regarding diplomacy in foreign policy, it describes Richard Holbrooke’s signal achievement, shaping the Dayton Accords that ended fighting in the former Yugoslavia.

An overview of the consular function features Fiorello LaGuardia—who knew he was a consular officer?—and Hiram Bingham, who flouted regulations in issuing visas to refugees fleeing the Nazis.

Accounts of diplomats’ business promotion efforts are punctuated by James Baker’s assertion that U.S. power is based on our economy, implying another core function for the Service. Baker then names one more “main responsibility” of our embassies: public diplomacy, the media, cultural, and other direct presentation of America to host country populations.

Those activities are described, along with the story of Edward Perkins, an African-American officer appointed as Ambassador to apartheid South Africa. A section on global issues includes discussion of terrorist and environmental issues.

The question of political appointees, a longstanding complaint of career officers, gets pointed attention. Two differing perspectives come out. Former Under Secretary Nicholas Burns says there are too many political appointees, citing career officers’ lifelong efforts. Secretary Baker points out that political Ambassadors’ familiarity with political leaders can make them particularly effective representatives.

This backdrop supports the documentary’s assertion that the Service’s challenges deserve better attention. Retired senior diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield says that the Service has to “do a better job … letting Americans know what we do …” But the problem may not lie in the telling. Since the Cold War, it is hard to say what the nation actually asks of its diplomats.

The review of Foreign Service duties shows officers handling consequential matters, but, in its straightforward portrait, it captures the sense that the various functions each have their own internal logic, and relatively little to do with each other. The role of the Foreign Service seems as diffuse as foreign policy itself.

The future promises to make the difficulties harder. Secretary John Kerry describes today’s volatility and new challenges, and Ambassador Prudence Bushnell observes that the Service must adapt to a global 21st century. Issues of diversity and training are discussed. Viewers certainly know how overwhelming the post-modern era’s complexities can be. The documentary itself portrays experts naming at least three undifferentiated ‘core’ duties of the Service.

Fittingly, the program does not present any comprehensive answers: none have been proposed. The Foreign Policy Association producers offer something unusual in public discourse: informing the viewer well, and leaving them facing an uncomfortable reality.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review by George F. Paik appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Written by Jim Quirk

“America’s Diplomats”, a 2016 documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, may come at just the right time with just the right message.

In some ways, the hour-long film blends the literature of American diplomacy, such as Shuster’s The Strangling of Persia, Kennan’s Memoirs, and Holbrooke’s To End a War, with more recent insiders’ views, like Kopp and Gillespie’s Career Diplomacy, Morgan and Kennedy’s American Diplomats, and AFSA’s Inside a U.S. Embassy.

The film introduces the history of American diplomacy, well-known and less familiar personal stories, and challenges to the Foreign Service and its work. While much of the media attention on U.S. foreign policy and the Department of State today focuses on failures, scandals, or intra-agency turf battles, this film reminds us that the career personnel are talented, dedicated people whose commitment to public service and American interests includes considerable sacrifice.

“America’s Diplomats” begins with this focus on danger and sacrifice. The famous attacks on U.S. diplomats in Iran, Lebanon, Kenya and Tanzania, Benghazi and elsewhere are dramatic and tragic. But many diplomats and their relatives have also been lost to crime, disease, ship wrecks and other events in the course of their duties. The danger to diplomats has resulted in many changes to U.S. embassies and consulates, such as turning many into “fortresses” in the world’s capitals.

From here,”America’s Diplomats” begins its chronological and thematic sections. Benjamin Franklin went to France to help secure American independence. A quest for safety and prosperity, often through isolationism, characterized much of the diplomacy of the next hundred years.

Global changes in politics, technology, and economics in the last part of the 19th century and especially after World War I required changes to American diplomacy and to the American diplomatic corps. A key was the 1924 Rogers Act, which sought to introduce more professionalism and meritocracy to the State Department.

Kennan’s Long Telegram and Holbrooke’s shuttle diplomacy will be familiar to many viewers. But the consular side, which often touches Americans and others more directly than treaties or doctrines, is also highlighted.

The work of Hiram “Harry” Bingham, consular officer in Marseilles during World War II, alludes perhaps unintentionally to current issues. Bingham is credited with saving thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish refugees, issuing visas more generously than official policy allowed. It cost him his career.

Seven decades later, his story was revealed when hidden documents were found in his home. He was honored posthumously by organizations as diverse as the United Nations, Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, the U.S. Episcopal Church, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bingham was even put on a U.S. postage stamp, as a Distinguished American Diplomat.

“America’s Diplomats” then transitions to contemporary challenges, reflecting recent changes in global politics, technology, and economics. The expansion of global trade and finance since the 1980s called for an increase in economic diplomacy. The 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-damaging CFCs serves as a model, the film argues, for multilateralism and environmental diplomacy.

The IT revolution of the past 30 years, in particular the growth of the internet has called for new kinds of public diplomacy. The film concludes with concern over the increase in the number of political appointees to ambassador posts, but the benefits of attracting more diverse and mature Foreign Service Officers to meet the new challenges.

These new challenges are one area in which the film might have gone into more depth. The State Department tweets in 11 languages, and many embassies use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in their local languages. How effective is this? How do we know?

