Foreign Policy Blogs

The medium-term outlook in Spain is under pressure from three issues. Its politicians will have to act judiciously to avoid a constitutional crisis. 

Spain’s minority PP (Partido Popular) government has stuttered since October 2016. Despite the country’s relatively buoyant economic performance this year, the government is under continued pressure from three sides: Catalan separatism, corruption allegations and the durability of its economic recovery. Significant movement in one of these areas could change the country’s political calculus, and the wider region.

Mariano Rajoy’s conservative PP administration has been in power since 2011, and has been one of Europe’s foremost adherents of austerity. After years of painful cuts, however, Spain’s economy has registered 14 consecutive quarters of growth. This year it has exceeded expectations, had its IMF forecast upgraded, and is now the Eurozone’s fastest growing economy. If this trend continues time would appear to be on Rajoy’s side, if real incomes continue to rise ahead of the next election, nominally due in 2020.

What tempers this optimism is the unemployment rate. Although the figure (currently 17.2%) has dropped from an eye-watering 26.3% in 2013, including a steep fall this year, the figure is still unsustainable. There is also a suspicion that the recent improvement is due to temporary – not full-time – jobs, encouraged by the PP’s labour market reforms. The Spanish economy will need many more quarters of growth to bring this figure down, even into single digits. Meanwhile, pressure from Eurozone officials in Brussels is further limiting Spain’s fiscal room for manoeuvre. After receiving a reprieve from a financial penalty last year, the government will have to – and most likely achieve – a budget deficit under 3.1% of GDP in 2017.

Rajoy’s government probably wishes it could focus all its energies on the economy. Other crises, however, present mortal threats to its survival. Corruption scandals have plagued the PP for years. Rajoy became the first serving Spanish Prime Minister to testify in court on 26 July. He denied any knowledge of corruption in the PP. Nevertheless, as leader since 2004 and government minister 1996-2003 he is precariously close to the scandal, which is alleged to date back two decades. Former PP treasurer Luis Bárcenas is the most high profile political casualty so far. The charges include bribes, influence peddling and secret slush funds. Rajoy gave evidence in the so-called ‘Gürtel case’, which is linked to the Bárcenas affair. The PP minority government rely on support from Ciudadanos (Citizens), a new party founded in opposition to corruption and growing Catalan separatism. It is not inconceivable that the scandal could fell the government.

Source: Heritage Foundation, Index of Economic Freedom

The final – and potentially most serious – component of this trio of risks is an independence referendum in Catalonia. The Catalan regional parliament, led by Carles Puigdemont, of the pro-independence Catalan European Democratic Party (PDeCAT), has called a referendum on 1 October this year. The central government in Madrid has so far refused to recognise the legitimacy of any plebiscite, stating that it would contravene the 1978 constitution. Both sides seem set on a collision course, driven by brinkmanship. Despite the chaos caused by the Brexit referendum last year, the probability that Madrid would not recognise the result, and that even if independence was declared a fledgling Catalan state would be blocked from joining the EU, opinion polls are currently very close.

Catalonia exceeds the rest of Spain’s economic performance by every measure: higher growth, lower unemployment, higher GDP per capita. Catalan nationalists have eyed an almost perfect opponent in the PP government. Posters have started to appear around Barcelona making the link between a no vote in October and the Franco dictatorship. The current situation in Catalonia is the very essence of political risk. However Madrid choses to approach the referendum, a ‘Yes’ vote – even without recognition – would cause the dominos to fall in a most unpredictable manner.

Spain has registered steady economic growth since the depths of the financial and Eurozone crises. The country has implemented a number of reforms, demonstrating a flexibility less obvious in its other neighbours in South Europe. Nevertheless, Madrid will have to weather a number of other storms if this outward stability is to be maintained.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by Robert Ledger.

The post Three Problems Facing Spain’s Government Today appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Two memories come to mind when thinking about political divisions between neighbors and relatives and the violence that permeates when both sides accept totalitarian ideas as their norm. The death of former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafik Hariri, a man I was fortunate enough to hear speak in a small meeting, and a separate friend of mine from that same country that lamented factions in that society that sough political legitimacy through continued and unabated violence.

More than twelve years after the assassination of Hariri, Lebanon remains at the brink of another decade of sectarian violence while reasonable agents in Lebanese society beg all sides to remember the last few decades of violence and how it destroyed the country many times over.

Ideology in America today does not have decades of recent sectarian conflict to draw on for modern lessons, and may not be affected even if it did have those recent experiences. Ideology and intentional violence for the sake of violence often lives on the fringes, but ends with a meeting of minds or compromise in the middle. Fascism in all its forms ends with those who actually intend to build society and not continuously burn it to the ground.

The vast majority of us in the middle of the political divide are much like Ralph Fiennes’ characters in the movie Sunshine, where he plays generations from the same family with most of them succumbing to being executed or imprisoned without rights by those on the far right and then far left, just because he lived where he lived and via accusations against the political leanings of generations of his family. Fiennes shows that no matter what you do, think or say, fascists from both sides will label you and seek to dispose of you just because you exist in their world.

Societies that pull themselves to the extremes often have to ignore large swaths of reality to make the mental leap to self-abuse. The operation of actual slavery and organized death by way of rape and torture against many minorities in Iraq and Syria in an actual concentration camp style genocide is almost wholly ignored by international media. Actions done by actual Nazis are being repeated in our generation, and there is next to no response by the “Great Powers” of the world.

In addition, even victims of the genocide are blocked and almost wholly ignored by the international community as they beg to be claimed under otherwise generous refugee programs that by process ignore them as well. The cause of this came from sectarian factions in Iraq and Syria gaining a foothold into the mainstream. The lack of understanding of these issues comes with the almost complete absence of moderate voices from Iraq, and a strong and organized push to never find those voices in western media. An entire university education could be based on listening to those few people who lament violence in their countries, and the world would be better off with a real education that does not promote and legitimize political violence by any faction.

The post The Balkanization of American Society appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The lack of democracy and minority rights in Bangladesh hinder prosperity and stability within the country.

According to former US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, “If a country does not recognize minority rights, you will not have the kind of prosperity and stability that is possible.” The present reality in Bangladesh highlights that Clinton is correct about this. Former US Ambassador Samantha Power has argued that there is a connection between the economic situation being bad and the horrendous plight of minorities but Bangladesh shows that even if the economic situation is improving, without democracy and minority rights, the plight of the citizens living in that country will continue to be horrendous.

No one disputes that the economic situation has improved recently in Bangladesh with the World Bank calling the Bangladeshi economy stable and claiming that its growth continues to reduce poverty. In fact, some even argue that the plight of the poor in Bangladesh is said to be better than it is in India right now. However, the lack of minority rights and democracy within the country as highlighted by the sham 2014 election results, which illustrates that the country is far less stable and prosperous than it could be given this recent economic growth.

