Foreign Policy Blogs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Iraqi Kurds numbering 5.2 million are voting today in a Kurdish independence referendum. The referendum includes the Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) territories and contested provinces of Kirkuk, Shingal, Makhmur, and Khanaqin.

The ballot reads: “Do you want the Kurdistan Region and the Kurdistani areas outside the administration of the Region to become an independent state?” Either ‘Yes’ or ‘No.’ The balloting already started in diaspora on September 23, the results so far showing a close to 98 percent of ‘Yes.’

Kurdish independence vote takes place despite the international community’s pressures. The UN Security Council raised concern over the KRG’s unilaterally holding the referendum. Turkey, Iraq and Iran in a joint statement expressed their unequivocal opposition to the referendum, warning counter measures. Turkey threatened with sanctions and deployed military vehicles and personal to its border with northern Iraq.

If Self determination is a right, as inscribed in the UN Charter, why is the international community persistently hostile to Kurdish expression of will for self-determination?

As expressed, the international community is concerned that the Kurdish referendum might undermine the fight against the Islamic State. There is also an unuttered belief that a successful separation of Iraqi Kurdistan might inspire independence movements.

Of all enigmas surrounding the Kurdish independence, the most concerning perhaps is the international community’s fear that an independent Kurdish state may further destabilize the already volatile region.

This fear predominantly stems from a zero-sum understanding of the international community—an understanding which constantly feeds the principal approach of keeping the existing borders intact. This approach has served for further violence and has been maintained by the international community at the expense of grave human rights violations, oppression, and injustices against the local peoples.

As a matter of fact, the seemingly bad examples of separation are regions where host states work to turn the newly separated part into a failed state through conflict instigation and exporting violence. Host states destabilize these parts either directly or through their militias and allies.

Thus it is not the independence per se that generates conflicts or invites instability, but the hostile attitude and the belligerent policies of host states and/or neighboring countries that insist in their destabilizing moves.

South Sudan is illustrative at this point. Sudan with its Arab allies and militias did not cease infiltrating conflict and instability after the South Sudanese separation in 2011.  Malaysia invested in turning Singapore into a failed state. While the attempts succeeded in the former, they failed in the latter case.

Added to the international community’s fear is the anxiety of neighboring countries, particularly Turkey and Iran, because of their existing Kurdish minority populations. My research shows that due to a history of conflict with their Kurdish populations, they seem to have developed Kurdophobia—any Kurdish gain is considered an existential threat to their own security and national unity. As such, Kurdish empowerment elsewhere might instigate further demands from the Kurds in these respective countries.

In a nutshell, Turkey approaches Kurdish independence as a win-lose. Turkey’s official stance has been one of denial and disapproval—an obstinate stance that is saturated by its existential fear of any Kurdish gain. Turkey’s Kurdophobia for decades has been fueling the Turkish war against Kurds.

If Turkey can overcome its deeply entrenched Kurdophobia, and look for the prospects of building the foundations for stronger cooperation with the newly independent Kurdish State, it will be one of the, if not only, beneficiaries. As it were after the establishment of the Kurdish de facto autonomy in 1993 in Iraq, despite Turkey’s initial furry and threats against the Kurdish autonomy in northern Iraq. Thus, rather than fomenting the seeds of tension and conflict with the Kurds, Turkey should look for the opportunities that arise from Kurdish independence.

In addition to economic, security and energy cooperation, an independent Kurdish state will efficiently, and resourcefully, mediate between regional actors and their Kurdish minority populations. The KRG has mediated for decades between the PKK, the Kurdistan Workers’ Party, and Turkey. The Kurdish state will have a vested interest in helping them peacefully resolve some of the entrenching, seemingly intractable issues the Kurds have with their host states.

The international community has to accept Kurdish independence with all of its complexity and dynamism. A broader understanding of the issues surrounding Kurdish independence and a collaborative approach to help resolve some of the entrenched relations, through win-win solutions, can make the region a better place. Such constructive approach will contribute to regional stability and global security.

The international community and the Iraqi Central Government can choose peace and stability through collaboration and constructive engagement with the Kurds, or to maintain the status quo and force the Kurds to remain part of Iraq—an option that seems hard to endure and particularly difficult for Iraqi Kurds to accept.

And a third possibility, and perhaps mostly disregarded, is the Kurdish pursuit for statehood notwithstanding the concerns of the international community or the Iraqi State. This is a trajectory that neither the international community nor the Iraqi government would want, as this might instigate conflict between the Iraqi Central Government and the KRG and lead Iraq into a new phase of civil war in the post-Islamic State era.

Kurdish independence is a reality and will materialize. However, it should be pursued through constructive diplomacy and mutual respect both for the rightful claims of the Kurds and genuine concerns of the international community and the Iraqi Government.

Huseyin Tunc is a New York Mediator and Researcher working on the Turkey’s Kurdish conflict at the Institute for the Study of Human Rights, Columbia University. He has published, including in the peer-revived journals.

Contact Email: ht2360@columbia.edu and Phone: +1 917- 804 2003

The post Why is the International Community so Hostile to Kurdish Independence? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On Sunday, Germany elected Angela Merkel as chancellor for the fourth time, matching the postwar record set by the late Helmut Kohl, who was chancellor of West Germany at the time I was born there.

Helmut Kohl has cemented his place in German and European history as the unifier of East and West Germany and one of the original champions of the European Union. Merkel, a Kohl protégée, has now similarly made her mark as one of the Western world’s longest serving leaders, as well as a key figure in navigating Europe’s economic crisis, Brexit, and a migration crisis that drew 1.2 million people to Germany.

Overcoming the integration challenges associated with the migration crisis in particular will present Chancellor Merkel with the opportunity to maximize her impact on history. Broadly speaking, access to employment for refugees and immigrants is an important factor for successful integration. Merkel, therefore, should focus on developing policies and laws that focus on the socio-economic integration of refugees by addressing societal issues, like employment discrimination, head-on. If she seizes this moment, Merkel will ensure that these newly arrived refugees and their children not only build new economic opportunities for their own families, but also contribute to the fabric of a more diverse and aging German population.

Muslims, a visible minority in Germany, have experienced higher labor integration than Muslim communities in other European countries like neighboring France. To ensure continued economic integration of newly arrived refugees, the German government adopted the Integration Act in August 2016, which provides for integration classes, vocational training, employment, and training opportunities.

However, the law does not address hurdles that refugees may encounter once they are integrated. Educational achievement has not guaranteed a smooth transfer to gainful employment for immigrants in Germany. Studies indicate that ethnic minorities, including Turks, experience discrimination in the German labor market. Having a foreign name can also reduce the chance of getting a job interview; this happened to my father around the time that he completed his PhD in the late 1980s.

My father left the former Zaire, now the Democratic Republic of Congo, not long after the infamous “Rumble in the Jungle” boxing match in 1974. Not knowing any German, he left Zaire for Germany in hopes of becoming an engineer, having received a scholarship through the European Economic Community. My father was required to take one year of intensive German language courses at the Carl Duisberg Society. Thereafter, he gained acceptance to RWTH Aachen University to study electrical engineering.

By the time my father submitted his doctoral thesis in 1987, he expected that graduating with a PhD from one of Europe’s top engineering universities would result in numerous employment opportunities. That did not happen. He mailed out 50 resumes to various German companies and did not receive a single offer. I suspect that racial discrimination, unfortunately, was a contributing factor in this situation. One fateful day in January 1988, however, he decided to apply for a job interview in neighboring Luxembourg with an American company—General Motors. He got the job, and the rest, as they say, is history.

To be clear, the racial climate in German society has improved since the late 1980s, and Germany enacted the General Equal Treatment Act in 2006 to address employment discrimination based on categories like race and ethnic origin. The law, however, has noted gaps. The Federal Anti-Discrimination Agency, the body tasked with the implementation of the act, does not have the power to carry out their own investigations in discrimination proceedings, for example. If Germany expects refugees to fully integrate into German society, the hope is that they will be rewarded with employment opportunities that will permit them to enjoy all facets of German life. Everyday discrimination against ethnic minorities is still commonplace in Germany, and the Merkel government should develop legal and policy tools that adequately address the barrier that employment discrimination could present to the successful integration of refugees.

The German people are a resilient and welcoming people, and Chancellor Merkel took a huge political risk by opening Germany’s borders to the world’s most vulnerable because of it. In 2015, she famously said that Germany would overcome the challenges associated with the migration crisis by saying “wir schaffen das,” which translates to “we can do it.” I really hope she does—just like Helmut Kohl did when Germany faced uncertainty in earlier times. The stability of German society could hang in the balance.

Laura Kupe is a German-born, Congolese-American attorney and a Political Partner at Truman National Security Project. She served as a Special Assistant in the Office of Policy, working on European affairs, at the Department of Homeland Security in the Obama Administration. Views expressed are her own.

The post In the Quest for Successful Refugee Integration, Merkel Must Address Employment Discrimination Against Ethnic Minorities in Germany Head-On appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Photo: Nigeria Electricity Hub)

After five quarters, Nigeria has edged out of a recession as GDP expanded by 0.55 percent in the second quarter, according to the National Bureau of Statistics. The growth is fragile, which the government concedes, and there are not many rosy predictions from experts and pundits of a trend line continuing upward.

The Economic Recovery and Growth Plan (ERGP), announced in April, could lend a potential conduit, though. “Nigeria will be on its way to sustainable growth in the medium-term if it successfully implements the ERGP,” said Gloria Joseph-Raji, Senior World Bank economist. Potential growth may be based on increased oil production, agriculture, infrastructure and additional foreign-currency reserves.

Nigeria, the continent’s most populous country with nearly 200 million citizens, is awash in energy riches: it is the continent’s largest oil producer churning out about 200,000 barrels of crude oil per day and has the second largest oil reserves in Africa of about 37 billion barrels, trailing Libya which tallies an estimated 48 billion barrels. The nation holds the largest gas reserves in Africa – ninth globally – with 180 trillion cubic feet (tcf) with Algeria second totaling 160 tcf. With such immense supply, and comparatively lower consumption levels, the nation is the fourth largest exporter of Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) globally. The reserves present plenty of room for natural gas expansion, but rapid growth has been restricted by a lack of new infrastructure, violence and to viably capture flared gas.

Tapping the resources has left the nation saddled by the drop in oil prices and previously decreasing oil production, also partly due to militants in the oil rich southern Niger Delta forcing companies to scale back operations. The current price for a barrel of Brent crude oil sits around $55/barrel, less than half the price of $115/barrel in June 2014 (in the latest round of oil instability, the price bottomed in early 2016 to under $30/barrel). This is a tough burden to guard against as the oil and gas industry constitutes around 70 percent of Nigeria’s government revenue and over 90 percent of exports.

Nigeria’s economy has been diversifying, though, and the oil and gas industry’s contribution to its Gross Domestic Product (GDP), which was rebased in April, is actually the lowest in OPEC. The National Bureau of Statistics found the industry contributed about 10.45 percent to real GDP in the third quarter. Compared to Angola, Africa’s second largest oil producer, oil production and its supporting activities contribute about 45 percent of the nation’s GDP and in Saudi Arabia, the largest producer in all OPEC, 48 percent of GDP is accounted for by the industry. In 2016, Nigeria’s GDP grew to 405 billion USD, the largest in Africa, but with a GDP per capita of 2,178 USD in 2016, trailing Sudan’s 2,415 USD, according to the World Bank.