More broadly, how is the Foreign Service dealing with the huge range of non-state actors that have become so important in recent decades? And how does it balance its promotion of democracy, religious freedom, and human development (economic, education, health, etc.) with more “realist” state-vs.-state views of national interest.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review By Jim Quirk appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, the Foreign Policy Association latest production is a must-see documentary for anyone interested in the history of American diplomacy or considering a career in the Foreign Service. Indeed, it chronicles the evolution of American diplomacy over the decades, the motivation behind America’s Foreign Service Officers, and both the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy.

The documentary is narrated by the rich, gravelly voice of the actress Kathleen Turner, an American film and stage actress and director (whose father was a consular officer, her mother serving alongside him), and draws on extensive interviews from such notable past and present diplomats as current Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell.

As we learn, the history of American diplomacy stretches as far back as the founding of the nation, when Benjamin Franklin became recognized as “America’s first diplomat”, and carried on over the years as diplomacy secured peace after World War II and met the challenge of Communism.

Yet these successes are quickly put aside at the beginning of the narrative to reveal the grave dangers faced by American diplomats today. Featured in full details are the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the 1998 bombings at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staffers.

The 1979 Iran hostage crisis also figures prominently, and helps belie any criticism that this is merely a rose-colored recruiting video. The harsh reality viewers will take from the film is that the Foreign Service is not for the faint-hearted. Those afraid of succumbing to diseases like yellow fever and cholera, being shot at by snipers, bombed, or held hostage while overseas need not apply.

Indeed, the documentary not only covers the physical threats but the intellectual challenges in diplomacy —for example the primary challenge of trying to convince a foreign population that you are not occupiers seeking to overturn their government, but rather a helpful presence intended to bring positive American values to the citizenry.

Oftentimes, the population is not convinced, and tragedy sets in, as portrayed during the aforementioned Iran hostage crisis, when 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage by a mob, who claimed that the embassy was a “den of espionage….plotting against the Iranian people.” The hostages were released only after a long captivity of 444 days.  Other times diplomacy succeeds, as shown in the film’s portrayal of the extensive efforts of Richard Holbrooke in bringing an end to Bosnia’s bloody civil war.

The documentary also covers the history of the foreign service, and the influence of the Rogers Act of 1924, which instituted series of competitive entrance exams bringing meritocracy to the corps.

Unfortunately, as the film dutifully points out, the influence of money, privilege and political influence “depreciates the process”, particularly with the appointment of prominent political donors to ambassadorships in some of the better postings like London and Paris. Roughly 30% of ambassadors since the Kennedy administration have been political appointees and not career foreign service officers, which can undermine morale.

Foreign Service Officers have also increasingly played an important role in the support of American commerce, largely since the Reagan years. The film features diplomats supporting such U.S. companies as McDonald’s and Starbucks, although it fails to mention that, in some countries, both U.S. companies have become negative symbols of American influence, despite their products being hungrily consumed by the local population

The role of the consular officers in approving visa requests for those wishing to come to the U.S. is also featured prominently, and raises important questions as to how this “nation of immigrants” should treat those refugees currently fleeing Syria and Iraq.

The film includes an interesting portrayal of such diplomats as Fiorello La Guardia, a consular officer who eventually became the mayor or New York. La Guardia was instrumental in getting shipping lines to implement health checks on immigrant families before they got on a boat, to help ensure families stay together.

Hiram Bingham, another consular officer in Marseilles, France, helped 2,500 Jews in ten months reach the U.S. during the Hitler years, defying orders from Washington and eventually costing him his career in the foreign service.

America’s role in public diplomacy has also grown since the 1960s, and is sometimes referred to as the “soft power” of American principles and values. One such highlighted example documents the role of Ed Perkins, U.S. ambassador to apartheid South Africa, and the challenges he faced as a black American in attempting to promote American values in a hostile environment.

What motivates an Ed Perkins or anyone to serve in the foreign service?  Certainly not the pay, which is far below what many of these highly talented Americans can earn in the private sector. Indeed they are driven by other motivations.  John Kerry believes “it’s done because people love the concept of serving their country, and they love the idea of taking American ideals abroad.”

Which raises the question, why does America get involved in the convoluted conflicts of foreign nations, far from home?  Why is the United States “the undisputed leader on the world stage”?

A foreign policy of isolationism has long been debated in American foreign policy—despite the American Revolution having almost been lost without diplomacy and despite the fact that “the United States would not have existed, without the French support.” In the early years of the nation, Americans really didn’t like the “European ideas” of diplomacy and having ambassadors in foreign countries.

Yet today, following the failures of the war in Vietnam, and limited success in Iraq and Afghanistan, debates over isolationism and America’s leading role in diplomacy are again back in the spotlight, especially among this year’s presidential candidates.

Some diplomats argue for intervention only when we have “a dog in this fight,” or when American interests are threatened at home. As the documentary illuminates, these are difficult decisions to make, with constantly changing parameters, often resulting in devastating consequences, including the death of diplomats.  

If there is one shortcoming of “America’s Diplomats,” it is the failure to examine the question of when and under what conditions America should go to war, and to address the argument in favor of isolationism.  Instead, the film takes it for granted that American involvement is necessary, and has been necessary, given that other nations “look to the United States for leadership.”