The root of Bangladesh’s ills rests with the lack of democracy. As the East Asia Forum observed in 2014, “The incumbent prime minister has always lost — until now. But now Bangladesh is entering a new phase. In a farce of an election on 5 January, Sheikh Hasina won a second consecutive term as prime minister. She laid the ground for this victory in 2011, by junking a provision added to the constitution in 1996 which had called for neutral, ‘caretaker’ governments to oversee elections. So Zia’s BNP, sitting in opposition, boycotted the poll. For the 20 million-odd voters who showed up (out of 92 million eligible), the choice was even more limited than usual: the only candidates were either in the ruling party or beholden to it. In the majority of seats, no voting took place at all. There is a big difference between two lousy candidates and just one.”

“Nor was the boycott the only problem,” they added. “Before the polling, the government had put Zia under house arrest. Ershad, who leads the third largest party, was held at an army hospital. The next-biggest party, the Jamaat-e-Islami, had been banned from taking part on the ground that its overtly Islamic charter is in breach of Bangladesh’s secular constitution. On the world stage, Sheikh Hasina has joined a short list of leaders who have been elected technically but without an electoral mandate. Like the rest, she has silenced critics in the media, captured the courts and ensured that only her supporters are entitled to a fair hearing.” Shipan Kumer Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, stressed that Sheikh Hasina has destroyed Bangladeshi democracy: “153 MP’s was selected out of 300 MP’s and they were not elected. It was just a joke within the nation.”

Alongside the suppression of Bangladeshi democracy, Sheikh Hasina’s government has been persecuting Hindus and Christians within the country. According to Basu, “After being elected in 1996, Sheikh Hasina made clear her stance regarding the minority issue that she’ll also follow her father Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s ideology to wipe out the minorities from Bangladesh.” He claimed that the conspiracy to wipe out the minorities from Bangladesh was initiated by Sheikh Hasina’s father during the Liberation War in 1971: “He first started to grab the lands of the minorities. A major portion of the Ramna Kali Temple’s (Hindu Temple) property were declared as government property and renamed ‘Ramna park’. Minority people were threatened and unnecessarily prosecuted. Women and girls were targeted during Sheikh Mujibur Rahman’s reign.”

Under Sheikh Hasina, he stressed that the Bangladeshi leader has initiated a policy to wipe out the country’s minorities within a decade or two: “Atrocities, terror, political suppression, rape, land grabbing and destroying places of worship belonging to the minorities is increasing day by day. The Awami League activists and the leaders are doing the evil deeds with the acknowledgement of Sheikh Hasina. It has become quite intolerable especially after the so-called election in 2014. The present government has become quite reckless. You’ll find both the local print and electronic media containing news of killings, rape, land grabbing, death threats, and abductions by the law enforcement agencies as well as judicial harassment, etc. There is no democratic atmosphere at all in our country now.”

There are countless examples of this within Bangladesh. One recent case is that of Haji Ishak Miyan, who was given land to be developed by 3 Christian women. Miyan decided to take the land without paying these women for developing it. To make matters worse, he has threatened to shoot the three Christian ladies like birds with the help of the local Awami League. According to Basu, the ladies have given him a legal notice but got no response and now, they have nowhere to turn to. Also recently, a 12-year-old minority girl was raped by Eliyas Mallik and most of the murderers of Bishwajit Das were either acquitted or received reduced sentences following appeals. Das was a 26-year-old tailor who was murdered by student activists of the Awami League merely for walking by an anti-government demonstration on his way to work.

However, Basu emphasized that the opposition is not much better than the Awami League. According to him, when they controlled Bangladesh, they took revenge on the minority communities for they generally supported the Awami League even though they got nothing in return for their support: “One of the widely discussed persecutions occurred in Bagerhat district (my home district). The local BNP leaders conducted land grabbing, fish project looting, killing missions, destroyed Hindu temples and the Hindu girls and women were raped, which was led by the local MP of BNP named Silver Salem and his younger brother Salam. Mr. Salam is now the District President of BNP. So, BNP can never be the safe shelter for the minorities of Bangladesh.”

Given this reality, one might ponder, what should the minorities of Bangladesh do? Basu argues that the Bangladeshi minorities have to explore fresh options: “They should realize that both the Awami League and BNP are the same for them. Fleeing to India to save themselves is not the solution. Do they have a better life in India? The answer is no.

People accept changes when they find better opportunities. But fleeing to India, leaving their beloved motherland, is not a solution at all. They have to live as refugees of India as long as they live. The minorities will have to fight back. We must live equally and practice our rights and religious freedoms simultaneously as the majority of the nation. The ideology of communal harmony should be strong where all should live together and practice their religions side by side. We want a political party that will protect us from this dreadful situation that we are living now. We will have to choose a party that supports our cause of living in peace and harmony in our own motherland. This is the only option left for the minorities of Bangladesh.”

The post The Persecution of Christians and Hindus in Bangladesh appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

China is plagued by a growing water security crisis and its current solutions are far from sufficient. The reverberations of this crisis have already had global implications, notably encouraging the Arab Spring. Further, as the crisis worsens, national, regional, and global political and economic instability will grow.

China has an age-old imbalance. Its agricultural core is in the North whilst its water resource is in the South. As of 2014, North China holds two thirds of Chinese agriculture but only one fifth of its water.  The rise of Mao in 1952 and an interventionist political ideology has cemented this chronic structural issue in the Chinese economy.

Contemporary developments are further pressuring China’s water economy as rapid economic growth has sucked-in water. Agriculture and industry account for 85% of water usage. China has 20% of the world’s population but only 7% of its freshwater resource and a rapidly growing middle class with water-demanding lifestyles; the average hamburger takes 2400 litres to produce. In 2014, eleven out of thirty-one Chinese provinces did not meet the World Bank’s water needs criteria of 1500m3 per person; in 2015 in Beijing for example, water provisions amounted to only 100m3.

China’s artificially low pricing of water has encouraged poor water management by creating a disjuncture between actual and market water prices, promoting highly inefficient use in industry and agriculture, and persistent pollution of scarce freshwater supplies. A 2009 World Bank report stated that China was using ten times more water per unit of production than the average industrialised country, and that pollution has made the water in 19% of main rivers and 35% of reservoirs useless for agriculture and industry.

Climate change exacerbates this situation. The melt-water from the Qinghai-Tibetan Plateau significantly feeds the Yangtze and Yellow Rivers; the Yangtze alone supports 584 million people and serves an economic zone that constitutes 42% of GDP. According to The State Laboratory of Cryospheric Sciences in China, run off into the Yangtze decreased by 13.9% during the 1990s.