Millions of Nigerians Remain in the Dark

With such abundant natural gas, and geography to exploit solar, among other sources, electricity access has remained low, yet increasing the past years. Estimates still range from 75 million to nearly 100 million people not having access to electricity, and of that a disproportionate amount of those with access are located in urban areas. Where electricity is present, there is well accepted knowledge that poor service, losses and the widespread lack of reliability and consistent access is unacceptable. There is large scale use of diesel generators, which can have negative health and environmental effects, as well as increase the cost of business and local goods, to make up for the shortfalls. Furthermore, the International Energy Agency estimates that 115 million people rely on traditional biomass as their main sources of energy – mostly wood, charcoal and waste – to meet basic needs, such as cooking and heating.

The Federal Ministry of Power, Works and Housing publishes updated power data on its website frequently. As of September 19, the data displayed generation peaked at 4,518 megawatts (MW), generation capability was 6,989 MW, but distribution capacity was 4,600 MW leaving potential new power to be stranded, and peak demand forecast was 17,720 MW. In a speech September 21, Federal Minister of the aforementioned ministry, Babatunde Raji Fashola, stated generation peaked at 7,001MW. Regardless of the discrepancy in peak generation information, there is an immense gap from the peak supply and peak demand.

In order for future electricity to reach end-users, and reliably, vast investment is needed by generation companies (gencos) and distribution companies (discos) for new plants, transformers, repairs, improvements, expansion and protection against theft. Nigeria began to privatize its power industry in 2013 under President Goodluck Jonathan’s administration under the auspices of the Energy Sector Reform Act of 2005, and 60 percent share of the twelve discos are privatized, so it is vital to harness that source of capital. According to Mr. Fashola, government’s role, both federal and local, now is to implement the laws, voice policies and take actions that help the private sector play its part effectively.

Lack of electricity and energy overall can lead to unstable situations, often accompanied by higher unemployment in growing young populations. Situations similar to these have been cited as potential Boko Haram recruiting grounds. That in itself can be seen as a need to stimulate access, but, of course, is not an answer in its own to prevent the scourge of terrorism.

Infrastructure Insufficient but Investment and Possibilities Continue

The acting Director General of the Infrastructure Concession Regulatory Commission (ICRC), Mr. Chidi Izuwa, has pegged the total amount of funds required to provide quality infrastructure in Nigeria over the next six years at about 100 billion USD. Of that sum, 60 billion USD would be required for the oil and gas sector and about 20 billion USD to bring the power sector up to speed.

One such project to help overcome the electricity shortage and power sector funding is the huge 3,050 MW Mambilla hydropower project, including transmission, with a price tag of 5.8 billion USD. The project has been in discussion since the 1970s with various obstacles. A new attempt to resuscitate the project has come about with an agreement with a Chinese consortium, led by the Chinese Export-Import Bank, and approved by the Federal Executive Council, presided over by President Muhammadu Buhari. An anticipated completion date was announced for 2024. Based on the multiple efforts and the last attempt being cancelled in 2013, the question is will this deal for the ambitious project actually come to fruition and shovels in the ground. The project is also expected to help Nigeria meet its Paris climate agreement commitment.

In addition, further investment is evident with Shoreline, a Nigerian company, recently completing a 300 million USD agreement with a Shell subsidiary to develop gas infrastructure around Lagos. Shoreline wants to bring its natural gas to the growing business hub and residential communities.

Solar energy is in its infancy in Nigeria. There have been multiple utility scale solar projects moving beyond concept stage and signing power purchase agreement (PPAs), but none have yet to reach commercial operations. Starting in 2015, ten PPAs were signed by the government-owned Nigeria Bulk Electricity Trading (NBET). In sum of potential projects, more than 1,000 MW could be operational. There have been additional pledges by companies that could reach more than 4,000 MW. It is only a matter of time before solar does come online with the administration’s focus of solar energy and necessary financial structuring being negotiated.

Policy is Catching Up

The Nigeria Electricity Regulatory Commission (NERC) issued a feed-in tariff in 2015, making the market more attractive for investors. One of the aims was to stimulate more than 2,000 MW of renewable generation by 2020. As another part of the scheme, discos need to source at least 50 percent of their procurement from renewable energy. The remaining 50 percent needs to be sourced from the NBET – which needs improved financial capability itself to support the electricity market.

NERC has also issued mini-grid regulations this past August to allow people to provide their own power from 1 kilowatt-1 MW. Mini-grids can play an important role reaching those in rural communities without access to electricity. In addition, an important step taken by President Buhari in March was the formation of the Board and management of the Rural Electrification Agency to facilitate access and advocate for solar options. There are a multitude of multi-national organizations, such as the World Bank, that have mini-grid/off-grid programs in other nations with electricity shortages that could act as a multiplier with investment.

The Power Sector Recovery Program involves producing more power, reducing system losses, increasing financial viability, completion of transmission projects, increasing access to electricity and implementation of more meters.

Future Remains Bright with Right Commitment

Vast opportunity continues to lay ahead for Nigeria with its increasingly educated population, the largest internet penetration in Africa, a developing tech sector, financial structure and various entrepreneurial companies sprouting up. Appropriate further policy can lead the nation on a sustainable course of development and address many of the current pressing needs, despite political wrangling and disagreements. In addition to energy, important areas to keep a focus on will be agriculture, transport, infrastructure, education, transparency, stymying corruption and evolving technology. A solid grasp of these plus Nigerians ingenuity and passion will be a path to success with appropriate support from office holders.

The post Unleashing Nigeria’s Energy Potential? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Speaking at a panel this week in New York City, retired Marine Corps Brigadier General Stephen Cheney emphasized the link between energy security and U.S. national security.

“Our nation’s concept of energy security was defined in the American mind by the two oil crises of the ’70s…where our country found its economy literally held hostage by hostile foreign powers over decisions that our leaders made in international affairs,” he said. “To ensure that nothing like that ever happens again—that should be our goal in building energy security.”

General Cheney is the CEO of the American Security Project (ASP), which presented the panel in partnership with the Foreign Policy Association. He spoke alongside two of his colleagues at ASP, Navy Vice Admiral Lee Gunn and Air Force Lieutenant General Norman Seip, both retired. The panel was an Official Affiliate Event of 2017 Climate Week NYC.

While the Department of Defense (DoD) remains the single largest consumer of fossil fuel in the world, the military faces an array of strategic and tactical concerns that have propelled it to become a leader in energy innovation. Threats include, for instance, fuel price volatility, the vulnerability of fuel convoys to attack, and the susceptibility to disruption of the commercial power supplies that installations rely on.

DoD’s energy usage is divided between installation energy (about 25%) and operational energy (about 75%). The Army is the largest installation energy user, while the Air Force is the largest operational energy user. DoD is required by law to obtain 25% of its electricity from renewable sources by 2025, and it has committed to install one gigawatt each of renewable generating capacity from the Army, Navy and Air Force Installations by 2025.

Lieutenant General Seip highlighted programs in each of the services that address energy security on the operational level, including the Navy’s Great Green Fleet; the Marines’ Ground Renewable Expeditionary Energy Network System (GREENS) and Solar Portable Alternative Communications Energy System (SPACES); the Army’s flagship Net Zero Initiative; and the Air Force Energy Flight Plan.

“The good news is that alternative energy type of biofuels are getting to be cost-competitive,” he stressed. “It’s got to be drop-in, it’s got to be scalable, it’s got to have the same performance…and it has to be cost-competitive.”

DoD recognizes climate change itself as a threat to national security. Vice Admiral Gunn described climate change as a strategic challenge, using three terms—“threat multiplier,” “catalyst for conflict,” and “accelerant of instability”—that are employed by ASP and by CNA, where Gunn serves as president of the Institute for Public Research.

On the tactical side, he noted that “more than thirty bases around the country, but also around the world, are subject to the threats of changing climate,” including sea level rise and extreme weather conditions.

The panelists stressed the focus on long-term planning in the military, in contrast to political preoccupation with election cycles. “We must see energy security as a long-term process, not as a moment that’s frozen in time,” said Brigadier General Cheney. “Some policies get billed on security today while harming our future security.”

Vice Admiral Gunn noted progress and enthusiasm on the the local and state level in the absence of Trump administration leadership. But he warned that “China, the EU and even Saudi Arabia have national energy strategies. The United States does not and never has.” On research, development and deployment of renewables, he continued, “We’re number three and falling back every day in terms of national dedication to this…There’s no leadership on this…It’s going to be very damaging to our country.”

The post Energy Security Is a Matter of National Security Say Retired Military Leaders appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In his first address to the United Nations, President Donald Trump gave the international community a message consistent with much of his prior rhetoric on international affairs. The President declared that the United Nations, “… was based on the vision that diverse nations could cooperate to protect their sovereignty, preserve their security, and promote their prosperity”, and these three pillars resonated strongly through his remarks. President Trump attempted to walk the tightrope between promoting the sovereignty of all nations while denouncing the behavior of “rogue nations” both domestically and in their international engagements. In a way that seems standard to the President’s domestic observers (but was likely unfamiliar to a body like the United Nations), Mr. Trump simultaneously highlighted the importance of the sovereign rights of each nation while calling for unified global action against nations who behave in ways that cause turmoil and uncertainty for the global community.

This call to collective action is grounded in the belief that well intentioned nations in the world would find it in their individual interest to combat the advances of bad actors. President Trump’s continued promise to put America first was followed by the assumption that the leaders of other nations will, and should, follow the same approach on behalf of their citizens. To further this argument, the President highlighted remarks made by President Truman, who argued that the United Nations draws its capacity from the strength of individual members who are willing to pool their strength collectively for the betterment of all. While this approach seems common sense, it is only useful to the extent that other nations share the President’s subjective approach to right action and views on what constitutes good governance.

President Trump was unwavering in his assessment that the primary threat to global security, “… is a small group of rogue regimes that violate every principle on which the United Nations is based.” The President called for international action against three bad actors in particular- North Korea, Iran, and Venezuela, noting that the governments in each of those three nations fostered horrible outcomes both for their own people and for the international community.

In a similar way, President Trump slammed Iran for, “speak(ing) openly of mass murder, vowing death to America, (and) destruction of Israel.” He also criticized the Iranian regime as a, “corrupt dictatorship behind the false guise of democracy” that sponsored terror groups that destabilize the Middle East in particular and the entire world more generally. After arguing the case that Iran is a bad actor and destabilizing force in the world, Mr. Trump castigated the Iran nuclear deal as, “an embarrassment to the United States”, and insisted that we would be hearing about the deal’s fate under his administration in short order.

While the case for collective action appears strong in the instance of North Korea and Iran, the call for the restoration of democracy in Venezuela seems to be at odds with the President’s message of sovereignty.  Make no doubt- socialism is a failed ideology, and President Trump rightly targeted the economic system as one that has spread poverty and oppression everywhere that it has been implemented. Mr. Trump also accurately suggested that it is in large part a consequence of this attempt to collectivize Venezuela’s economy that the nation’s democracy has collapsed into an increasingly dictatorial state of affairs.