Where the documentary shines is in its history of American diplomacy and its well-deserved tribute to those courageous American heroes who are on the front lines of American diplomacy everyday, including the 12 whom Bill Clinton posthumously honored after the 1998 bombing by Al-Qaeda in Nairobi, Kenya, “Far from home, they endure hardships, often at great risk”.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gary Sands appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, a new television special produced by the Foreign Policy Association, seeks to explain the world of professional diplomats to average citizens, people who, through no fault of their own, have little occasion to interact with Foreign Service Officers or to discuss the inner workings of the Department of State.

As is fitting of the Foreign Policy Association—and in keeping with reality—it offers a positive and hopeful message. A number of themes are woven in and out of the narrative. Among these are the tasks that diplomats actually undertake, popular American attitudes toward diplomacy, the evolution and professionalization of the field in the United States, and the need to balance our diplomats’ need for personal security with their need to accomplish their mission. Allow me to touch upon a few of these themes without repeating the details of the program.

Americans have long had a disdainful attitude toward diplomacy and diplomats, seeing the whole endeavor as something elitist, foreign, expensive, and possibly deceitful.

Ambrose Bierce, the author of The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), defined diplomacy at “the patriotic art of lying for one’s country” and a consul as “a person who having failed to secure an office from the people is given one by the Administration on the condition that he leave the country.”

Yet diplomacy was essential to the birth of the United States. Washington’s forces would never have prevailed without the alliance with France. France not only provided finances, troops, and a fleet, but it also distracted Britain’s attention by threatening its holdings in far-flung corners of the world. (Remember, the British army abandoned the occupation of Philadelphia because they suddenly needed the troops to defend the West Indies.)

From the beginning, the young American republic cut corners when it came to diplomacy. Unwilling to pay the salary of “ambassadors,” the United States sent “ministers,” diplomats of a lower rank, to represent it in foreign capitals.

This not only reduced the status and influence of American diplomats, it also created a dilemma for other countries. Based on the rules of reciprocity, European powers would not send ambassadors to a country that sent them ministers, but they were hard-pressed to find qualified diplomats who would willingly cross the ocean and live in “the American wilderness” for a minister’s salary.

Relative isolation made it easy for the United States to neglect diplomacy for a while. After all, the U.S. was hidden behind large oceans. The oceans were controlled by the British fleet, and the British—after the War of 1812, at least—found that they already had enough enemies and that life would be easier if they could just keep the Americans on their side.

Most U.S. contact with the outside world consisted of trade. American businessmen resident in foreign ports were asked by the government to act as consuls, looking after U.S. interests, in their spare time. Still, the Consular Service, being business-oriented, was held in somewhat higher esteem by the public than the Diplomatic Service.

The two services interacted little with each other, and both suffered from low salaries, nonexistent benefits, and the consequences of a spoils system of appointments, a system that Teddy Roosevelt denounced as “wholly and unmixedly evil,” “emphatically un-American and undemocratic,” and something that no “intelligent man or ordinary decency” could endorse.

As the U.S. grew—and its contacts with the outside world multiplied in number and evolved in kind—a greater sense of professionalism had to be forced upon its diplomacy. The Consular Service forged a merit-based system in the early 1900s.

Leaders of the Diplomatic Service, on the other hand, preferred to rely on men of independent means and saw low salaries as a way to weed out undesirables. With the onset of World War I, the pressures to modernize came in accelerated form.

A key turning point finally came with the Foreign Service Act of 1924, also known as the Rogers Act. The Rogers Act merged the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service into the new Foreign Service of the United States; established a meritocratic personnel system, including standardized entrance exams; and created or extended allowances and benefits. The Foreign Service School was also established in 1924, which was replaced by the Foreign Service Institute in 1947.

Still, even today, the system is not fully professionalized. “America’s Diplomats” suggests that perhaps 30% of ambassadors are political appointees (albeit supported by professional diplomats). Some of these, even if not professional Foreign Service Officers, are highly qualified. Others, such as some campaign donors, are potential embarrassments.

The question of diplomats’ personal security is a key theme in “America’s Diplomats,” both early in the show and toward the end. The focus is clearly influenced by the Benghazi controversy.

Yet it is not presented as a straight-forward question of protecting personnel, as it is often depicted in Washington. Rather it is a trade-off. The Foreign Service does not want to leave its people exposed to dangers unnecessarily, but it also views excessive security measures as obstacles that get in the way of doing its mission.

It resists measures that separate its diplomats from the government and society that they are supposed to be reporting on. Finding the balance is an endless task, and one that does not always end happily.

Although, as many politicians have said in the past few years, no U.S. ambassador had been killed in the line of duty in over 20 years, they picked that number consciously. American ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty in 1988, 1979, 1976, 1974, 1973, and 1968.

Other, lower-ranking diplomats have been killed since then. (The American Foreign Service Association lists 247 State Department personnel who have died in the line of duty since 1780, although most of the earlier cases were lost at sea or died in epidemics.)

None of this is to dismiss the tragedy of Benghazi but rather to question the politicization of the event when the previous cases were not politicized, and the consequences for the future of diplomacy.

“America’s Diplomats” is an interesting and informative introduction to the things that diplomats do. It strives to use information to overcome the lingering disdain that people may carry toward diplomats and diplomacy. I suspect the producers would also like to see the process of professionalization completed and the politicization of foreign policy overcome, but those are even taller orders.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Monje appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On January 11, Iran announced that it had removed the core of its nuclear reactor at Arak, a major part of the terms it agreed to under an international agreement reached in July. A few days later, representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a report stating that Agency inspectors on the ground had verified that Iran had carried out all measures required by the agreement.