China’s principal solution has been to commission the very high profile South-North Water Diversion Project, inspired by Chairman Mao. In 1952, Mao stated, “[The country’s] South has lots of water, the North has less, if it were possible, it could borrow a little”.  The core of the project is a 1200 km canal stretching from the Yangtze to Beijing.  It is a political showcase that is temporarily averting crisis by addressing the symptoms rather than the cause, but at a cost of $62 billion, it is an expensive breather that will not resolve the problem.

By facilitating massive water transportation, China is reinforcing an artificial economy. It is encouraging water-intensive industry and agriculture, and promoting a downward spiral of strengthening an insatiable demand whilst failing to combat system inefficiencies.  Long term, this project, combined with state-induced low water prices, climate change, and population and economic growth, will perpetuate economic and water scarcity in Northern China.

China has made strides to find innovative solutions to its water issues. Since April 2015, it has experimented with pioneering urban designs to solve flooding and water shortages, launching a‘sponge city’ program in 16 cities and districts to retain rain water. The Water Pollution Prevention and Control Action Plan, announced in 2015, set targets to improve specific polluting industries and has had some success; 50,000 offending companies have shut down or halted operations.  Nonetheless, critics have questioned the effectiveness of enforcement. Ma Jun, Director of the Institute of Public and Environmental Affairs, said many factories did not comply and local governments carried out the easier aspects of the legislation rather than tackling larger, more complex problems.  However, these are small solutions to a very major problem.  Experts predict that, if China carries on with business as usual, water supply will outstrip demand by 2030.

Water security issues will have a severe impact on domestic economic stability in the long term. In China, 45% of GDP is in regions that have a similar water resource per capita as the Middle East. China’s electricity generation is reliant on water, as it is estimated that 45% of fresh-water reliant power generation facilities are in water-stressed provinces.  Further, many water-intensive industries, such as fibres and metals, generate 51% of their output in water scarce regions. China’s global competitiveness will likely be affected as industry, agriculture, and municipal use compete internally and with each other.  Businesses should contemplate a future of water price hikes, supply disruptions, pollution, and increased regulation, and seek the opportunities presented by innovative business solutions to solve Chinese water-security issues.

As throughout history, any water-induced economic instability will have significant political implications, nationally, regionally, and, given China’s significance, globally. This has already occurred. The 2011 winter-drought in China’s Eastern wheat-growing province forced China to purchase vast volumes of wheat on international markets. This caused a doubling of global wheat prices. Quickly, a hungry Middle East and North Africa were convulsing in the Arab Spring; in Tunisia, Yemen, and Jordan, protesters waved baguettes in protest, while in Egypt, people were crying out for “bread, freedom, and social justice” (it rhymes in Arabic).

As China moves rapidly away from staple food self-sufficiency, the globalisation of China’s water-security crisis is a serious issue. Such a danger has not gone unnoticed; a report by the USA’s National Intelligence Council registered Chinese water and food shortages, predicted to occur by 2030, as a threat. The implications for the global economy if China’s economy stutters, given it is predicted to account for 17.2% of it by 2025, are self-evident.

As politicians, leaders, investors, and businesses, but ultimately as people, China will wrestle with this challenge, but the world must also take heed of China’s water-security.  The dry throat of the Chinese dragon may induce more than just a sneeze.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by Ben Abbs.

The post Domestic and Global Shocks of the Growing Water Crisis in China appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Trump once labelled NAFTA, “the worst trade deal maybe ever signed anywhere”. This month, he unveiled the NAFTA negotiating agenda, providing a template for trade negotiations yet to occur with other countries – such as China, Germany, and Japan. With an emphasis on tackling tax systems and removing barriers to the US agriculture and manufacturing industries, Asian negotiators will be watching closely.

As the United States Customs and Border Protection prepares to begin construction on the first segment of President Trump’s infamous border wall with Mexico, his administration is anticipating raising trade barriers with their beleaguered southern neighbor.

Trump’s blunt mercantilism, however, risks pushing both Mexico and Canada into China’s open arms. Both countries have already expressed interest in signing a deal with China, and China has reciprocated. With North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) negotiations set to begin in August, they have the potential to tilt the global trade balance even further away from Trump.

Given that Trump has defined his mantle, in terms of reducing deficits with a number of major trade partners, including China, Japan, and the EU, the negotiations provide a crucial glimpse into US trade policy moving forward. The US currently runs trade deficits with nine of its 10 top trading partners; last year, it ran a trade deficit of USD 728 billion, ranging from USD 347 billion with China and USD 146 billion with the EU, to USD 63 billion with Mexico.

According to Trump, the deficits are undoubtedly tied to exploitative trading partners, a misplaced trust on the part of an open US economy, and widespread currency manipulation. Earlier this month, the Trump administration released its broad goals for a new and improved NAFTA, demanding increased exports of its dairy products, wine and grains; opened trade in telecommunications and online purchases; an entirely new dispute settlement mechanism; greater access for US banks abroad; and new guidelines for currency manipulation.

There is much riding on an equitable outcome from the negotiations: over 80 percent of Mexico’s trade is with the US, for Canada the figure is closer to 70 percent. There can be no doubt that Canadian and Mexican negotiations face a long, drawn-out battle ahead.

What Trump may have failed to take into account, however, is China’s rising attractiveness as a global consumer and trading partner. As one of the world’s largest oil importers, China is is keen to start talks with Canada over a free trade deal. At the same time, Canada is reaching out to Asian economies in an effort to reduce its trade dependence on the US, as Trump’s unpredictable brand of protectionism keeps economists and corporations guessing.

During a recent visit to Beijing, Canadian Governor General vowed to boost bilateral cooperation between the two countries; and the Ontario Premier has already scheduled her third trade mission to China for November this year. Last month, the two countries signed a bilateral security agreement regarding intellectual property, trade secrets and other confidential commercial information, an agreement may indicate a greater commercial alignment to come.

Mexico has been more explicit about its options regarding the NAFTA negotiations, pointing to an upcoming visit by Mexican officials to China as a sign that the dance card of Latin America’s second largest economy is far from waning. China’s ambassador to Mexico has also hinted at the possibility of a future free-trade agreement with Mexico, citing “no difficulty” from China’s side in broadening ties between the two countries.

Though a trade deal between the two countries would result in lower tariffs, which is a tough sell for Mexican manufacturing jobs, uncertainty over US-Mexico relations would mean that Mexico is accelerating trade talks with other partners, and China might just want a piece of the action.

As the Trump administration goes after China’s trade practices, they risk alienation, as world leaders appear determined to forge ahead with global trade liberalization. The potential impact on major US industries, and the corresponding opportunities for Chinese trade negotiators, is incalculable.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by Joanna Eva.