Those arguments are separate, however, from the notion that Venezuela is a threat to the international order as a consequence of its economic mismanagement. To the extent that Venezuela made a genuine democratic choice to go down the path of socialism by electing Hugo Chavez to the nation’s top office in 1999, it seems suspect to violate that nation’s sovereignty on the grounds that such a decision has proven to have devastating consequences for the Venezuelan people.  While President Trump held back from again mentioning a military option in the Latin American nation, he did mark a return to full democracy as a key objective for the United Nations to pursue. Depending on the form that this objective takes, it could prove to be one of the more troubling policies put forth by the Trump administration.

In addition to his comments on the immediate state of international affairs, President Trump commented on the state of the United Nations as an institution. Against the backdrop of praise for the body’s potential to do good in the world, Mr. Trump highlighted that, “… the United Nations must reform if it is to be an effective partner in confronting threats to sovereignty, security, and prosperity”, and that, “too often the focus of (the United Nations) has not been on results, but on bureaucracy and process.” On top of these reforms, the President noted that, “The United States is one out of 193 countries in the United Nations, and yet we pay 22% of the entire budget”, and that as a consequence of the United Nations’ failures on some of President Trump’s ambitions, the United States is getting out far less than it puts into the international body.

It is also worth noting that despite the strong rhetoric directed at some trouble makers, Trump refused to offer the same sort of harsh commentary towards China and Russia for their controversial foreign policies. The President only mentioned those two nations on a single occasion, when he expressed disappointment at Russian territorial expansion into Ukraine and China’s expansionism in the South China Sea. Along this same line of reasoning, Mr. Trump was quick to point to humanitarian failings by America’s rivals while refusing to extend that argument to Saudi Arabia and other American allies that have authoritarian governments with abysmal human rights records. This cognitive dissidence is troubling, especially in light of the President’s approach to collective action by sovereign mechanisms.

Taken as a whole, the value of President Trump’s speech at the United Nations is dependent on the extent to which other nations find themselves in agreement with the President’s preferred outcomes to today’s global security challenges. Mr. Trump called for collective action against rogue regimes, yet he highlighted the importance of each individual nation’s autonomy and sovereignty in a way that his recent predecessors would not have dared to endorse. This unique balance is, then, reliant on President Trump’s ability to bring other world leaders to his perspective- it will find success or failure on his ability to make a truly good deal for the American people on the world stage. “Our respect for sovereignty is also a call to action”, President Trump said towards the end of his remarks. That claim is uniquely capable of summarizing Mr. Trumps comments to the General Assembly, and the extent to which that assumption holds will play a substantial role in the future of the Trump Foreign policy.

—

Peter Scaturro- Assistant Director of Studies at the Foreign Policy Association

The post Our Respect for Sovereignty is also a Call to Action appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The official phase of “Zapad-2017”, the biggest Russian-Belarusian military exercise this year, started on September 14, 2017. Yet, this event has been analysed by security pundits for months. There were many speculations about how this exercise will change the regional dynamics and security situation. The aim of this article is to put “Zapad-2017” into a larger perspective. How do the Russian armed forces train and what is the purpose of those drills? What has changed since the previous “Zapad” exercise which took place in 2013? What is to watch during “Zapad-2017”?

Here are ten things every Foreign Policy Blogs reader should know:

1) Russians train as they fight. This is a crucial element of the Russian exercising posture. In practical terms, this means that the Russian drills are based on a real threat assessment. The scenarios are realistic. They cover the opponents that exist and the military capabilities which match the reality.

2) Since 2013 Russia has been directly engaged in two major conventional military conflicts in the vicinity of NATO. Both in the cases of Ukraine and Syria, Russian forces continue to test their military capabilities, chain of command, procedures and level of interoperability on the battlefield. Those military operations have helped the Russian armed forces gain solid battlefield experience in a conventional conflict. “Zapad-2017” is yet another chance to verify the lessons learnt from both wars and eliminate existing gaps.

3) The Russian operational engagement gives us some initial sense of the elements which might be exercised. Based on the observation of the Russian-Ukrainian conflict one can expect the following components: use of drones or UAVs to exercise constant real-time surveillance, swift targeting by concentrated artillery fire with advanced munition as well as offensive electronic warfare capabilities.

4) “Zapad-2017” is of particular importance for the Russian Western and Southern Military Districts. They have become a top priority in the Russian military modernisation program since at least 2012. In practical terms this means that the units in both districts have received the most modern and technologically-advanced equipment, which will be put to the test in “Zapad-2017”.

5) Another key element of the modernisation of both military districts is the creation of the highly sophisticated Anti-Access/Area Denial systems (A2/AD). They encompass the necessary air power, maritime capabilities (including offensive mining), offensive and defensive missile systems (including Iskander, Bastion, Kalibr and S-400), offensive electronic warfare and cyber capabilities. The militarisation of the Kaliningrad Oblast and Crimea led to the creation of the so-called A2/AD bubbles right on NATO borders. Their main goal is to limit NATO’s freedom of manoeuvring. In “Zapad-2017” one shall expect that those systems will not only be exercised, but in fact (and what is even more important) their level of integration will be verified.

6) The nuclear component is something of particular importance to watch during “Zapad-2017”. Russia often merges the conventional and nuclear dimensions into one scenario. In fact, such an approach allows Russia to test its escalation dominance in a potential conflict. This is exactly what NATO does not do as such a policy fuels unpredictability and enhances a lack of confidence. In a broader context, the Russian approach also aims at intimidating European societies.

7) Since 2013 Russia has significantly changed its combined exercising posture. The “whole of nation” approach to drills was reintroduced. In reality it means that the whole public administration – on both national and regional levels – prepares for a large-scale conflict. The non-military units and agencies train simultaneously with the Russian armed forces. The “whole of nation’ approach helps to integrate the military and non-military systems and enhances their interoperability.

8) Russia also reinstated the practice of organising the so-called snap exercises. Those drills come with no prior notification and are predominantly large in scale. They often happen in NATO’s direct vicinity. They are very hard to trace and could potentially serve as a preparation to the start of a military conflict. There is no doubt that snap exercises confirm Russia’s strategic political and military unpredictability as they increase the level of uncertainty and the risk of miscalculation.

9) Russia’s exercising policy can also be characterised by a lack of transparency. Russia often does not give advanced notice of its exercises which is a standard procedure in the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE). Russia repeatedly splits its large scale exercises, as in the case of “Zapad-2017”, into smaller ones. This tactics allows it to avoid the necessity of notification and invitation of foreign observers. In fact the Russian armed forces often act contrary to the spirit of the OSCE instruments and use the existing “loopholes”, especially in the Vienna Document.

10) At the same time, Russia uses exercises like “Zapad-2017” to verify the effectiveness of its propaganda machinery. In the media sphere Russia often artificially boosts the number of troops and equipment that will take part in the exercise in order to test the reaction of NATO allies, neighbouring states (especially Ukraine, Georgia, Sweden and Finland) and European societies. In fact, in the case of the “Zapad-2017” Russia wanted to create an impression that this exercise is the only game in town. In fact, it is not. Other operations – including the Russian military engagement in Ukraine and Syria, the Russian hybrid activities in Western and Central Europe or in the Western Balkans – continue.

This article was originally published by “New Eastern Europe”.

All opinions are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institution he represents.

The post Ten Things You Need to Know about Russian Military Exercises appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

People fly “Estelada” flags (Catalan separatist flag) during a pro-independence rally in Barcelona, Spain June 11, 2017. (REUTERS/Albert Gea)

National governments in federally unified states rarely allow for a national legal process to break up its own Federation. The legality of the upcoming referendum on Catalonia’s independence from Spain did not meet the legal requirements it needed to in order to depart from Spain, but if they declare independence, the Spanish courts may no longer have the presumed jurisdiction to stop a separation.

Catalonia was always a strong contender for independence due to its economic strength as a region, the historical divide via culture and language to the rest of Spain, and the existence of the EU that gives more of a weighed representation to regional governments in national forums. With the possible fracturing of the EU, the recent referendum might be the last best opportunity to separate from Spain for the Catalan people, or at least may give Catalonia a stronger position in a federated Spanish state.

A case in Canada in the Supreme Court of that country set to legitimize Quebec’s separation from the rest of Canada many years ago. The requirements were not met to separate Quebec from Canada constitutionally at the time. While cultural differences are recognized by most people who have spent anytime in Quebec, financially Quebec was heavily linked to the rest of Canada. With Catalans citing the amount of tax dollars going to Madrid’s central government as one of the catalysts for separation, Quebec and even the Canadian province of Alberta may take a separation of Catalonia from Spain as a sign of the times for their own provinces. The impression of a unified community in one region having to financially support the rest of Spain links pocket book issues with that of culture.

In Canada, the largest and most industrially developed province that is the home of the national capital, Ontario, has what many claim as the largest sub-sovereign debt in the world. This means Ontario as an independent province has more debt than any other regional government in the world, and more than many nation states and large US states like California and New York. With Quebec and other provinces moving ahead economically, the view is that Canada’s main economic hub is deteriorating.

With economic interdependence turning into an economic burden, places like Catalonia and Quebec may be able to remove some of the shared debt that comes with being in a federated state by shedding the very governments that have accumulated the majority of the national debt. While financial situations are not a sole cause of leaving a state, it does point to an opportunity for independence. In Ontario, recent corruption trials involving the current government also does not help show a positive trend to Quebec, Alberta or the rest of Canada.

Scotland’s fight against being removed from the EU post-Brexit or Quebec leaving Canada depends heavily on economic independence as much as cultural and political independence. With those regions being such a large part of the UK and Canada respectively, it is hard to imagine either country existing without the other. When the vision is that those regions can exist on their own without the need or ties to the capital, the recipe for independence comes as it has in Catalonia. A lesson for federal states is to remember that bad policy can lead to the end of the current incarnations of a state, and that measured policies may suit a federation better than radical policy moves that are established mostly just to keep one’s job in politics. These issues should be presented clearly in the upcoming referendum vote or any others in the future.

The post An Independent Catalonia May Promote Worldwide Independence Movements appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Rohingya Muslims are not the only victims of the ethnic cleansing presently going on in Myanmar. Hindu homes are reportedly being burned and looted while the international community continues to only focus on the plight of Rohingya Muslims.

In recent days, the international community is outraged by the ethnic cleansing that is currently going on in Myanmar against the Muslims but has not focused as much on other communities that have been targeted. The recent spike of violence broke out on August 25, when militants attacked governmental forces. In response, the Myanmar government committed numerous crimes against humanity. Human Rights Watch has released satellite imagery regarding 450 buildings being burned down in Rohingya neighborhoods, stressing: “The widespread destruction of urban areas in Maungdaw town suggests that Burmese security forces are not just attacking Rohingya Muslims in isolated villages.”