In an official statement UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon remarked: “This achievement demonstrates that international proliferation concerns are best addressed through dialogue and patient diplomacy.”

Although these events were reported in the media, they were top news stories. This is due to the lack of understanding of the importance and value of diplomacy.

An engrossing and informative new PBS documentary, American Diplomats, produced by the Foreign Policy Association, addresses these and other issues head on. As elaborated on during the program, diplomats have three primary responsibilities: to maintain stability, preserve peace and protect U.S. interests.

The documentary weaves these themes together by showing the impact diplomats have had on our nation’s history, foreign policy, and economic interests. Of note, the documentary does not down play the challenges and shortcomings of the profession and the need to keep improving and stay relevant.

Benjamin Franklin was our first diplomat and without his success in securing an alliance with France, the U.S. might not have won the revolutionary war.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson, sent Robert Livingston to New Orleans, then part of territory owned by the French, to see if the U.S. could buy the city. Jefferson wanted to ensure U.S. farmers had access to that port city to export their goods.

To Livingston’s surprise the French asked if the U.S. would be interested in buying not just New Orleans but the entire territory. For a cost of $15 million, the U.S. territory overnight expanded as far west as the Rockies and as far north as Canada.

The nature of their jobs has also allowed diplomats to play an important role in the formulation of foreign policy. If you asked me what single book on foreign affairs and national security has had the most impact on me, George F. Kennan’s Memoirs 1925 – 1950 would be at the top of the list.

As World War II ended, the U.S. expected to maintain a successful working relationship with the Soviet Union. Kennan had been stationed in the Soviet Union during the war and had observed up close the aggressive nature and intentions of Stalin’s foreign policy.

Concerned that Washington seemed to be in the dark, he sent a now famous 8,000 work telegram in which he concluded: “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

Kennan’s advice was heeded and he is considered the architect of the Cold War strategy. Today’s diplomats are still expected to provide the kind of expert advice on the social, political, religious, and economic issues that helps set the policy course for the nation.

This leads to one of the challenges discussed during the program: patronage or the practice of appointing someone to top jobs because of contributions made to political campaigns.

Although, there have been some talented and successful political appointees’ many didn’t perform well because they could not speak the local language and were not knowledgeable about the history, political, social, religious, and economics of the countries they’re serving in.

Currently about 70% of the top positions in the Foreign Service are held by Foreign Service Officers and 30% by political appointees.

Another challenge discussed during the program is that the profession is misunderstood. It is not easy to understand the implications of battles won in the field of diplomacy as the earlier example of Iran’s nuclear program shows.

During the program several former State Department officials discussed the need to better advocate and let Americans know what they do. Americans must learn about the risks and sacrifices Foreign Service Officers endure while on the job.

Public attention is currently focused on the unfortunate events in Benghazi, but there has been many other instances. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people. In 1983, terrorists crashed a truck bomb into our embassy in Beirut. The blast killed 63 and many others were wounded.

Foreign Service Officers do not just have to deal with the risks of being killed by terrorists but also the challenges of living in remote areas where needed medical emergency care for family members might not be available.

They also have to deal with frequent moves and family separation. In spite of the sometimes difficult challenges, the majority of Foreign Service Officers remain motivated and dedicated to serving their country.

In sum, I found “America’s Diplomats” to be an inspiring story and well worth the time.          

 To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gail Harris appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As someone who sat across the table from American diplomats, I must confess, I was reluctant to accept the invitation to write a review on the latest Foreign Policy Association, Great Decisions series documentary “America’s Diplomats.” It felt like one of those gifts that make one feel awkward.

After some consideration, and out of a general sense of curiosity, I watched the film. It was profoundly captivating, to say the least. Not because of my interest in  international relations, not because of the universally accepted collegiality that bonds diplomats and sometimes obliges certain courtesies, but because of the timeliness of the topic and its relevance to the challenges that diplomacy and international relations are facing today.

The film presents the viewer with portraits of men and women in the American Foreign Service who have helped shape history, yet in spite of that, whose services and achievements were seldom recognized and celebrated. It is a tour de force that captures defining moments immortalized in history—the jubilation of triumph and the agony of failure.

In dealing with the latter, one must bounce back and learn from past experiences: this resilience depends almost entirely on effectiveness of individual diplomats. The more informed the individual is on his or her diplomatic mission, the more effective he or she would be.

More importantly, the diplomat must be a strategic thinker who understands the difference between winning battles and winning wars; and that sometimes, what seems like losing could prove to be a winning outcome. In addition to genuine interest in serving one’s country and its national interest, diplomats must possess unwavering commitment to sustainable engagement.

Contrary to the ideological predisposition and rigidity that often restrain bureaucrats, effective diplomats prudently chart new territories and pave new ways.

The film highlights that in recent decades no diplomat has embodied these qualities better than Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who succeeded in the negotiation of the Dayton Peace Accord that ended Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the WWII and the Bosnian genocide.

Diplomacy is often associated with political interests, peace negotiation, commerce or economic advantage. “Diplomats today play a bigger role in advancing America’s economic interest overseas than it used to be” says former Secretary of State James Baker. “America’s power is based primarily…on our economy. As long as our economy has been in good shape…., (we’ve been) strong diplomatically, militarily and politically,” adds Secretary Baker. In the U.S., over ten million jobs are supported by international trade.