The post NAFTA Negotiations will Extend China’s Influence in North America appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Since the 1990s, numerous Islamist groups have emerged in Algeria, but over the years their allegiances and identities have shifted according to geopolitical trends. The Islamic State is the latest group to gain a presence in the country, but it has faced a pushback as the Algerian authorities are no strangers to counterterrorism.

On June 1st, south of the capital Algiers, gunmen attacked a gendarmerie wounding four policemen. It was reported that the attack was orchestrated by individuals acting on behalf of the Islamic State. It was just the latest in a string of incidents which have occurred in Algeria this year. Other high profile attacks claimed by the group include a thwarted suicide attack by two men in the city of Constantine in April, and two months before this a jihadist tried to enter a police station in the centre of the city. On this occasion, a police man on duty succeeded to disarm the bomber’s suicide device by firing on it and the perpetrator was shot.

According to a 2015 report by the US Department of State, some of the most active Islamist groups operating within Algeria include: Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM); the Mali-based organisation Movement for United and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO); al-Murabitoun, which was responsible for the 2013 attack on the In Amenas gas facility in southern Algeria and Jund al-Khilafa (Soldiers of the Caliphate), which has declared its allegiance ISIS. However, it is estimated that there are many small groups scattered across Algeria´s southern and eastern borders, which each to varying degrees have declared their loyalty to ISIS.

In light of the Islamic State defeats in Iraq and Syria, many foreign fighters are seeking to return home. Unlike in Tunisia or Morocco, where hundreds of young men have been drawn to the fighting, Algerians have proven less susceptible. In fact less than 200 are said to have travelled to the region to fight under Islamic State´s banner. In Algeria, those who have chosen to align themselves with ISIS have often spent years in the field fighting. The group’s operations faced a setback last year after 332 people were arrested across the country for belonging to recruitment and support networks. Nevertheless dampening the desire for young Algerian men to take up radical causes can be difficult given the high rate of unemployment and social inequity that has beset the country for decades. One commentator has noted that Algeria’s only hope going forward is that there is a surge in the price of oil. Currently, the government is required to pay $30 billion USD in subsidies which cover everything from food to education.

However many contend that what is helping to undermine the threat of the Islamic State is that many Algerians carry the memory of the brutal civil war of the 1990s in which an estimated 200,000 people died. The might of the security force also plays a significant role, as the Algerian military consists of over half a million active service members and a national police force of 210,000. They have learnt to cope with the ‘residual’ terrorism that has continued despite efforts in the early 2000s to grant amnesty to Islamist fighters. The country´s Ministry of National Defense denies publicity to militants by purposely refusing to list group affiliations in communiques regarding arms seizures or anti-terror operations. More broadly, the Algerian government is working to support young Algerians by providing tuition, job placements and paid internships, which is part of a deradicalization program.

While the government continues to address the threat internally, the challenge for the Algerian security forces is controlling the country’s porous 4000 mile border and the mountainous terrain in the north east, which has proven ideal since the early 1990s for Islamist guerrillas. To counter this, Algeria actively participates in the US-backed Trans-Sahara Counterterrorism Partnership (TSCTP), which aims to strengthen counterterrorism capabilities among states in the Maghreb and the Pan Sahel region. While such programs are certainly designed to assess the changing nature of the threat across North Africa, for the government of Algeria, what remains certain for the foreseeable future is whether Algerian mujahideen choose to fight under the banner of the Islamic State or Al-Qaeda, the tactics and strategies they adopt remain the same.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by Emily Boulter.

The post Algeria’s Battle Against Terror appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) released its annual 2017 World Press Freedom Index which revealed Taiwan as the top place among other Asian countries and ranks no. 45 in the world (nations in black are the least free). (RSF)

In the quest for geopolitical influence, soft power can often augment a nation’s traditional hard power resource of a strong military. The concept of soft power, often associated with Harvard professor Joseph Nye, has been defined as “a persuasive approach to international relations, typically involving the use of economic or cultural influence.” Nations have long used economic incentives or foreign aid to win friends internationally, and the widespread popularity of a nation’s culture, such as Hollywood movies and South Korean pop culture, can also contribute to positive images of a country.

While nations may seek positive images in the quest for soft power, oftentimes the opposite occurs, and nations lose soft power. Two recent examples include the U.S., where the new president has yet to gain the confidence of the majority of the public. According to a new Pew Research Center survey spanning 37 nations, a median of just 22% have confidence in Trump to do the right thing when it comes to international affairs, and favorable views of the U.S. have fallen from 64% to 49%. Inside the U.S., 53% of voters disapprove of the job President Trump’s doing, according to a new Fox News Poll. 

Over in China, President Xi Jinping’s numbers are not much better, with a 28% of those world citizens polled believing Xi would do the right thing regarding world affairs. The reasons behind this low polling are varied, but are arguably influenced by the detention of human rights activist and Nobel Peace Prize laureate Liu Xiaobo, who called for political reforms and died on July 13 in custody.

 One nation which recently gained some soft power, whose status remains a bone of contention among Washington and Beijing, is Taiwan. The decision by Reporters Without Borders (Reporters Sans Frontières) to open its first Asian regional headquarters in Taipei, is a stark departure from original plans to locate in Hong Kong. In explaining its decision, RSF (an advocate for press freedom) cited concerns over increasing media control in Hong Kong and potential infiltration by spies from mainland China.

According to RSF’s global rankings last year, Taiwan has now become the freest country on the Asian continent. At a news conference in Taipei last month, announcing the official launch of RSF, its secretary-general Christophe Deloire said “Taiwan is pure evidence that democracy and press freedom are possible in Chinese culture, and that is really one of the strongest arguments against claims by Beijing authorities their system is really adapted to Chinese culture.”

Soft power gains, such as the location of RSF to Taipei, can in part offset other losses (the recent loss of diplomatic recognition of Taiwan by countries like Panama), are often cost-effective compared to risky foreign investment, and should continue to be pursued as an effective tool in augmenting hard power.

The post Soft Power Gain for Taiwan appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Photo Credit: KRG)

On this day, the international community marks the Yezidi genocide. On August 3, 2014, 40,000 Yezidis got stranded on Mount Sinjar. Since that date, horrific stories of sexual slavery, massacres and torture have emerged from the women who managed to escape from ISIS’ grip. On the first day of the genocide, 1,293 people were killed. From the first day of the genocide till the 15th of August, 2014, 6,470 people were kidnapped.

According to Kurdish Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani, who delivered a speech on the Yezidi Genocide Memorial Day, the Kidnapping Affairs Office (which is part of the Kurdistan’s Prime Minister’s Office) has managed to rescue 3,092 out of this number with 1,102 of them being women, 335 of them being men and 840 being girls under 18. Kharai Barzani, who represents the Yezidis in the Religious Affairs Ministry and supervises the Kidnappings Office, stressed that 1,600 Yezidi children were trained by ISIS in two ways. They received either ISIS Islamic instruction or military training. Nechirvan Barzani has succeeded to rescue some of them but others are still in ISIS captivity.