Following that, the UN has condemned Myanmar for committing “textbook ethnic cleansing” while estimating that 1,000 people by September 7 have been killed. Meanwhile, the Telegraph reported that over 310,000 people have fled to Bangladesh. However, contrary to the perception in the West, the ethnic cleansing that is presently occurring is not entirely a case of Buddhist against Muslim violence. Numerous Hindus have also fallen victim to this conflict. Since August 25, over 500 Hindus have also fled to Bangladesh. At least 86 Hindus have been killed and over 200 Hindus have fled to the forests in recent days. Hindu homes are reportedly being burned and looted. And the crisis is only getting worse by the day.

Shipan Kumar Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, claimed that the Hindu refugees in Bangladesh are not being taken care of properly and their plight is being ignored by the international community: “Hundreds of Rohingya Hindu Families have been butchered by the Rohingya Muslims but nobody cares about them. There have been cases of Rohingya Hindus being systematically and forcefully lured by Rohingya Muslims into bad marriages. They have killed many members of Hindu families. No government and no NGO has come forward to look into this crisis.”

A Hindu refugee described the murder of her husband: “They beat my husband. Then they took us to the mountains. They said that if you give us your gold, we won’t cut your husband. They then took all my gold and cut my husband. 8 people then took us to the camp to make us Muslim. They told us that you must become Muslim and marry. They said that the Hindu religion is not a religion. You worship ghosts. If you die, then you burn.” She claimed that it was the Muslim insurgents and not the Myanmar government that has targeted her: “The government army of Myanmar did not torture us. The government has taken responsibility for our brothers and sisters.”

Another Hindu refugee related that insurgents dressed in black barred him and his family from leaving their home: “They threatened to kill us.” A relative who went to his sons’ house with rice and food was murdered by the insurgents: “I agree to live in Bangladesh or India. We do not want to go back to Myanmar.” A woman named Promila has also become a refugee. All her family members of 8 persons have been butchered by extremists. Another woman named Anika is 6 months pregnant. Her family of 4 have also been killed. There is no trace of her husband.

However, the atrocities experienced by the Rohingya Hindus is not the only issue. According to Basu, the Rohingya Hindus that flee to Bangladesh are not getting the same level of good treatment that the Rohingya Muslim refugees receive: “My appeal to the Bangladeshi government is that they should not differentiate between religions and extend help to all. Sheikh Hasina is showing so much kindness to the Rohingya Muslims. Reports are leaking out of an Awami League offshoot having good relations with them. They also have links with the ISI in Pakistan. So, it is my assumption that the Awami League Party under Sheikh Hasina might have had a hand in the insurgency butchering Rohingya Hindus.”

While the international community is greatly disturbed by the plight of the Muslims in Myanmar, where are their tears for the Hindus that have been persecuted within the country? These kinds of atrocities should also be condemned by the international community. The Rohingya Hindus of Myanmar want to live in peace and harmony. The terrorist radicals must be stopped regardless which religion that they belong to. The crisis must be solved as soon as possible and all of the communities must live in peace and tranquility.

The post Is the International Community neglecting the Rohingya Hindus? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Tesa May to deliver Brexit speech in Italy as talks with EU stumble. UN General Assembly meets. German elections likely to keep Merkel in power. Saudi Arabia embraces tech reform. All in The Week Ahead.

This Friday, British Prime Minister Theresa May will deliver a speech in Florence to discuss the progression of Brexit and the vision she has for a post-Brexit arrangement between the UK and the EU. This follows last week’s postponement of the most recent round of negotiations between the UK and EU on Brexit. The May spokesmen have been cagey on what exactly she intends to say, which is likely due to the three players in this saga with frequently contradictory goals: the hard Brexiters principally in May’s Conservative Party who desire a totally clean break from the EU; the soft Brexiters and those opposed to Brexit entirely that wish to maintain cohesion with the EU which includes most businesses; and EU negotiators who must contend with the EU block’s goals and desire to not discuss any post-Brexit arrangement without addressing every issue leading up to Brexit.

One of the things EU Brexit negotiators will be looking for in this speech is whether the May government intends to follow through on its “divorce bill” to pay for EU budgetary requirements — the May government has waffled on this issue, contesting both the bill itself as well as the estimates offered by EU negotiators. Equally as likely — if not more likely given rumors the speech won’t address the divorce bill —  is a more ambivalent speech calling for some maintenance of the status quo in a transitional arrangement, given her precarious majority in Parliament.

This Tuesday, the UN General Assembly General Debate will convene, with the theme “Focusing on People: Striving for Peace and a Decent Life for All on a Sustainable Planet.” Already, side discussions are slated to discuss climate change, with one meeting scheduled for Monday between White House advisor Gary Cohn and a slate of representatives from other major economies. In addition, the continued plight of the Rohingya in Myanmar with over 350,000 fleeing to Bangladesh in the past 2 months — which has been cited by multiple sources as ethnic cleansing — will be discussed among UN members, making Aung Sang Suu Kyi’s absence from the Assembly debate notable. President Trump is also slated to hold a meeting on Monday on reforming the UN, including strengthening the Secretary-General again. He is also slated to criticize the level of contribution the US is providing to the UN, which is likely to ruffle feathers. The presidents of Russia and Mexico are not expected to attend, denying the ability of one-on-one discussions between the US president and either of his counterparts.

On Sunday, voters will head to the polls to elect Germany’s next Chancellor and members to the 630-member Bundestag. It will represent the first election since Chancellor Angela Merkel’s decision to let in nearly 900,000 Middle East refugees. It will also represent the first opportunity for Alternative for Deutschland (AfD) to contest seats at the national level after securing seats at the state level.

From March until now, the main opposition party SPD has steadily lost support while support for Merkel’s conseravtive CDU/CSU has risen. Polling from last week placed the conservatives with around 37% support, while the SPD remained 14 points down at 23%. Far-left Die Linke was at 10% while the far-right AfD was close behind at 9.5%. As a result, the likely outcome is for the CDU/CSU to emerge with a commanding lead, followed by the SPD and left and right leaning parties vying for 3rd place. The shape of a Merkel coalition may end up similar to the current “grand coalition” between the CDU/CSU and SPD, or a coalition between the CDU/CSU and some smaller parties such as the FDP and Greens.

Merkel is likely to lock out the AfD from any coalition: a current government minister last week called the AfD manifesto unconstitutional, and a leaked email from an AfD leader calling for  “genetic unity” has sent tremors throughout mainstream German political parties on left and right. Blocking the AfD would prove similar to moves by the Dutch, Italian, and British governments in past instances to keep out far-right political parties from coalitions, even at the expense of ideological preferences.

This week, the Saudi Minister for Communications and Information Technology will permit WhatsApp, Skype, and Viber to operate within the kingdom after the video calling apps were blocked by the Saudi government in 2013. Included in this arrangement is an agreement that these companies will provide quarterly reports of customer complaints, while government agencies will heavily monitor the three sites. The agreement between the tech companies and the Saudi government is part of a larger initiative called Vision 2030, which aims to improve technology in the Kingdom and move the country to a more digital society. Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s initiative to diversify the Saudi economy on the government’s terms has run into some challenges, although it looks to the UAE as a model for technological and social liberalization without political mobilization. In addition to consumers being able to rely on these services, businesses operating in Saudi Arabia will be able to operate more smoothly in an international context. The UAE still blocks Skype and has given indications it will continue to do so.

The Week Ahead provides analytical foresight on the economic consequences of upcoming political developments. Covering a number of future occurrences across the globe, The Week Ahead presents a series of potential upside/downside risks, shedding light on how political decisions affect economic outcomes.

This edition of The Week Ahead was written by GRI Senior Analyst Brian Daigle.

The post The Week Ahead appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A letter to the many distinguished visitors from abroad in NYC for the 72nd Session of the United Nations General Assembly:

​(*apologia – a defense; profundis – out of the depths)

You may well be visiting New York City for the first time in awhile–perhaps not since last year’s 71st Session of the United Nations General Assembly.

If so, you may be wondering: Is this America? Yes, it has changed.

As a native New Yorker and as a proud, engaged American of ripe age, please let me explain the case of President Donald Trump at the 2017 United Nations General Assembly. I hope to assuage your concern about America, its potential effect on your country and the world.

The headline of this apologia might well have been: Please be patient with us. We are coming back.

Consider:

Donald Trump is not “America”–not by a long shot. Yes, he was elected constitutionally. You may know, however, that our seriously outdated electoral system doesn’t necessarily reward the presidency to the candidate winning the popular vote. That’s what happened in 2016. More than 65 million Americans voted against him.

Mr.Trump doesn’t have a “base”; he has a “core” of supporters: Trump’s Tangle of Rhetorical Inadequacy. His approval rating has declined precipitously since inauguration. And recent polls indicate that his “America first” world view is increasingly unpopular Analysis The pillars of Trump’s nationalism are weakening .

​America has numerous institutions to restrict an authoritarian president. Many are hard at this right now. Mind the commitment and progress being made by investigative journalists; non-governmental organizations; opposition within his political party and in opposing parties; civil society; religious and academic institution; and members of the legal profession.

Americans are fully aware that he is unreliable, unethical and unstable. A large majority is greatly disturbed being represented by an uninformed opportunist. He honed a strategy of bluff and bluster replete with “U-turns” and “S-swerves” in amassing a real estate empire often requiring bankruptcy protection and legal chicanery.

He has brought this style–creating mass uncertainty and anxiety–to national governance, most recently with our Dreamworks Act, but also as with national health insurance and many foreign affairs policies. He believes that such mendacity and confusion is sustainable in the U.S. Presidency. He is wrong.

We acknowledge that one of the most upsetting international prospects we now face is the Trump threat to remove the U.S. from the historic 2015 six nation nuclear deal with Iran. The most cogent summary of this potential dangerous reversal in U.S policy can be found in the following New York Times article “A Devious Threat to a Nuclear Deal“.

Above all, America is a nation of laws and the Trump administration is now under scrutiny on many issues in many venues. As we know, the arc of justice does bend slowly. But many Americans are working diligently to see to it that it does indeed bend to justice–and harmony–in our beloved country.

For these and many other reasons, yes, please be patient with us. America will come back. And we will once again be a responsible, contributing member of the world community.

Written by John Paluszek, Executive Editor, Business in Society

www.businessinsociety.net

@Biz_in_Society

The post Apologia de Profundis re Trumpus appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Donald and Ivanka Trump with Dubai partner Hussain Sajwani

President Donald J. Trump’s global conflict-of-interest problems just got a little bit bigger. As McClatchy DC reports in detail, Trump and a Dubai property development partner have hired a shady Chinese government construction firm to build a part of the Trump International Golf Club Dubai in the United Arab Emirates (UAE). This news comes “despite a pledge from Donald Trump that his family business would not engage in any transactions with foreign government entities while he serves as president.”

Trump’s partner in Dubai is DAMAC Properties (داماك), headed by billionaire Emirati property developer Hussain Sajwani (حسين سجواني), pictured above with Donald and Ivanka Trump. Sajwani has been called the “The Donald of Dubai,” and has raised conflict-of-interest concerns among Trump’s critics by openly trading off of his relationship with the U.S. president. The Chinese firm in question is majority state-owned China State Construction Engineering Corporation (CSCEC, 中国建筑工程总公司), awarded a $32 million road construction contract for the “AKOYA Oxygen” residential portion of the Trump Dubai project, where residential units will be priced up into the millions of U.S. dollars.