The discourse on challenges facing diplomacy in a world that is becoming increasingly volatile has been raging. In the U.S., due to the Benghazi tragedy that left an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, opinions came in the form of partisan rants and raves that have continuously deteriorated during the country’s current election cycle.

All in all, the film offers an insightful tour lead by seasoned diplomats and experts to whom diplomacy is “the first line of defense” and a powerful tool to learn about the dynamics that impact political relationships in a rapidly changing world.

The diplomat is a portrait of his or her nation. He or she is the image projected out to the world, often accepted as the values and aspirations of the country that one represents. There are many ways to enhance that image, and one of the most effective ways is what is known as digital diplomacy, or to employ social media to interact, to clarify misconceptions, and cultivate new relationships.

Ever since 9/11, counterterrorism has permeated U.S. foreign policy and often undermines diplomacy and opportunities to build a long-term relationship between states. Throughout the world, American embassies have turned into fortresses, though diplomacy does not function in seclusion.

Nevertheless, American diplomats remain at risk, especially in the Middle East and Africa where the U.S. foreign policy is in a downward spiral. Diplomats have no better protection than a sound foreign policy.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Abukar Arman appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The latest documentary in the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions series is “America’s Diplomats.” It aims at shedding light on the vitally important but little understood role of diplomacy—representing the ideals and policies of the United States abroad.

While not easily definable, the actions and efforts of the US’ diplomatic corps—today, the State Department’s Foreign Service Officers—maintain U.S. relations with virtually every country on the planet.

As the documentary rightly points out, the dangerous situations in which diplomats are often placed only come to the forefront when something terrible happens. The storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi made national headlines.

Yet, every day diplomats put themselves in harms way and work tirelessly to advance American interests and strengthen ties between the U.S. and other governments as well as the local population—which is just as, if not more, important.

“America’s Diplomats” presents a brief history of American diplomacy, starting when the Continental Congress sent Benjamin Franklin to France in order to secure their support of the revolution. Major milestones of American diplomatic successes are presented, from negotiating the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s efforts to establish peace in the Balkans, culminating in the 1995 Dayton Accords.

The film also discusses how U.S. diplomats have also taken on a larger role in developing American economic and trade presence abroad, as well as fostering cooperation on transnational issues such as protecting the environment.

Of particular interest is the coverage of how diplomacy today is changing, especially with regard to technology and the availability of instant communication. Imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis might have unfolded differently in the era of constant and immediate communication. While diplomats are trying to adapt and utilize technology to provide better support, there seems to be more questions in this area than answers.

Hopefully “America’s Diplomats” will make more people aware of vital role diplomats play in “delivering” America to the rest of the world.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Bleiweis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

America’s Diplomats is a one hour documentary film from the Foreign Policy Association (FPA), part of its Great Decision series on PBS. The FPA’s flagship educational series is meant to bring to its viewers discussions, analyses and debates on issues of concern to U.S. policy-makers, and America’s Diplomats is no exception.

The documentary spends much of its time exploring the historical roles diplomats have played in shaping America, weaving in and out of past and present as it discusses the achievements of past generations and the challenging job of U.S. diplomats today, who confront challenges such as climate change, terrorism and the promotion of US economic interests abroad in a rocky global market.

This story is engagingly told by Kathleen Turner, who huskily narrates her way through a series of American officials from the 18th century onwards who have served their country. The stellar cast of interviewees who appear in the film ranges from former and serving U.S. diplomats and ambassadors, to top level officials.

Politicians making an appearance include Secretary of State John Kerry, UN Ambassador Samantha Powers, and James Baker, who served under Presidents Reagan and Bush Senior. The interviewees talk candidly about their work, the struggles and dramas they have faced, and how the service has evolved in the 21st century.

Particularly poignant are the moments when the documentary touches on the losses suffered by Foreign Service Officers and their families. The topic of terrorism features heavily in these, but we also hear of the less high profile risks faced by diplomats as part of their work. One man talks about the death of his son from illness, because top-quality medical care, which could have saved the boy in America, was unavailable in the host country in which he was serving.

Even diplomats cited in the documentary are not immune. Richard Holbrooke, who brought peace to war-torn Bosnia by crafting the 1995 Dayton Agreement, suffered the loss of three close members of his team.

Parts of the documentary touch on the gradual professionalization of American diplomacy until the creation of the Foreign Service under the 1924 Rogers Act, its diversification more recently, and how it remains misunderstood. Many of the diplomats interviewed seem to feel they do a better job of representing America abroad than they do of representing the diplomatic profession to their fellow Americans back home.

A great deal of time is spent covering the various aspects of the work undertaken by American Foreign Service members, such as their support of American companies and brands abroad, screening of visa applicants for terrorists and criminals, and their work with local communities wherever American diplomats are posted.

Some interviewees also touch on the hardships of being separated from spouses or families for years at a time, often in difficult or dangerous countries. As one dryly observes to the camera, not every overseas posting is “Rome, Paris or London”.

Overall I found America’s Diplomats to be a gentle, earnest and intelligent look at the work of the US Foreign Service and the concerns many of its members have, such as the reappearance of patronage in the appointment of US ambassadors.