Kharai Barzani added that the Yezidi officials asked everyone to help them with the rescue efforts. Nechirvan Barzani opened up a case and that case became an office. Some Yezidis work there to rescue their kidnapped brethren: “We called everyone to help with the rescue efforts but no one came in the international community except Nechirvan Barzani, who has financed the rescue of Yezidis.” On the anniversary of the Yezidi Genocide, Barzani met with 30 girls in Duhok who were rescued by him in order to hear their stories and to ask about their needs.

Kharai Barzani blames the international community for not helping the Yezidis enough: “What happened to the Yezidis is genocide by all definitions. The international community did not do anything to rescue them. Even when Nechirvan Barzani rescues people, the international community does not come to help them. Sinjar is in our zone till now. The Shia militias are also there. Turkey also bombarded the place for the PKK is there. We call on the international community to help.”

However, the lack of response from the international community is not the only issue facing the Yezidis in their struggle to have their genocide recognized. Hussin Hassam is the Yezidi representative for the High Governmental Commission on the Yezidi Genocide that was established by Nechirvan Barzani: “Our commission visited the ICC and a lot of other international organizations to push the international community to recognize as genocide the crimes committed against the Yezidis. Unfortunately, we have been facing a lot of issues for the government in Baghdad is not cooperating with KRG in seeking global international justice for Iraq is not willing to bring groups to The Hague. We need to make a declaration to get the ICC to start a criminal case for these cases and that is why the Prime Minister has decided to do everything possible for the establishment of a special international court like in Rwanda.”

Because not all of the areas where ISIS committed crimes are under the KRG control presently and because the government in Baghdad is not cooperating, the KRG presently is forced to only begin a case regarding what happened in the southern side of the Sinjar Mountains: “This case is still open. We are trying to do our best to get a judicial ruling. We have gotten a lot of recognition of it as a genocide but so far, it was political for it was done by governments and international organizations. However, the KRG wants a judicial case.”

“The KRG still feels the pain of what happened three years ago,” Prime Minister Nechirvan Barzani said. “The KRG will do its best to reduce the pain of what happened to our beloved Yezidis. The acts of ISIS went beyond all cruelty.” Nechirvan Barzani emphasized that it was the Iraqi army that failed the Yezidis and other peoples of Nineveh in 2014 by running away instead of fighting ISIS: “It is clear to all that fighting terrorism and protection in Nineveh was the responsibility of the Iraqi forces. They had advanced weapons and all they needed. But when five Iraqi army divisions took off their uniform and ran away, they left behind the best and most advanced weapons to ISIS which they used to attack the Nineveh plains and the beloved Shingal region in particular.” The Prime Minister said that the arms Peshmerga had in possession were no match for the advanced weaponry ISIS had just seized from the Iraqi army: “When ISIS came with those weapons, they were more advanced than our Peshmerga. And with the old weapons they had in their hands, there was no way the Peshmerga could defend Shingal.”

According to Mahma Khalil, the PKK is inhibiting the rebuilding of the Sinjar Region today, stressing that some people cannot go back to their lands due to the PKK creating issues for them. Khalil emphasized that some people are also afraid since the PKK kidnaps children and trains them to join their group. For this reason, between the Shia Militias and the PKK, the Yezidi people in Mount Sinjar are not able to rebuild their lives in their ancestral homeland.

The post Remembering the Yezidi genocide appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On the road of corruption, there must often be a mechanism or legal shield in order to protect past crimes by individuals, parties or governments that have had their hands in the public purse for their personal gain or that of their party.

Silence may not protect high ranking politicians and corrupt community leaders from prosecution if public outrage and activist judicial authorities are able to break through the barrier of silence and power and find those who have committed crimes against the public interest. Brazil is an example where the powerful have been tied to corrupt practices, and while not a perfect and wholly agreed upon solution, moves towards de-legitimizing corruption in Brazil has begun.

Often the concentration of power to one individual or party comes with the presentation of actions that will improve the public good. Altering an election system to make individual votes more balanced is something that any citizen of any country would approve of, but when it installs one party and one President or Prime Minister indefinitely by legal means, it de-legitimizes the law and assures that a small cabal of powerful people has almost total control of the society with no effective means to remove them from power. In many cases, these actions come on the heels of issues linked to corruption or are formalized in a manner that protects powerful politicians from being subject to transparency.

Another abuse of power that often follows this normalization of corruption is that opposition to the government change in policy is labelled and ostracized so they lose legitimacy in their perspective, or in some cases are outright arrested for working against the state itself.

There are no true international mechanisms to assure that elections will not install corrupt governments when the national legal framework is changed to suit the powerful few over the public. An international standard of legal alterations that would avoid the absolute corruption of a legal and political system would be useful, but would require unified and legitimate political will.

Venezuela as a case in point has legalized a committee that will change their constitution to make it into one that permits a concentration of power into a one party state. Protests have been met with violence, and with the current government’s stockpile of advanced weapons over the last twelve years, there is a good chance that Venezuela will resemble the 2009 mass protests in Iran, with their own Neda and silence from the international community. In 2017, it seems as if international crimes and the natural response to promote justice are limited by illegitimate legal power in places like Venezuela, and silence from most international media while local media is threatened and imprisoned.

This combination guarantees that the worst elements of dictatorships almost always succeed in our current generation.

The post Venezuela is on the Road to a One Party State appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

North Korea has proven  its determination once again to fulfill its aspiration as a self-proclaimed Nuclear Power State with a new ballistic test on July 27th. These tests marked the 64th anniversary of the signing of the Korean armistice. According to the US Department of Defense, an intermediate-range missile Hwasong-14 traveled 620 miles from a Jagang base before landing into the Sea of Japan, within Japan’s exclusive economic zone.

This test represents a new challenge to Washington, after Pyongyang conducted its first successful ICBM test last July 1st, which proved that the regime has now reached a new and dreadful stage in the acquisition of preemptive first strike capabilities. Despite the initial predictions, under Kim Jong-un’s leadership, the quest for nuclear weapons has achieved significant breakthroughs. The regime has reached an unprecedented level of sophistication in a number of vital areas, including the development of solid-duel rocket engines and the expansion of mobile launch capabilities.

While Pyongyang has made important progress in the acceleration of its intercontinental range ballistic missile program, North Korea’s regime pushes towards the acquisition of the miniaturization technology considered critical to arm a nuclear warhead. The nation could plausibly achieve this milestone in early 2018 as reported by an anonymous CNN source.