CSCEC is clearly a Chinese Communist Party-led organization: CSCEC chairman Guan Qing (官庆) doubles as the company’s party secretary. CSCEC president and general manager Wang Xiangming (王祥明) likewise doubles as the company’s deputy party secretary. CSCEC’s deputy general managers are also party members. As in other Chinese state-run organizations, CSCEC staff regularly take part in mandatory Communist Party political education and party-building programs. The party’s objectives differ sharply from U.S. policy goals in the “Greater China” and Asia-Pacific region.

Trump’s Dubai golf venture presents possible overseas conflicts of interest on two fronts: One with the UAE’s “Donald of Dubai,” and the other with China’s corrupt one-party dictatorship. As The Atlantic observes, “Trump’s relationship with Sajwani certainly creates the impression that this venture could give special benefits to the Emirati businessman and, by extension, other investors who have Sajwani’s ear.” Moreover, Trump “will be profiting from business interests [in the UAE that] could jeopardize his ability to make objective and effective decisions about policy that will affect the U.S., the UAE, and the Middle East overall.”

As McClatchy further observes, China’s state-run CSCEC “was one of several [Chinese companies] accused by the World Bank of corruption for its role in the bidding process for a roads project in the Philippines and banned in 2009 from World Bank-financed contracts for several years.” CSCEC also appears in documents from the notorious Panama Papers leak, drawing scrutiny for possible tax evasion and/or money laundering. For the President of the United States to be entangled with such a firm raises obvious concerns.

The Trump-Kushner family’s Chinese conflicts of interest have been previously noted, including valuable Chinese trademarks for Trump businesses, manufacturing in Chinese sweatshops for Ivanka Trump fashion products, and Chinese investment in Trump-Kushner real estate projects from the controversial EB-5 “visa-for-sale” scheme for wealthy investors. Any of these dealings could influence Trump administration policy decisions with regard to China.

Trump business ventures abroad also come at significant cost to taxpayers: When Trump’s sons Eric and Donald Jr. traveled to Dubai for a February 2017 ribbon-cutting ceremony at the Trump International Golf Club, the Secret Service shelled out nearly $17,000 for agents’ hotel bills alone (Add this to the nearly $100,000 the Secret Service spent on hotel bills for Eric Trump’s business trip to Uruguay in January, the more than $50,000 for Eric and Tiffany Trump’s business trip to Vancouver in February, and the many other taxpayer-funded business and pleasure expenses for the most costly First Family in U.S. history).

American voters might wish to consider all of this very carefully before deciding ever again that a “businessman president” is what America needs most.

The post Trump Hires Chinese Government Firm for Dubai Golf Club appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Amidst recurring bullish predictions and rhetoric of Asia’s rise we should be careful of falling into complacency. Despite years of high economic growth, Asia faces many serious challenges. Regional political relations, economic health, water-security and demographic trajectories will push many key Asian nations towards instability.

Western leaders have watched, with envy and concern, the rapid growth rates of countries in Southern and Eastern Asia.  Many commentators agree that the Asian Century is upon us, and merely debate whether it will be Chinese or Indian.  The balance of power is certainly adjusting.  Last December, China seized a US monitoring drone  in the international waters of the South China Sea, with impunity; an act unimaginable two decades ago.  However, for all their bluster, the continued rise of the Asian Tigers is far from assured. A great many problems remain which could undermine their growth.

On July 24th, Vietnam pulled the plug on a $300 million gas-drilling expedition in a disputed area of the South China Sea after China threatened to attack Vietnamese bases in the Spratly Islands.  Setting aside these familiar tensions in the South China Sea, Asia has many other serious territorial disputes affecting most Asian nations.  Japan has disputes with all of its neighbours, and China is engaged in 13 territorial disputes with 8 neighbours.  These disputes impact business and investment and can spark conflict-generating economic and political instability.  Concerningly, despite improving multilateral cooperation over the last two decades, there is still no effective regional political community and there are few political mechanisms to manage crisis.  These disputes also become scapegoats for a host of domestic problems – such as slowing economies, water-security, and demographic problems – which constitute de-stabilising threats in their own right.

Asia’s economic health should be watched as growth slows, particularly in China.  Slowing growth has led to unsustainable debt increases in many countries, such as Singapore and Taiwan.  Japan’s aging population and weak productivity have generated a 234.7% GDP-to-debt ratio; the highest in the world.  Beijing’s repeated use of cheap credit to stimulate growth caused China’s gross debt to surpass 304% of GDP in May 2017; links between state-owned companies and banks heighten the economic risk inherent in this debt.  A default in the heavily indebted corporate sector could send shockwaves through state-owned banks and trigger a systematic crisis.  Further, China’s efforts to transition from an export-led economy to one driven by domestic spending, has had limited success.  This is clearly reflected in economic statistics – consumer spending only makes up 37% of China’s GDP, far below the United States (68.1%), Japan (58.6%), or even Russia (51.9%).

Drought in India.

Asian water-security is being pressured by climate change, water management, and economic and population growth.  Water shortages disrupt economic production and generate political unrest.  Given their economic and demographic significance, scarcity in India and China are particularly concerning.  Between 2003 and 2009, northern India lost water at the fastest rate in the world according to NASA.  The livelihood of 600 million Indians depends on agriculture and almost 2/3 of India’s cultivated land relies on rainfall rather than irrigation. India is also uneconomic with its water, using 28% more freshwater than China despite a smaller population and economy.  India’s water stress explains, in part, the tension between India and Pakistan in Kashmir in which major rivers – namely the Punjab – begin.

There is also a growing water-security crisis in China.  The glaciers that feed the Yangzi and Yellow River are melting, even as experts predict that Chinese water demand will outstrip supply by 2030.  As of 2014, North China holds two thirds of Chinese agriculture but only one fifth of its water, and 45% of GDP is in regions with a similar water resource per capita as the Middle East.  China’s water issues will inevitably drive it to strengthen control over its watershed.  The major rivers that feed the Asian sub-continent and South East Asia start in the Tibetan Himalayan glaciers; dashing any hopes of an independent Tibet.  Chinese exploitation of Tibetan water will create conflict with downstream nations; in the Indian subcontinent and Southeast Asia which rely on these rivers.

After World War II,  commentators thought the Japanese economy would soon dominate the world as its equity market soared and Japanese businessmen purchased US trophy properties such as Pebble Beach.  Yet, in the 1990s, Japan’s economy stagnated, due in part to the burden posed by its aging population.  Most developed Asian countries, such as Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, and Singapore, are facing aging populations which will increase dependency ratios and dampen economic performance.

In particular, China will likely become old before it becomes rich.  China’s One Child Policy enabled a ‘demographic dividend’ by decreasing the amount of dependents average earners needed to support. This has underpinned China’s economic rise, and accounted for up to one quarter of China’s per capita GDP growth since the mid-1970s as the working share of the population rose from 55% to 73%. But this rise has now peaked and China’s developing economy now faces a glut of aging workers without the affluence to support strong social care.  This will cause economic and social stress as a smaller working share of the population will yield a lower per capita living standard, and savings and investments will fall.  Huge economic gains have helped the Chinese Communist Party to contain dissent, yet China already suffers 200,000 protests a year of varying sizes. China is perhaps less stable than many realise.

Given Asia’s importance, the diversity of risks that face it must be understood.  Asia could dominate the 21st century for the wrong reasons – as a source of political turmoil and economic instability.

This article was originally published on Global Risk Insights, and was written by Ban Abbs.

The post Are the “Asian Tigers” Hamstrung by Hidden Flaws? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As China and India continue to face off over a tiny patch of Himalayan highland, Bhutan is caught in the middle with the dispute as much about Bhutan’s foreign policy as it is about territory.

Beijing and New Delhi have been facing off over the 34 square kilometres that constitute the Doklam (called Donglang in China) region close to the tiny Himalayan kingdom of Bhutan. China and India have a difficult legacy of border disputes and the standoff over Doklam adds another to this list. Interestingly, the two chief actors in this saga are Bhutan and China, not India. Indeed, India has not expressed a claim on the region, but rather has acted on behalf of Bhutan (according to New Delhi) and intervened in protest to what it considers Chinese expansionism. Conversely, China claims that Bhutan informed Beijing that it did not know about Indian troop movements in the region, nor had it asked India into intervene on its behalf.

The spark for this entire confrontation was the entry of Chinese road workers and troops into the Doklam region on June 16th, which is claimed by both Bhutan and China. India saw these movements as a threat to both Bhutanese sovereignty and Indian security interests, sending military forces across the border to occupy the region in response. With regards to security, India is concerned about an increased Chinese presence in, and access to, the Doklam region, as it is near the strategically vulnerable Siliguri Corridor connecting India’s northeastern regions with the rest of the country. A Chinese military advance of some 130 kilometres would cut off the north east of India (and some 50 million people) from the rest of the country: such an eventuality took place during the 1962 Sino-Indian War.

Along with allegations that India is demolishing the aforementioned road, Beijing was angered by Indian military forces crossing an established border (namely the Indian-Chinese border) to intervene in the affairs of a third country. In response, India claims that China’s road building efforts on contested land are illegal. It has since emerged that the road in question has been there for over a decade, and that China was likely widening it. India’s involvement is also predicated on one interpretation of 1890 Convention of Calcutta which delineated the border between British Raj and Qing dynasty China in Sikkim and Tibet.

According to Article 1 of the Convention, the border begins at Mount Gipmochi, with the same article going on to state that the border will follow the watershed. The problem is that Mt. Gipmochi does not lie on the watershed. Accordingly, the border ought to start six kilometres north of said mountain at Batang La. This was reinforced by a British map from between 1907-1913 that showed the border starting at Batang La.

What this all means is that “if Mt.Gipmochi is the starting point, Doklam is in China, but if Batang La is the real starting point, then Doklam is in Bhutan and China has no right to build a road there.” Unsurprisingly, China and India cite the two opposing interpretations as justifications for their actions. Nevertheless, even if India’s preferred interpretation is the correct one, this does not sanction its intervention into Bhutan’s affairs.

What is interesting is that both India and China are clinging to a treaty signed by two defunct predecessor states (British India and imperial China). It also interesting to note China’s adherence to a treaty signed during the country’s ‘Century of Humiliation’ – a perennial sore spot for China’s politicians and public. Intriguingly, on June 30th, the same day that China emphasized the 1890 treaty it also stated that the 1984 Hong Kong treaty signed with the UK regarding the territory’s fate out to 2047 was a “historical document that no longer has any realistic meaning.”

The problem facing both India and China is that the longer the standoff persists the less appealing any unilateral draw down becomes for either side. Chinese rhetoric is ratcheting up in the run-up to the 19th National Congress of the Chinese Communist Party, scheduled for this fall. This uptick in rhetoric before a major gathering is a familiar trend, but it does mean that the issue is likely to remain unsolved until after the Congress, when Xi Jinping no longer needs to rally party cadres to action.

Indeed, this is one of the plans tendered by India: wait out the fall and winter, as weather concerns will limit any activity in the region, and seek a quick diplomatic solution in 2018. Another option is to replace Indian troops in the area with Bhutanese ones, de-escalating the standoff that way and drawing down troops levels. This provides China with a face-saving measure, as it would have stood its ground against India, while working with non-threatening Bhutan to resolve the issue according to China’s own ‘Good Neighbour’ framework.