This is not a hard hitting piece of documentary journalism, but rather a segment produced by insiders who are proud of their service and wish to explain it further to the American public. It highlights the importance of their work, its often hidden nature, and the dangers and drawbacks that a career in the Foreign Service involves.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Neil Thompson appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The outlook for many BRICS nations does not look positive in 2016. With the exception of India, Brazil and Russia’s commodities-based economies will fail to grow significantly as China’s once resource hungry economy continues to slow.

The effect of the 2014-15 oil crash has had a negative effect on many oil exporting countries, and along with the BRICS, slow growth seems to have become the norm in much of Latin America and many other developing nations.

The 2008 Beijing Olympics was seen as China’s festival that marked its return as a major player on the world stage. The Olympic Games were there to flaunt around its economic success, despite it not having any measurable factor in China’s growth.

FIFA and the Olympic Committee sought to bring crowds into Brazil in 2014 and now in 2016. Since 2014, corruption and scandals have turned Brazil’s once claimed economic miracle into a mess. Corruption within its national oil company executives with links to Brazil’s governing party has turned popular opinion against the current elected government.

The FIFA World Cup highlighted the rift between internationally oriented elites and average Brazilians. Although essential economic and social issues continue to plague the country, the Rio Olympics are still on schedule to happen this year, to the detriment of Brazil’s deep economic recession.

Organizing any sort of international event in the midst of corruption and economic troubles is an unacceptable decision that often leads to little benefit for the average citizens. While the Olympic Committee seeks to broaden its appeal and host events in developing nations, there is no justifiable or studied measure to plan or adjust the obligations on host nations that fall on bad economic times.

Brazilians do not ask for a party when the government is rapidly accumulating massive debt. If the political class and elites of a society seek such projects, it is a clear sign that international prestige takes precedence over local necessities.

No Olympics should be allowed to take place when local citizens lose their homes, their health care or their rights as citizens. If this basic moral obligation cannot be met by FIFA or the Olympic Committee, imposing costs locals while sending the benefits abroad, then the Olympic spirit may already be extinguished. The upcoming Rio 2016 Olympic Games makes this point excessively clear.

The post Meeting International Obligations at All Costs: Rio 2016 appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Iowa Caucuses open. Argentina to introduce settlement offer. U.S. economy slows. Nations of TPP sign pact. Peace efforts in Syria continue. All in this Week’s Risk Outlook.

Today, Iowa voters will head to schools, churches, and homes to cast their votes for the Democratic and Republican presidential Iowa caucus. Being the first state in the United States to hold the nominating contest for the presidential election, Iowa has always had an outsize influence in presidential elections and candidates in both parties have aggressively courted Iowa voters.

Donald Trump and Secretary Hillary Clinton, the respective frontrunners of the Republican and Democratic Party nominations, are both under significant pressure to eke out a victory in today’s caucuses. Should either of them fall short, the upstart challengers for both candidates (Senators Ted Cruz and Bernie Sanders) would gain a significant media boost ahead of next week’s New Hampshire primary on February 9 and subsequent South Carolina primary and Nevada caucus.

Most recent polls have shown Donald Trump ahead of Senator Cruz in Iowa (although Senator Marco Rubio has risen in the polls too), with more moderate candidates occupying the next slots down. On the Democratic side, polls have been mixed: some have seen support for Senator Sanders exceed that of Secretary Clinton, while others have shown that she continues to maintain an edge. After the Iowa caucuses, however, Senator Cruz and Sanders face divergent paths. Although Sanders is the odds-on favorite to win the New Hampshire primary, Senator Cruz does not appear to be polling particularly well in the state, which tends to favor more moderate Republican candidates.

Some of the big questions to watch for as election results come in: will any Republican candidates drop out of the race following a poor showing? Will Senator Sanders be able to pick up sufficient support beyond the largely white states of New Hampshire and Iowa to create a broad coalition to gain the Democratic nomination? How will Secretary Clinton and Trump respond to their respective showings in the caucuses, and will this dent momentum for either of them?

On Monday, Argentina’s Secretary of Finance Luis Caputo will present a settlement offer to the holdout creditors of Argentina’s defaulted 2001 debts to the New York mediator between the Argentine government and major New York hedge funds. The holdout creditors may deliver their own offer, but were miffed during the last meeting when the Argentine government refused to sign a non-disclosure agreement regarding the offers.

The offer by the Finance Ministry represents the first serious offer by the Argentine government to resolve this issue, following multiple failed attempts by the Kirchner administration to work around the U.S. court system to pay non-holdout creditors. Should the offer by the Argentine government be accepted or a compromise reached, Argentina will be able to access international credit that has been shut off since Judge Griesa’s order freezing market access until the holdout issue is resolved.

This could allow Argentina to avoid a slip into recession this year as President Macri moves quickly to reduce Argentina’s trade and tax barriers to advance investment and growth in the country. Key commodity prices (including soybeans) have fallen in value over the past 6 months and have constrained government finances and consumer spending. Additionally, Argentina’s two largest trade partners, Brazil and China, are both experiencing economic headwinds, further limiting Argentina’s growth potential. A deal with holdout creditors could bring Argentina back to sovereign debt markets and move South America’s third largest economy forward.