Many observers consider this new test additional evidence about Pyongyang’s determination to deliver a “stern warning to Washington in response to any attempt to alter the peninsula status quo”. North Korea’s warmongering to annihilate the U.S. could now be more than an empty threat since it appears that Pyongyang has acquired the capabilities to hit major cities beyond the West Coast. There is the possibility that the range of the North Korean missile could potentially reach New York City and Washington DC, fostering concerns over Pyongyang’s aggressive intentions.

In the aftermath of the recent missile test, two B-1B Bomber Jets have been deployed to the Korean peninsula, joining Japanese and South Korean fighter jets for training exercise purposes. The United States have also tested the Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD) system in Alaska by launching a mock ballistic missile in the Pacific Ocean to prove their ability to repel any incoming threat, and to inspire its allies over Washington’s adamant commitment to contrast any further expansion of Pyongyang’s nuclear threat.

The U.S. Pacific Air Forces Commander, Gen. O’Shaughnessy has warned North Korea that the U.S. may “respond with rapid, lethal and overwhelming force at a time and place of our choosing”, highlights that the defiant regime is getting close to Washington’s redline. Meanwhile, UN Ambassador Haley has stressed that the U.S. could pursue a different pact, including the deployment of “consistent military forces”, rather than relying on the UN Security Council to consider further actions. Washington has expressed its frustration several times for its inability to produce consistent results through conventional diplomatic tools to rein in Pyongyang, even acknowledging two decades of failed attempts to denuclearize North Korea.

Over the years, North Korea’s militaristic propaganda has several times made threats to Washington about serious military retaliations in response to any incoming threat to the survival of the Kim’s dynasty. Amid the growing tensions in the Korean peninsula, Pyongyang has further stressed and justified its path toward the acquisition of nuclear capabilities as a tool to achieve the natural vocation of the DPRK as a nuclear power nation as enshrined in its Constitution. The ultimate strategy is to further consolidate its position and eventually force Washington to normalize relations.

During the Obama Administration, Pyongyang offered a peace treaty to formally end the Korean War in return for Washington’s commitment to renounce the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, a de facto recognition of Pyongyang’s nuclear power status. Such a proposal was promptly rejected by Washington, urging for the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula as a prerequisite for restarting any new negotiation.

North Korea has become one of the most pressing priorities for the Trump Administration. Its resolution to tame the belligerent regime under the auspices of Beijing has so far produced little results. Trump’s Administration has also expressed its regrets for China’s limited efforts to curb North Korea’s nuclear program, calling for a more radical engagement in restraining Pyongyang’s nuclear ambitions. Since the Trump Administration took office, regular promises to“take care” of the North Korea issue have characterized the very last days of the previous “strategic patience” strategy.

Trump Administration’s initial entente with China and its attempts to convince Beijing to fully recalibrate its North Korean policy have not produced the expected results, raising tensions culminated in the recent threats of waging a trade war against China. Despite this, Beijing has expressed its frustration for not being able to regain control of the former communist ally, the Chinese leadership remains committed to preventing the collapse of the North Korean regime and the marked geo-strategic alteration that could emerge from the ashes of the hermit kingdom under the auspices of Washington.

Due to the increasing level of North Korea’s nuclear assertiveness, the discussion over a military intervention in the Korean Peninsula has become a recurring topic. The consequence of a military action would certainly expose Washington and its close allies to major retaliation, not to mention the disruption of the fragile balance of the regional security architecture.

Kim Jong-un’s decision to pursue nuclear development along with economic expansion has characterized his personal agenda (byungjin policy) leaves no doubts that the international sanctions and diplomatic pressure from China would not alter the direction taken by the North Korean leadership. North Korean leadership considers itself constantly exposed to foreign attack or internal coup that could destitute Kim’s family sharing the fate of other authoritarian regimes such as Ghaddafi’s Libya in the wake of his decision to abandon the nuclear program in return of expected economic aids under  Washington’s pressure.

North Korea’s regime is now one of the most immediate threats to US national security and also an additional challenge for the Trump Administration, constantly engaged in redefining the contours of American strategic architecture in the Asia-Pacific region. Albeit, Washington remains adamant in instilling faith in its closer allies towards its strategic commitment in the region while confronting the growing threat represented by the North Korean regime, the risk of igniting a conflict in the region, whose catastrophic effects could far outweigh the removal of Kim’s dynastic rule, must be avoided.

The post North Korea’s ICBM Test Jeopardizes Regional Balance of Power appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Chariman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff/Flickr

As President of France, Emmanuel Macron has revived the “Grande Nation” more quickly than even he could have imagined: France was recently declared the world’s top soft power for 2017, outranking both the US and the UK for the first time.

After Donald Trump’s recent visit to join Macron for the French National Day celebrations in Paris, the ranking is not too surprising. Less than two months after the handshake heard ‘round the world, Macron’s flattering reception of his American counterpart was apparently enough to paper over the rift the French president himself opened in previous meetings. Having asserted his independence for the sake of his domestic audience, Macron treated Trump (who is easily impressed by displays of military power) to the annual parade on the Champs-Élysées and dinner atop the Eiffel Tower.

Macron has a reputation for deft political maneuvering, and inviting Trump to Paris was the latest example. During the visit, Trump not only retracted his earlier Paris-bashing but even suggested that “something could happen” on the Paris climate agreement. What is that something? For now, only Trump knows. More important is the fact Macron has turned Paris into Washington’s primary European point of contact… all while re-elevating the role of France in global affairs.

Macron’s nascent relationship with Trump, however, comes at the expense of other traditional American partners in Europe and most especially the UK. The success of Macron’s overtures has surely come as a slap in the face to Theresa May. After all, the British prime minister has invested considerable time and political capital on forging a relationship since well before Macron even became president.

Those efforts started well before Trump’s inauguration, when May responded to Trump’s victory with unequivocal congratulations to the President-elect. Just days after he took office, May became the first world leader to visit President Trump at the White House in Washington. May has repeatedly hitched her wagon to Trump’s by insisting that the US & UK can “lead, together, again.”

As of now, she has very little to show for it. Because the prospect of his coming to London has been met with hostility from the British public, Trump has written off any state visit to the UK until next year at the earliest. Trump upped the ante after leaving Paris by reportedly refusing to come until Theresa May can assure him a similarly warm welcome in the UK.

That Trump can so easily shift his affinities between Britain and France, at the very moment contentious negotiations over the Brexit he supported get underway, is a jarring reminder to Downing Street that Trump is both fickle and unreliable in his priorities. Trump’s constantly changing views on a UK-US trade deal, a cornerstone of the British government’s post-Brexit planning, should be most worrying.

In April, Trump’s commerce secretary indicated a trade deal with the UK was a low priority for the administration and argued that a deal with the EU was more important. This month, Trump himself reversed course and opined that a trade deal with the UK would be completed “very, very quickly”. On Tuesday, he promised that the US-UK special relationship would be “even better” – in between tweets attacking his own Attorney General and joking that his young son would soon be testifying in the Russia investigations.