Interestingly, Bhutan is China’s only neighbour that does not have diplomatic relations with Beijing. Indeed, Bhutan does not have diplomatic relations with any of the UNSC’s P5 members. It is one thing to try and forge a limited diplomatic path free of great power intrigue, but quite another when you happen to be surrounded by them. Bhutan’s close ties to India but minimal, semi-formal ones with China are a legacy of its close orbit around New Delhi, yet one which does not make full use of the potentially productive relationships landlocked Bhutan could cultivate.

India’s bipolar role in Bhutan’s young democracy

Sandwiched between the world’s two largest nations, Bhutan’s efforts to engage China complicate its longstanding ties with India. India has long viewed Bhutan as firmly within its orbit; a veritable protectorate. Having inherited Britain’s paternalist legacy regarding the various Himalayan nations, India maintained a cooperation agreement with Bhutan which saw New Delhi exercise considerable power over the former’s security and foreign policies from 1949 to 2007.

When Bhutan reportedly made unilateral concessions to China in 2005 (then still obliged to consult with India on foreign affairs) India was aghast and scrambled to undo the ‘damage’. Said damage likely entailed China settling for a small concession in Doklam in exchange for larger Bhutanese gains in the north and east. Two years later, India reneged on its role in Bhutan’s affairs, as the country transitioned towards constitutional monarchy. India also expressed great displeasure in 2013 after Bhutan announced its intentions to pursue a “balanced foreign policy” including establishing relations with China; a seemingly commonsense aspiration to outside viewers, but anathema to New Delhi’s interests.

The Bhutanese military in its modern incarnation was brought about with substantial Indian support in 1951 following China’s absorption of Tibet. While Bhutan stood by India during the 1962 war, and was one of the first nations to support Bangladesh’s independence, New Delhi’s loss to China and the inconclusive result of the 1965 Indo-Pakistani War called into question India’s pledge to protect Bhutan. Moreover, Indian arguments pointing to China’s annexation of Tibet as a threat to Bhutan were drastically undermined after India’s incorporation of Sikkim in 1975.

Ironically, India has been the largest supporter of and also largest threat to Bhutan’s democracy since the transition from absolute monarchy in the mid 2000s. Alongside the structural problems facing Bhutan from decades of dependence on India, New Delhi continues to meddle in Bhutan’s politics. Specifically, the upcoming 2018 election will see New Delhi rooting for Bhutan’s pro-India prime minister Tshering Tobgay as he seeks re-election. Tshering ousted pro-China Jigme Thinley in 2013, thanks in part to (alleged) Indian support.

Despite being one of the biggest proponents of the country’s transition to democracy, India was quickly accused of back-seat politicking. Specifically, India abruptly cut gas and kerosene subsidies (along with a host of other harsh measures) just days before the 2013 election, throwing Bhutan’s economy in turmoil. Jigme went on to lose the election, and many doubt claims that the cuts were a mere coincidence.

Having been accustomed to decades of overarching influence, India has often neglected relations with Bhutan: a similar failing has estranged Nepal and pushed that country closer to China. India’s “colonial-style approach of buying loyalty through economic aid may no longer work,” notes former Indian ambassador P. Stobden.

60% of Bhutan’s government expenditure is spent on Indian imports, with 75% of all imports stemming from India, as well as 95% of Bhutan’s own exports destined for India. India’s economic shadow looms large over Bhutan, as witnessed by the rupee devaluation, which sent Bhutan’s economy into shock as an unintended (and perhaps overlooked) consequence of New Delhi’s surprise monetary decision.

Bhutan is also facing a growing debt crisis as government borrowing has seen the country’s debt to GDP ratio climb to 118%. Lopsided trade relations (mainly with India) and extensive hydro-power expansion (accounting for 77% of debt to GDP) both highlight India’s ongoing influence. Firstly, “90 to 95% of what Bhutan borrows from India goes back to India,” with Bhutan’s main export – hydro power – chiefly benefitting India. Add to this the fact that India is Bhutan’s largest creditor – responsible for 64% of Bhutan debt – and the situation is clear: India effectively controls both ends of Bhutan’s economic cycle.

With a hydro-power potential of some 30,000MW (of which only 5% is developed) and less than a million people, Bhutan stands to greatly benefit from its energy wealth: Bhutan’s projected GDP growth rate for 2017-19 is a staggering 11.1%. Specifically, hydro-power accounted for 32.4% of Bhutan’s exports and 8% of GDP in 2016. With plans to develop 10,000MW by 2020, Bhutan stands to gain from feeding China and India’s energy needs. India’s influence in the country means that it is wary of Bhutan becoming closer to Beijing, and it’s One Belt, One Road (OBOR) framework.

In another ironic twist, India has been whispering to Bhutan for years that OBOR is a debt trap, even as it continues to hold the majority of Bhutan’s debt. Meanwhile Bhutan is viewing OBOR as a means to diversify investment and move away from its reliance on Indian funding. China for its part would be more than willing to supplant India and acquire access to additional renewable energy sources.

In this context, the 24 rounds of border negotiations between Bhutan and China, as well as rumours of closed door territory swaps make India very nervous. Despite not having official diplomatic ties with Beijing, Bhutan has nevertheless made recent overtures to court China and send India a message. Chief among these has been the visit by Bhutan’s ambassador to India to the Chinese embassy to attend the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) 90th anniversary. Given the military tensions in Doklam and the fact that it is very rare for an ambassador to attend a foreign country’s armed forces day, this sends a clear signal to New Delhi.

Under the Radar uncovers political risk events around the world overlooked by mainstream media. By detecting hidden risks, we keep you ahead of the pack and ready for new opportunities.

Under the Radar was origionally published on Global Risk Insights and is written by Senior Analyst Jeremy Luedi.

The post Doklam Standoff Highlights India and China’s ‘Great Game’ over Bhutan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Shipan Kumer Basu, head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, meets with President of India Ram Nath Khovind

The minorities in Bangladesh are in a dire and tragic predicament. According to Shipan Kumer Basu, head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, “The constitution of Bangladesh gives certain rights to the minorities of the country,” Basu says.

“Everyone in the state is supposed to grant equal treatment under the law to all minority communities to enjoy their own culture, practice their own religion and use their own language.

Sheikh Hasina (who has served as prime minister since 2009) has done nothing to develop these principles or give security to the minorities. On the contrary, she has made the minorities live in fear and insecurity. The reason for this is prejudice and bigotry against the minority communities in Bangladesh.”

It is for this reason that Basu is appealing to Israel as a member of the international community to help his people.

“Different forms of violence are reported against the minority communities in Bangladesh in several national newspapers,” he said. For example, it was reported recently that Soma Biswas, a 25-year-old Hindu woman, was gang- raped and burned alive because of her Hindu heritage.

Unfortunately, she is one of many such cases. The plight of Sukhiya is another. After her husband was murdered, the women and girls of her family were raped and abused regularly until she herself was murdered, thus leaving the rest of her family even more vulnerable. “Reportedly, this has all been part of an attempt by some affluent and influential local people to displace Sukhiya and her family so that they can take over the land.” According to the Bangladesh Hindu, Buddhist and Christian Unity Council, “Rape and violence against women is one of the biggest social challenges facing Bangladesh.”

At least in the case of Sukhiya and Biswas, everything is documented and there is a campaign to obtain justice for Sukhiya’s family. “It is important to stress that many more incidents occur that go unreported, especially in the rural areas,” says Basu. “Additionally, violence against women is generally not made public due to cultural and social taboos. Sheikh Hasina is the spearhead and brainchild in giving a strong foothold to ISIS in Bangladesh. They have terrorized the minorities. She has given them moral, administrative and political support to carry out their dreadful activities. A peaceful country has become a killing field for the minorities.”

Sheikh Hasina, Basu says, has placed her people in all government offices and this adversely affects the minority communities: “The higher officials in the police are all her people. They don’t even take the minorities into account. When brutality happens, they turn a blind eye to it and even threaten the minorities”.

“The government has put a few ISIS people behind bars so that they evade the eyes of the world, but their malicious and terrorist activities within the jails continues,” he noted. “Very minor charges are levied against them and they are protected by government functionaries themselves. Leaked reports from inside the jails say that these people belong to an ISIS group trained in Syria and other ISIS strongholds outside Bangladesh.”

He continues: “There are hundreds of examples. Where will all of the minorities go? We are denied peace and tranquility in our own place of birth. We have the right to live, breathe fresh air and to live freely as others do. If we leave our own country and go to India, we are given refugee status. Other countries will also do so to save us.”

According to Basu, however, Bangladeshi Hindus don’t want to leave behind the land of their ancestors, so he wants a solution from inside Bangladesh: “To stop this systematic suppression, killing, murder, rape, land grabbing and terrorizing, I appeal to the whole world to take note of the grave situation that the minorities are facing in their own land and to save the minorities.”

Given the history of the Jewish people being persecuted for thousands of years, Basu believes Israelis are in a unique position to provide support: “Israel has a history of helping people who are in distress throughout the world. Israel is a country full of talent and has vast expertise. Extending their strong helping arms will strengthen our country and the minorities both intellectually and financially.”

This wouldn’t be the first time Israel would be aiding the Bangladeshi people.

“In the 1971 Bangladeshi War for Liberation, then-Indian Prime Minister Indira Gandhi appealed to Israel for help,” Basu notes. “Israel readily helped with arms and ammunition and thus Bangladesh was born. Israel was the first country to recognize Bangladesh officially. But it did not establish any relations with Israel.”

Some Bangladeshi Muslims are now greatly opposed to this reality. As Kaji Aujijul Haq says: “Why can’t we keep ties with Israel when most of the Arab world is opening up to Israel? Our prophet instructed us to keep ties with the Jews. Have we become more powerful than the prophet himself?”

Basu, who has already asked the Israeli Druze diplomat Mendi Safadi, head of the Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Public Policy, to help bring the issue to international forums, believes there are many ways Israel can help.

“The voting rights of the minorities have been systematically diminished and, therefore, they don’t have a say in the government. Unless the minorities are empowered, the torture and subduing of minority groups won’t stop,” he says. “If Israel campaigned that the next general election be held with the supervision of a UN peace-keeping force, it would be a wonderful thing loved by the absolute majority of the Bangladeshi population, including the Hindus.”

Basu argues that if the Awami League comes to power again through a showcase vote, it will be a disaster. “All of the minorities will lose the power to vote and then the party will start snatching land, killing people and forcing the Hindus to leave Bangladesh. So, a very neutral election is needed at this time so that both the Hindus and Muslims along with the other minorities can live in peace.”

The post Hindu Rights Activist Seeks Israeli Support for Bangladeshi minorities appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

US President Donald Trump shakes hands with Prime Minister Narendra Modi as they begin a meeting at the Oval Office of the White House in Washington. (Reuters)

Recently, the U.S. has reached out to India to help it stabilize the situation in Afghanistan. This mirrors the U.S.’ efforts to solicit China’s assistance in resolving the North Korean crisis. While these maneuvers acknowledge both India and China’s importance in their respective geographic areas, they simultaneously reduce both India and China’s core strategic interests in resolving these crises to continued beneficial trade relations with the U.S..