On Monday, the U.S. Commerce Department will release consumer spending figures for households for December 2015, with many economists projecting a fall in growth momentum. This data will likely be paired with a further contraction in manufacturing in January for a third straight month, to be reported by the Institute for Supply Management.

Although a few world economies (including India and the UK) appear to be performing at or above economic expectations, the downwind forces affecting China, Brazil, Russia, Canada, and other major commodity producers has left the world economy in a relatively fragile position.

The strength of the U.S. economy is fundamentally important in preventing the world from descending into another major recession, making market reactions to such developments particularly important at this time. Stock markets have fallen precipitously over the past several months on continually falling oil prices and growth concerns in China.

Solid growth numbers (or at least numbers less pessimistic than estimates) could help bolster perceptions that the U.S. economy is improving following last week’s announcement that growth for the 4th quarter last year had been a disappointing 0.7%.

Otherwise, consumer spending and manufacturing statistics will support the argument that the world economy is slowing and may be headed for another recession.

Given the politically decisive timing (with presidential, congressional, gubernatorial and state legislative elections in November), poor economic figures could also have significant spillover effects into the U.S. political scene.

On Thursday, representatives of the 12 countries that constitute the Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement (TPP) are slated to sign onto the accord in Auckland, New Zealand. Legislative ratification, however, could be a complex affair for many of the Pacific Rim countries.

Canada’s new government has not yet indicated whether it will fully support the agreement’s ratification. Trade Minister Chrystia Freeland has said the government would sign the agreement to move the process forward, but has been non-committal on ratification.

The United States has congressional elections in November, and most major candidates in both parties for President have come out against the trade pact.

Additionally, Peru is slated to have April presidential and Assembly elections and Japan’s upper house will have its own elections in June. Left-leaning political parties in New Zealand as well as Australia are pushing members to oppose ratification of the agreement, and Malaysia’s ruling government is undergoing an expanding corruption scandal.

Ultimately, this means 12 countries with extremely complex political and economic obstacles will need to ratify this agreement, although it may enter into force if a sufficient number of countries (85% of GDP, meaning at the very least Japan, the United States, and Canada) sign it first.

On Tuesday, Secretary of State Kerry, Italian Foreign Minister Paolo Gentiloni and coalition partners will meet in Rome to discuss efforts to counter Islamic State forces in Iraq and Syria. This will be followed by a meeting of EU foreign ministers on Friday in Amsterdam to discuss peace talks in Syria and Libya.

It is difficult to gauge whether any serious developments may unfold in the course of talks, particularly considering many major opposition groups are concerned that the United States and Russia may seek to impose peace terms on the rebels. Significant roadblocks in peace talks have hardened, while the humanitarian situation in Syria has gained significant international attention and criticism. The Assad government has received condemnation over the blockades of several rebel-held cities, which has led to widespread starvation and may be a sign of war crimes by the government.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by GRI analyst Brian Daigle.

The post Weekly Risk Outlook appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Talking with a Venezuelan seeking political asylum in the U.S., we asked her why she was leaving her country. “Venezuela does not offer a future anymore” she said. It once did.

Chavez’s 21st century socialism has failed and (sadly) has pushed Venezuela to the brink of one of the major humanitarian crisis in the region. There goes another lost decade for a Latin American country.

Between 2004 and 2008, Venezuela experienced an economic miracle. Its economy grew 10% per year on average, while GDP per capita expanded by 26%. Now Venezuela is going backwards. By 2018, the country is expected to return to the GDP levels of 2005, but with an additional 6 million people, a 20% population increase. Thus, GDP per capita will fall to 2000 levels by 2018, as if 18 years of economic activity had never occurred.

Venezuela’s economic crisis will have unprecedented consequences in terms of poverty. Encovi, a local survey on life conditions shows that in 2015, 76% of Venezuelans lived in poverty, up from 52% in 2014. The extremely poor increased by 9 million through 2015, or 25% of the population.[i] The local universities conducting the survey warn that this is a conservative estimate, for they are only assuming a 170% inflation.

Source: LATAM PM with data from IMF and ENCOVI 2015

On October 15 of 2014, surrounded by supporters of the PSUV and with a loud round of applause, President Maduro announced a 30% increase in the minimum wage bringing it in VEF$9,648.2 a month—or $9.95 taking the 968.8 USD/VEF exchange rate used in black market by most Venezuelans. The problem is that with the 205% inflation estimated for 2015 by the local think tank Ecoanalítica, a monthly food basket now costs eight times the minimum wage according to the NGO Center for Documentation and Social Analysis (CENDAS). The IMF estimates that inflation could reach 720% this year.

Venezuela based its economic model on public expenditure supported by oil revenues, which constituted 96% of the total country’s exports in 2014. According to ING Group, Venezuela needs a $125-dollar barrel to balance its budget, but its mix currently trades at around $24. Venezuela has no money; this is problematic in a country that imports pretty much everything. The port of Guaira, one of the main three trade ports in the country, now looks empty.

Source: LATAM PM with Google Earth images

Tariffs and price controls have also triggered shortages of food and essential products. CENDAS reported at the end of 2015 that 38% of the products that form the basic food basket are not available in the stores anymore. This includes milk, beef, poultry, sugar, wheat flour, pasta, sardines and canned tuna. Last year, the Venezuelan Pharmaceutical Federation reported that 70% of medicines are in short supply.