And yet, despite her American counterpart’s constant unpredictability, May keeps putting high hopes in Trump and puts her own credibility on the line to defend his erratic behavior. Embroiled in the intricacies of Brexit, there is a real danger of Theresa May getting herself “stuck in the pending tray.” With Trump distracted by his troubles at home, she would be better off not counting on a UK-US FTA any time soon. Her best move (at least as far as life after Brexit is concerned) would be to focus on the UK’s alternative options.

It’s fortunate that she has several to choose from. Following extensive visits by UK government officials to the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC), GCC states and major British trade partners like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates have reacted positively to the idea of forming free trade agreements with the UK. Both countries are looking for investments to realize deep economic restructuring, and annual exports from Britain to the GCC already total about £30 billion.

As the largest member of the bloc, Saudi Arabia is at the forefront of British attention to the region. The Saudis welcomed Theresa May to Riyadh in April to talk trade and the upcoming IPO of Saudi Aramco (in London, if May has her way). London recently published new rules to facilitate the listing of foreign state-owned firms at the London Stock Exchange as part of its bid for Aramco’s public offering. Both May and Cabinet officials like Liam Fox have endorsed Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030 economic program, of which the Aramco IPO is a significant component.

Besides the Gulf states, former British colonies like Australia and India have also been much more consistent in quickly reaching agreements once the UK is outside the European Union. Australian PM Malcolm Turnbull used a joint press conference with May two weeks ago to tell reporters he is ready to sign a free trade agreement with London “as quickly as the UK is able to move” after Brexit. India has hinted that an ongoing visa issue for qualified workers needs to be resolved for negotiations to take off in earnest, but Narendra Modi is still a much more straightforward interlocutor than Donald Trump.

As Brexit negotiations get dicey, Theresa May and her government will need to be able to point to tangible steps forward. The current political climate in the US is hardly amenable to “quickly” coming to terms on a US-UK FTA – at least for now. May needs to focus on serious partners from other parts of the globe, at least until the instability in Washington comes to an end.

The post Theresa May’s Misplaced Bet on Donald Trump appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson meets with Russian President Vladimir Putin, 2011 (RBC)

As CNN reports, U.S. “companies from the oil, energy, banking, aerospace, auto and heavy manufacturing industries” have been lobbying against the new Russia sanctions legislation currently making its way through Congress, arguing that it could harm their business interests. Since the Trump administration’s efforts at weakening the bill appear to have failed, Russia is now pinning its hopes on opposition from U.S. corporations and from the European Union to avoid tightened U.S. sanctions.

In addition to new sanctions aimed at punishing Russia for its interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, human rights violations, and aggression toward Russia’s neighbors, the bill limits the president’s ability to ease sanctions without congressional approval. This sets up a tough choice for Trump: Sign the bill and accept limitations on his authority to control U.S. policy regarding Russia, or veto it and risk accusations that he is doing the Kremlin’s bidding. The “Trump-proof” sanctions bill has strong bipartisan support in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, and a Trump veto would further risk a humiliating override vote in Congress.

Russia views the bill “extremely negatively,” and Russian media have been quick to grasp at U.S. corporate opposition to tightened sanctions. For international audiences, corporate opposition to the bill has been reported in English at Pravda, Sputnik, and RT, emphasizing its potential harm to U.S. and international business interests. As these reports note, U.S. corporations opposing or seeking changes in the bill include ExxonMobil, General Electric, Boeing, Ford, Dow Chemical, Citigroup, Visa, and MasterCard.

ExxonMobil, incidentally, was recently fined $2 million by the U.S. Treasury Department for violating sanctions on Russia while current U.S. Secretary of State Rex Tillerson was the company’s CEO. While at ExxonMobil Tillerson met with Russian President Vladimir Putin numerous times following their first meeting in 1999, and condemned U.S. sanctions on Russia following Russia’s attack on Ukraine and annexation of Crimea in 2014. Tillerson’s former role at ExxonMobil and his relationship with Russia have raised conflict of interest concerns regarding his current role as Secretary of State. Tillerson has been vocal in his criticism of the current sanctions bill.

Reports in English from Russian media also note European Union concerns and warnings that “unintended consequences” may result from “unilateral tightening of Russia sanctions.” German Chancellor Angela Merkel is quoted calling the sanctions “a peculiar move” by the United States. Concerned particularly that tightened sanctions on Russia might impact Europe’s energy sector, the EU has indeed expressed alarm at the bill, urging the United States to coordinate sanctions with its European partners. EU opposition to tightened U.S. sanctions on Russia comes despite evident Russian interference in European as well as U.S. elections.

U.S. corporate opposition to tightened sanctions on Russia has also been widely reported in Russian-language media for domestic audiences. American industrialists are “tired of the persecution of Russia,” says Pravda TV, “and demand that their own business interests be protected.” Pravda TV also notes EU corporate opposition to tightened U.S. sanctions on Russia: “The presence of these restrictions for most business people on both sides of the Atlantic Ocean is a major headache. Business seeks to resolve this issue and return to traditional business relations.”

Russia’s interference in the 2016 U.S. election and suspicions regarding possible collusion between Russia and the Trump campaign have put considerable pressure on Congress and the White House to take strong measures against Russia. Both in Russia and in American and European corporate circles, however, the hope seems to be that multinational business interests will prevail over the interests of American democracy and national security.

The post Russia Pins Hopes on U.S. Corporations to Ease Sanctions appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Dilma Rousseff was impeached last year as the elected President of Brazil. The divide between her supporters and her opponents led to some of the largest political demonstrations in the country’s history. Michel Temer, who replaced President Rousseff, was suspected of being complicit in corrupt practices as well, and has recently been investigated and charged but still holds his position as President. Former popular President Inacio ‘Lula’ da Silva who was set to run again for Rousseff’s PT party was convicted recently under a corruption probe, and sentenced to ten years in prison.

Actions against corrupt practices coming out of the Petrobras scandal have placed many of Brazil’s political class under legal review. The judicial activists who had the courage and ability to go after corruption in the country have exposed the structural and institutional infestation of corruption in Brazil. While Brazil is not unique in being mired in corruption, the actions by some in its judiciary and government came from the anger of the people and the desire to end waste that had consistently burdened the citizens of Brazil.

The character of corruption is that once it takes hold, it is almost impossible to get rid of in any meaningful way. Because deep corruption is often embedded in the top tier of an organization, the practices to get ahead and be successful permeates the entire administrative structure from the top down. This makes it impossible to grow as an honest agent in that structure without acquiescing in some way to the new infected culture. Working against those practices often means coming from the outside and pairing with internal agents.