The U.S.’ appeal to both India and China alike is an indicator of accelerating multipolarity in the 21st century. After decades of frustration with North Korea, the U.S. has recently turned to China for help. The North Korean situation affects all Northeast Asian states, to include South Korea, Japan, and Russia. However, as the region’s emerging hegemon, China’s interests in resolving the crisis clearly must be taken into account by the U.S. as well.

To date, the U.S. has reduced China’s concern with resolving the North Korean dilemma to that of a potential nuclearized Korean Peninsula and a hypothetical collapsed North Korean state which would lead to a refugee crisis for China. Both of these concerns are certainly valid. However, they are subordinate to China’s primary security concern in having an intact North Korea as a buffer state against any perceived encroachment of U.S. forces, which led to China’s entrance into the first Korean War. Until this overall security interest is acknowledged by the U.S., either publicly or privately, there will be no resolution of the crisis.

Security considerations will outweigh economic ones for all countries, and China is no different in this respect. Therefore, U.S. sanctions against China, threats of further sanctions against Chinese entities suspected of enabling North Korea’s nuclear and missile programs, and threats of downgrading the U.S.-China relationship are all futile. These threats would have had much more teeth a generation ago when the U.S. economy was much stronger and more singularly indispensable to the global economy as a whole. As this is no longer the case, any reduction in U.S.-China trade would actually hurt the U.S. more, while accelerating China’s OBOR.

Similarly, the U.S. has singled out India to help it in its efforts to bring stability to Afghanistan. Of course, India has always had an overriding security interest in Afghanistan as both South and Central Asia lie within its sphere of influence. However, like China, the U.S. has yet to make the case to India on how exactly it will benefit India’s security interests to assist the U.S.. Also, the U.S.-India trade relationship is being threatened by the U.S. and this is being used as a stick to get India to comply with U.S. wishes.

However, as with China, India is far from being a treaty ally of the U.S. and, as such, has no concrete incentive to follow the U.S. lead in resolving a regional crisis unless its own security interests are acknowledged and taken into account. With India, one interest of concern is surely the U.S.-Pakistan relationship. As India doesn’t already trust Pakistan due to its relationship with China, this mistrust is compounded by Indian uncertainty regarding the exact nature of U.S.-Pakistani ties with respect to terrorism.

A bad situation is made much worse by the fact that the U.S. is now actively seeking Indian and Pakistani help in Afghanistan. Luckily, the Doklam standoff is now resolved, otherwise it could have emerged as a bargaining chip as both China and India might have asked the U.S. which one it truly favored in the crisis as the price of assistance in the North Korean and Afghan theaters of concern respectively.

If this model is to be followed in the future, then the U.S. will continue to seek assistance from regional hegemons to help it resolve local crises. How will this play out in the Syria Crisis? Yes, Turkey, Iran, and Saudi Arabia are all powerful regional actors with various interests in resolving this particular crisis. However, unlike Turkey and Saudi Arabia, Iran is not a U.S. ally and so therefore will ask the U.S. what concrete benefits will accrue to it for helping the U.S. to resolve this particular crisis. Unfortunately, the U.S. has already shot itself in the foot with sanctions against Iran despite its acknowledgement that Iran is still in compliance with the Iran nuclear deal.

Finally, after so many other crises, there is still the Ukraine Crisis. There is no other regional hegemon the U.S. can deal with to resolve this situation other than Russia. Recent U.S. veto-proof sanctions against Russia, combined with recent talk of arming Ukraine with offensive weaponry, severely undermine its incentive to help resolve this crisis, to say the least. Yet again, decreased economic ties with the U.S. pale in comparison to core Russian security concerns such as NATO expansion.

This particular raft of sanctions also further reduce the incentives for the above Chinese, Indian, and Iranian assistance as they explicitly target global firms looking to benefit from Russia’s oil and gas sector. Additionally, the overall situation is worsened as Russia itself is a key player in the North Korean Crisis, Afghanistan, and the Syrian Crisis and now has absolutely zero interest in helping the U.S. realize its own objectives in these various theaters. Summarily, as long as the U.S. keeps subordinating key regional states’ core security interests to their economic ones, its strategy to resolve various regional crises is doomed to ultimate failure.

The post The U.S.’ Outreach To Regional Hegemons Is Both Right And Wrong appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Last August, North Korea launched what is believed to be a Hwasong-12 military grade ballistic missile towards Japan. This aggressive act towards the US ally is thought to be the latest move in the tit for tat between North Korea and the United States. There is the belief that North Korea is close to being able to place nuclear weapons on its ballistic missile systems, and has already demonstrated that it is capable of reaching targets well beyond its own borders.

Questions come with how the region wishes to progress in the future. In addition, the strategy to achieve this progression and the often unmentioned innocents living in North Korea that are subject to the fate given to them by the response of the two biggest egos in the metaphorical room.

Since the end of the Korean War in the 1950s there has been a cease-fire, but no actual peace agreement was achieved for the last few generations. This allowed North Korea and its ruling family to live and thrive by means of appeasement diplomacy. North Korea’s neighbours had to either walk softly around a large military force run by one individual, or have passively supported the regime so that it would not have to deal with the consequences of millions of North Koreans suddenly ending up with no control or leadership.

Ignoring a problem did not reduce its risk, and while North Korea was being appeased diplomatically, it slowly created its own nuclear weapons program, including semi-sophisticated missile systems to protect its ruling elite.

The risks posed by North Korea is reaching a critical stage where any leverage by the US or its allies have been spent without much definitive progress over the years trying to reduce a weapons program that will now certainly come into existence.

It is not expected that the US or its allies will want to greatly change the status quo, and there is next to no mention of the rights of those living in North Korea as regime change is mostly off the table. In this scenario, neighbours can only hope that North Korea decides they are content keeping the region hostage without a nuclear or conventional weapons strike, and hope that order does not beget chaos within North Korea with a nuclear weapons program ready to launch.

A stronger position would be to take the time to develop a truly effective Anti-Ballistic Missile system, similar to one that forms a defensive ring around Moscow, and hope that shooting down threats diffuses the calls for escalating a situation into a larger conflict. ABM diplomacy would allow US allies to regain a bit of their leverage, but still would maintain a horrific scenario where a nuclear armed and capable North Korea could set off a conflict at the whims of their leader, at the time and place of his choosing.

The end result of years of passive diplomacy over North Korea’s future nuclear threats is coming to a climax, and there are fewer and less viable options as North Korean technology approaches the reality of their spoken threats. With more small nations choosing ballistic missile diplomacy as a means to an end, the ABM diplomacy route may be the best/worst option in maintaining a status quo in diplomacy that has led to the current crisis, and will likely lead to many others.

The post The Need for Anti-Ballistic Missile Diplomacy appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Some ethnic organizations in multicultural Western societies frequently neglect to perform their bridging role between old comers and new comers. These organizations’ missions are often abused to shine the private glory of old comer board members’ social prestige, misrepresenting the political interests of new comer immigrants.

The ramming of identity-politics-based extremism disparately sprouting around the globe has reawakened the totalitarian madness of unrefined mass politics under which religiously or racially shared violent norms dangerously surface into repulsive ‘praxis’. The imminent threats of such hyper-rationalized political action lie in the fact that it could now potentially jeopardize the socially embedded concept of ‘pluralistic equality’ being an essential premise for securing the ‘level playing field’.

In many multicultural Western societies, the evaporation of pluralistic equality might not only imply the breakdown of democratic solidarity but also play an overture for the collapse of the Republican notion of the public sphere where privileged yet responsible civism is supposed to guard the constitution values through inter subjective reasoning.

Why is the order of ‘worldliness’ (borrowing Hannah Arendt’s term) falling? Why do citizens of secular republics distrust the freedom-unleashing works of glorious ‘craftsmen’ and rather violently claim for the quasi-totalitarian group values of a single religion or race instead of those of their cosmopolitan public sphere? In the meantime, why have glorious craftsmen failed to stop the rise of extremism?

Both White supremacists and Islamic extremists have in common that they renounce the crafted secular glories of the public sphere and ignore the social constructive nature of the public sphere. Especially, they reject critical race theories’ assumptions under the intersectionality theory that citizens have multiple social identities that are not mutually exclusive.

What has caused the extremist groups to turn skeptical towards such theoretical assumptions?

One does not dare question the contributions that Hannah Arendt’s political theories and interdisciplinary critical race theory have made to the progress of humanity since the end of the world wars but one must cautiously point out that the theories have some limits in redressing the reality of the 21st century multicultural public sphere.

First, they undermine the motivating role of secular self-realization and self-discipline that guide individuals, especially the masses, towards righteous praxis. Arendt, for example, depreciates the value of French bonheur in her book, The Human Condition, because she considers it a “modern enchantment with ‘small things’” that is “an extraordinary and infectious charm that a whole people may adopt as their way of life, without for that reason changing its essentially private character.” In other words, she sees French bonheur as a mass hyponastic propaganda disseminated by a private organization that dissipates citizens’ political willingness to perform praxis in the public sphere.

Yet, in 21st century reality, it is the unnatural rhythmic coolness of gangster hip-hop and the (George) Bataillean way of squandering social excess that have overwhelmingly brainwashed our young generations’ way of life, not the ‘small things’ emphasis of French bonheur. Such excessively liberally expressed ‘crafts’ are often too existentialist in that they are vaingloriously stimulating, anesthetizing our young generations’ sensitivity in finding intrinsically self-realizing or self-disciplining meanings out of the crafts. One does not mean to say that these crafts have no socially contributing values but the fabricated heroism (cultural elitism) within the crafts entices young generations to falsely interpret the intended ‘unnatural rhythms’ and instead to ironically naturalize the rhythms limitedly for their own existentialist purposes. In so doing, young generations lose their passion to remold the rhythms into a unique one and also to present the remolded rhythm representing their true individuality to the public.

Considering these dysfunctions, today’s ‘craftsmen’ should urgently innovate alternative ways of accommodating secular self-realization and self-discipline other than the above types of ‘crafts’.

The development of happiness, or subjective well-being, studies could shed some light on this future challenge when it is truly understood as a praxis-arousing craft that pro-activates individuals’ community-consciousness as well as self-consciousness.

Second, the theories pay little attention to intra-ethnic power relations in Western multicultural societies. For example, the scholarly frame of critical race theory is mostly in the mainstream institutions vs minority individual context that limits the scope of research into studying how institutionalized racism oppresses minority individuals. Such an approach rarely recognizes the fact that the rise of multicultural elites and the upper middle class in Western societies since the 1980s has deepened intra-ethnic inequality especially between old comer and new comer immigrants. Indeed, the inequality is increasingly observable as a significant portion of minority citizens in multicultural Western societies have cast their votes to extreme rightist candidates in the past few years.

The problem of intra-ethnic asymmetry of information between old comer and new comer immigrants is as important to note as that within mainstream society. The less the degree of the asymmetry of information between old comer and new comer immigrants, the higher the likelihood that new comer immigrants integrate into American society. And the higher the likelihood of such integration, the less the likelihood that conflicts between working class citizens and new comer immigrants arise.