The drastic deterioration of life conditions is the reason why Venezuelans voted to end the hegemonic control of the PSUV, giving the opposition control of the National Assembly. However, in recent days, there has been an increasing confrontation between the two sides. The Assembly wants to pass an amnesty law for political prisoners. Maduro threatens to veto it. Following the initiative, Maduro declared a state of economic emergency—promptly blocked by the Assembly. The current political impasse has done little to provide any sign of relief for Venezuela’s economic implosion.

Now, the most important question is whether or not the opposition’s supermajority in the Assembly will call a referendum on Maduro’s continuity later this year. The opposition (MUD), formed by a coalition of more than 20 parties, is showing a lack of unity on the issue. Without the support of every single MUD’s deputy, the referendum will not be held. In the meantime, Maduro has threatened to take the fight to the streets, if necessary.

LATAM PM’s View: With or without referendum, the probability of a major social and political crisis will continue to grow, which in turn could have important implications for the region. Wealthy Venezuelans are already leaving their country in search of opportunities in Colombia and Ecuador. But as life conditions deteriorate fast, the risk of a mass exodus increases too.

[i] Extremely poor people are defined as those who do not have the income to eat 2,200 calories every day. Poor are those who cannot acquire that same basic basket plus essential services such as electricity and transport.

This article was originally published by LATAM PM

The post Going Backwards: The Crisis in Venezuela appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Old habits die hard for Hungary’s ruling elite.

If anyone thought 2016 would bring with it a change in approach by Hungary’s ruling Fidesz Party they were sadly mistaken. The arrival of the New Year in Hungary has been marked by surging public discontent and street protests opposing proposed constitutional amendments that would provide the government with sweeping anti-terror powers.

Draft proposals leaked to the media suggest the government is seeking to amend the constitution by creating a new category of emergency: a “terror threat situation,” which, if declared, would enable it to issue decrees, suspend certain laws and modify others. Among some 30 proposed changes are controls on the internet, deployment of the army domestically, closing of borders and the imposition of curfews in areas affected by a terrorist threat.

Critics, including several opposition parties and civil rights groups, describe the vaguely defined “terror threat” legislation as a thinly veiled attempt by the government to clamp down on civil liberties. Unfortunately, the latest proposals represent the continuation of a longer term trend that has seen the gradual erosion of civil liberties under Victor Orbán’s Premiership.

The motivations for the ruling Fidesz Party’s authoritarian approach are complex, but one factor is undoubtedly the volatile and turbulent shifts the country’s political landscape has witnessed since the fall of communist rule in 1989. Viktor Orbán is the country’s only post-communist Prime Minister to have completed an entire mandate and be re-elected.

Part of this political turbulence can be attributed to the economic uncertainty the country experienced following the collapse of communism. As with the USSR and other soviet satellite state, the collapse of the communist regime in Hungary left a void in terms of institutional infrastructure and regulatory oversight.

This vacuum created a ‘wild west’ that offered fertile ground for wealthy individuals and speculators keen to exploit the absence of effective regulatory oversight and plunder the region’s resources. Hungary was no exception. Well documented, the now infamous Russian ‘oligarchs’ were quick to capitalize on the wealth of opportunities created by the collapse of communism. Less well known however are the Western entrepreneurs who also flocked to the region.

One of the most notable is Ronald Lauder the son of Hungarian Jewish immigrant Estée Lauder who successfully founded the family beauty-products empire. Lauder’s older brother, Leonard, assumed the helm of the company when their father, Joseph, died in 1983. Leonard subsequently took the company public, making him and his brother billionaires.

Seemingly lacking the business acumen of his brother, Ronald was keen to emulate his family’s success. Following a failed run for Mayor of New York, and his ignominious failure to secure the Republican nomination in 1989, Lauder presumably spotted his chance in 1994: his moment to step out of the shadow of his successful family, and establish his own identity.

Ronald set about establishing a string of commercial media and entertainment ventures across the former Eastern bloc countries. It all began to unravel, however, when it was revealed that a U.S. Attorney for the Southern District of New York was investigating Lauder’s television holding company, Central European Media Enterprises (CME), over allegations that the company had bribed state officials in Ukraine.

Perhaps most notably though was the media mogul’s dealings in Hungary. In 1996, Lauder was sued by his former business partner, Seymour Holtzman, for wrongful termination of their joint venture. Holtzman alleged Lauder had forced him out of their partnership in the Central European Development Corporation, the company he’d formed in Hungary in 1989. Describing Lauder, Holtzman explained to the Wall Street Journal that: “[Lauder] is mean-spirited …. He thinks he’s above everyone else.” The matter was eventually settled in court for an undisclosed sum.

But the Holtzman case was nothing compared with what was to come. In 1997, Perekhid Media, a Western-owned rival in Ukraine, brought a suit against Lauder and CME in New York, claiming that it had bribed Ukrainian officials, to essentially snatch from Perekhid a license which the company had obtained in 1993. Mr. Lauder had subsequently started a station called Studio 1+1 there using the license.

These questionable, some might say nefarious, business dealings by Western “entrepreneurs” help to demonstrate the aggressive business practices pursued by individuals across the Eastern bloc following the collapse of communism and help to illustrate how the economic turmoil fueled by the West has helped foster a culture of paranoia and an eagerness to hold on to power among Hungary’s political elite.

The post Any New Year’s resolutions Mr. Orbán? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.