Similar to the way civic organizations as social capitals can ameliorate the problem within mainstream society, ethnic civic organizations as intermediating agencies (e.g. Korean American Associations) can narrow down the aforementioned inequality gap. Unfortunately, in reality, many such organizations neglect to perform their bridging role between old comers and new comers. These organizations’ missions are often abused to shine the private glory of old comer board members’ social prestige, misrepresenting the political interests of new comer immigrants.

Nevertheless, many social clubs and trade associations of successful second-generation or old comer professionals barely pay attention to this kind of intra-ethnic affairs or to the welfare of new comer immigrants unless doing so embellishes their American ivory tower.

Often, it seems like the priorities of the organizations, supposedly the public goods of an ethnic group, are to advertise good pictures that they have taken with vote-seeking local politicians so that they can garner the public image of seating on the top of the intra-ethnic hierarchy. All these dysfunctional intra-ethnic power relations especially within ethnic groups with soaring numbers of immigrants since the 1980s make intra-ethnic institutions in multicultural Western societies nothing more than the reincarnation of the clientelist  political machines of the late 19th century America.

Social costs associated with the asymmetry of information between self-conceited old comer and misinformed new comer immigrants must be reduced. Western governments should therefore find ways to systematically evaluate how ethnic civic organizations substantially play their bridging role between old comer and new comer immigrants.

The post Is Extremism the Sole Reason for the Collapsing Order of ‘Worldliness’? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Summing up the general state of awareness in the world that we are living in, an overwhelming majority of the world seems to be either unaware of or unconcerned about the potentially catastrophic confrontation building up in the last two months in the Himalayas between India and China, the world’s two largest countries, which also happen to be the world’s second and the fourth largest economies, and, most worryingly, two nuclear armed nations that have the world’s most well-oiled defense apparatus.

The standoff, which is threatening to spiral out of control from the Chinese side, started when the one-party led Communist nation’s People’s Liberation Army (PLA) started constructing a motorable road from Dokola in the Doklam area towards the Bhutan Army camp at Zompelri on June 16, 2017.

Bhutan, which believes the area is its territory, swiftly reacted, and in a press release issued on June 29, 2017, stated clearly that “the construction of the road inside Bhutanese territory is a direct violation of its agreements with China“.

The Bhutanese foreign ministry further said:

” Boundary talks are ongoing between Bhutan and China and we have written agreements of 1988 and 1998 stating that the two sides agree to maintain peace and tranquillity in their border areas pending a final settlement on the boundary question, and to maintain status quo on the boundary as before March 1959. The agreements also state that the two sides will refrain from taking unilateral action, or use of force, to change the status quo of the boundary. Bhutan hopes that the status quo in the Doklam area will be maintained as before 16 June 2017.”

At the core of the dispute is the question of where the final tri-boundary point — the point at which India, China, and Bhutan meet — lies.

China argues that the India-China-Bhutan tri-junction is at Mount Gipmochi (Gyemo Chen), much south of Batang la, the place that India and Bhutan consider as the tri-junction.  China claims 89 sq km in Doklam (along Gamochen at the border, to the river divide at Batangla and Sinchela, and down to the Amo Chhu River) as its own.

But it is one of only four areas – as per Bhutan – over which China and Bhutan, who do not have diplomatic relations, have a dispute and have had 24 rounds of talks. China, however, claims much more than that and considers a total of seven areas as disputed areas.

China, it may be noted, has territorial disputes with virtually every neighbour of its. And if its conduct in the South China Sea and with Japan over Senkaku Islands is any indication, China does not really believe in giving in to other nation’s claims.

Therefore, much before the official press release by Bhutan, and just two days after the construction work by China began, on June 18, 2017, India sent around 270 troops, with weapons and two bulldozers and stopped the Chinese troops from constructing the road.

In a 15-page document released by the Chinese Foreign Ministry on the same day, Beijing said that “over 270 Indian soldiers, carrying weapons and driving two bulldozers advanced more than 100 meters into the Chinese territory to obstruct the road building of the Chinese side, causing tension in the area.”

It further accused India of raising the number of Indian soldiers to 400.

India’s ministry of defence, however, brushed aside the Chinese accusation of escalation and said that India has been maintaining 350-400 troops at Doklam ever since the stand-off began.

The Indian action is in accordance with the India-Bhutan Treaty of Friendship of 1949, which advocated India’s guiding role in Bhutan’s diplomatic and defense affairs.  Though the 1949 treaty was superseded by a new friendship treaty of 2007 that replaced the provision that made it mandatory for Bhutan to take India’s guidance on foreign policy.

The 2007 treaty provided broader sovereign rights to Bhutan by, for instance, not making it mandatory for Bhutan to take India’s permission in matters such as arms imports. But it did not alter much the inherent attached interests of the two nations.

Article 2 of the 2007 India-Bhutan Treaty says:

In keeping with the abiding ties of close friendship and cooperation between Bhutan and India, the Government of the Kingdom of Bhutan and the Government of the Republic of India shall cooperate closely with each other on issues relating to their national interests. Neither Government shall allow the use of its territory for activities harmful to the national security and interest of the other.

While sovereignty is the principal concern for Bhutan, the dispute for India beyond just the size of the territory in Doklam.

Picture Courtesy: Indian Defence Review

India is alarmed that if the Chinese do complete the motorable road in the Doklam area, it will give China an imposing access to India’s strategically vulnerable ‘chicken’s neck’ in the Siliguri Corridor, a 20km wide corridor that links India’s seven northeastern states to its mainland.

It may further be noted that Bhutan’s own administrative apparatus can get severely compromised if the Chinese inhabit Doklam as Bhutan’s communications network as it is connected through Siliguri in India.

At the moment, it is a stalemate. India is refusing to pull back its troops from the area that it says belongs to Bhutan. And China is threatening a bigger war every new day.

UPDATE:

As on August 28, 2017, India and China reached a consensus on disengagement of border personnel at the #Doklam faceoff site. A release by India’s ministry of external affairs said:

In recent weeks, India and China have maintained diplomatic communication in respect of the incident at Doklam. During these communications, we were able to express our views and convey our concerns and interests.

On this basis, expeditious disengagement of border personnel at the face-off site at Doklam has been agreed to and is on-going.

.

The post Doklam: China’s War Drums and the India-Bhutan Treaty appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

If tolerance and acceptance are not part of the educational system of Iraq, what kind of future does that country have?

While ISIS has been uprooted from most of Iraq, years of bitter struggles and wars have deprived an entire generation in Iraq. According to the Iraqi Institution for Development, in ISIS controlled areas, subjects such as history, geography, literature, art and music were removed from the curricula. They were replaced by Islamic law, physical fitness and jihad education. Military training, religious extremism and recruitment to the terror group was a major component of the ISIS educational system.

For example, a book used for 6-year-old children was titled “The Islamic State is Remaining and Expanding.” The illustrations in this book show children using weapons and wearing ISIS attire. An ISIS math textbook asked children the number of explosives needed to kill a Shia Muslim or an unbeliever in a suicide bombing. Furthermore, the plus sign was eliminated for ISIS claims that it references the Christian cross. ISIS deprived students of basic components to deal with the modern world.

As a result of this curriculum, many Iraqi parents opted not to send their children to school. Also the children who attended ISIS schools are lagging behind in their education and are traumatized from the entire experience of having their childhood robbed from them. There are horror stories of ISIS taking school children to watch executioners crucify and behead people. Aid workers stress that these children have nightmares to date from this experience. As a result, Iraqi children who have been liberated from the yoke of ISIS are several years behind in their studies.

However, there is a huge question mark whether the Shia Popular Mobilization Units that have contributed to liberating Iraqis from ISIS will be much better. Iranian political theorist Reza Parchizadeh noted that Nouri Al-Maliki is close to the Iranian regime: “He incites hatred against Sunnis, Jews and Westerners and has influence on the educational system. It is natural that he should try to advertise the ideological Shiite values that are close to Tehran.”

A report in Al-Monitor also stressed how the Shia Popular Mobilization Units have already made inroads on Iraqi university campuses, where it is feared by some that they could seek to export the Iranian educational model to Iraq. One example of this was provided by Iranian dissident Mohsen Behzad Karimi, who stated that the Shia-led government is indoctrinating students to support martyrdom.

Iraq expert Gilgamesh Nabeel is more concerned about the plight of minorities under the Iraqi Government’s Educational system: “There is a concentration on Shiite Islamic figures. Minorities are marginalized in Iraq’s curriculum. This left students with total ignorance of their fellow citizens.

There is nothing on the Kurds in Iraq’s Central Government curricula. There is no single trace for the history of Christianity in Iraq. Nothing can be read on Yazidis and Mandeans. There is a concentration on the Islamic era in a way marginalizing even the ancient history of Mesopotamia to just a few chapters in the first intermediate grade. Besides, the Islamic look on non-Muslims might create a gap between Muslims and non-Muslims.”

In contrast, areas under the Kurdistan Regional Government teach children to be tolerant and to respect human rights as well as minority communities. As Kurdistan’s Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani proclaimed, “The KRG has been continually working, so that the education sector will have a modern and sophisticated system that is aligned with contemporary international standards, principles and values.” Kurdistan’s Minister of Education Pshtiwan Sadiq added: “Children in the Kurdistan Region are all taught in their mother tongue, depending on their heritage and location, which is a rare phenomenon.” Every year in the Kurdish educational system, they print materials in Armenian, Arabic, Turkamani, Kurdish and also for the Yezidis.

In addition, the KRG coordinated with the Education Ministry in order to avoid extremists having influence in the educational sector. 18 Islamic extremist books are banned in Kurdistan and some versions of the Koran that teach extremism were replaced with peaceful versions of the Quran in the Kurdish school system.

Even though the Kurdistan region has less money to invest in education than the Iraqi Central Government does due to the economic crisis, thanks to the KRG’s efforts, the illiteracy rate in Iraqi Kurdistan has shrunk between the years 2004 to 2017, down from 34 percent to 15 percent. At the same time, the number of students have risen from 534,962 students to a staggering 1,738,521 students. The number of teachers rose from 21, 389 to 136,302. And, the number of schools also increased from 1,320 to 6,789 schools. There are also 278 international schools are in Kurdistan. However, generally, the education sector is something public. It is totally free. To the contrary, ISIS charged students a fortune just to go to elementary school.

According to a UNICEF study, while the Iraqi government has more money to invest in education, the Kurdish educational system is better developed. This is largely due to the efforts of Kurdish Prime Minister Nichervan Barzani, who considers having a top quality education to be his main priority for a healthy education system means a developed society and community. In other words, as the educational system has worsened in Iraq in recent years due to the rise of Islamic extremism, the educational system in Iraqi Kurdistan has vastly improved since the Kurds gained autonomy. In addition, Kurdistan’s Prime Minister has financed giving a rehabilitation education to ISIS children in prison, where they will be able to catch up on their educational gap in special schools.

Having said that, we should remember that education reflects the values of a society. Therefore, looking at the messages conveyed by the educational system teaches us a lot about the beliefs which characterize a society. If tolerance and acceptance are not part of the educational system of Iraq, what kind of future does that country have?

The post Iraq’s Lost Generation: Indoctrinated to Hate appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.