Such individuals often assume a great risk to their career in exposing the problems within their organization, and in most cases those whistle-blowers lose in the greater scheme of repairing or replacing corrupt agents in those organizations. Embedded corruption, often one that came with the creation of an agency is even more of a challenge, as the institutions and structures within are formed around a tradition of corrupt practices. When analyzing the challenge the judicial activists in Brazil had to confront in institutions that were built on generations of corrupt practices, it was shown that issues were present in most established control structures with many politicians and business leaders from many political parties in Brazil being found linked in their investigations.

Brazilians in many ways had no choice but to demand accountability, and it was evident that most of their political leaders were not in the moral position to pursue change. Fighting against corrupt practices was the only way to turn power and just policies back towards helping the average person in Brazil. Voting for political parties that have been tarnished by corrupt practices is the worst approach as it institutionalizes and legitimizes their illegal activity.

With no political betters, the courage and strength of Brazil’s judicial inquirers were placed in the position to investigate and apply legal solutions when most Brazilians likely assumed this possibility did not exist. Beyond abrupt revolutionary movements, removing corrupt practices is almost impossible. Even some of the least corrupt societies have trouble challenging institutionalized corrupt practices.

Brazil may just be fortunate to have a few who are able to change their country by reducing corruption via a positive and legitimate judicial approach, perhaps for the first time in their history.

The post Judicial Activism and the Fight Against Institutionalized Corruption appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Indonesian navy crew (right) check one of seven fishing boats destroyed in Batam, Kepulauan Riau province on February 22, 2016 (AFP Photo/Sei Ratifa)

With its announcement at a United Nations conference last month, Indonesia became the first nation to commit to publish the exact location and activity of its commercial fishing fleet.  The decision was announced at a U.N. conference on the ocean, and calls for Indonesia to publish Vessel Monitoring System (VMS) data on the mapping platform of Global Fishing Watch,  an independent 501c3 organization founded and supported by Oceana, SkyTruth, and Google.

Solely a tool of transparency, Global Fishing Watch allows citizens, journalists, researchers, commercial interests and governments to track some 60,000 fishing vessels in near real time, using satellite systems and publicly broadcast Automatic Identification System (AIS) signals from ships at sea.   AIS signals cover the majority of all industrial-sized commercial fishing vessels (those exceeding a capacity of 100 Gross Tons which average around 24 meters).  Smaller vessels are not required to carry AIS, though can be tracked using government-owned VMS data.

Indonesia’s announcement follows concerns over increased illegal fishing activity in the South China Sea, and several incidents of ramming between fishing vessels and coast guard vessels of various nations.  Indonesia, the second largest producer of wild-caught seafood in the world, will add some 5,000 vessels to the database of Global Fishing Watch.

Since Beijing claims some 90% of the South China Sea, many Chinese fishing boats operate in the exclusive economic zones of other countries with the support of Beijing.  Chinese officials often argue its fishing fleets are operating in “traditional Chinese fishing grounds,” a position which was recently refuted by an international court in The Hague under the 1982 United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) signed by China.

This position often draws the ire of countries such as Indonesia, which has been particularly tough on illegal fishing, following the appointment of Susi Pudjiastuti as Minister of Fisheries and Marine Affairs.  Susi has drawn widespread support from Indonesians for her crackdowns on illegal fishing, after years of the government downplaying incidents (especially  in 2010 and 2013) over concerns Beijing could cut investment in Indonesia.  

The decision by Indonesian authorities to support better fishing transparency may help prevent confusion over incidents such as last year’s ramming of an Indonesian Ministry of Fishery and Marine Affairs patrol ship by a Chinese coast guard vessel in March 2016.  According to media reports, a 300-ton Chinese fishing vessel had been illegally fishing about 4 kilometres off Indonesia’s Natuna island chain.  The Indonesian patrol ship confronted the Chinese fishing vessel, detained its crew, and proceeded to tow it to Indonesian shores.  Before they reached shore, a Chinese coast guard vessel came to the rescue, ramming the Chinese fishing boat, and eventually prying it free, boarding it, and sailing it away.  The Chinese Foreign Ministry argued the incident occurred within “traditional Chinese fishing grounds” and the Chinese coast guard ship assisted the seized Chinese fishing boat without entering Indonesian territorial waters.

Beijing is not expected to publish the location and activity of its commercial fishing fleet anytime soon, but other nations’ efforts toward greater transparency of their own fleets may help protect their fishermen when operating in their exclusive economic zones.  Indonesia’s intention to map its own fleet is an effort toward much-needed transparency, and by working with an independent organization, Jakarta could effectively set the standard in the South China Sea and shame any further efforts by Beijing to claim “traditional fishing grounds”.

The post Indonesia Leads the Way on Mapping Fishermen appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo Credit: Hindu Struggle Committee

In an exclusive interview, Shipan Kumer Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, described the ascent of ISIS in Bangladesh and how it poses a threat to the Hindu community.

Shipan Kumer Basu, the head of the Hindu Struggle Committee, stated in an exclusive interview that ISIS is on the ascent in Bangladesh and he blames the Bangladeshi government for this reality: “Many of the people who have gone to fight the Coalition Forces have returned. How many of them have been arrested by Sheikh Hasina’s government? Only a handful. These people are nurtured, protected and backed by Sheikh Hasina. They are used to spread terror and fear among the minorities.”

According to Basu, Sheikh Majubur Rehman, the father of Sheikh Hasina, always despised the minorities and Sheikh Hasina has vowed to follow in her father’s footsteps when she came into power: “So, her policy is to make Bangladesh free of the minorities. She has used ISIS in a very veiled and clandestine way. Although the US has time and again pointed out ISIS’s presence in Bangladesh, the government denies it. Within a few days of the denial, a police constable was murdered and ISIS claimed responsibility on their website. Another incident was of a person spreading leaflets of ISIS propaganda in the Bangladeshi capital city of Dhaka. Many ISIS members are from reputable families in the party leadership so there is no suspicion against them.”

Basu related that the attack upon a Dhaka café in July 2016, which left 28 people dead after hostages were held for 12 hours, permitted the truth to come out into the open. During that attack, local Islamists were the culprits: “How many has the government arrested or put behind bars? How many training camps are in Sheikh Hasina’s own Gopalguni district, where Hindus are now in a state of horror? I want to call upon the international community to prepare a report on the plight of Hindus in her district. The state has become a killing field for the minorities. With the government supporting terrorists and jihadists, Muslim fanatics have risen their ugly faces.”

“ISIS has forced Hindus to flee from their ancestral homeland,” he stressed. “There is massive land grabbing, torture, rape, murder, the destruction of Hindu temples and gods, the threatening of Hindu priests and even the killing of Hindu priests. It is all the handiwork of ISIS jihadists. Forced conversion is another ploy to diminish the minorities. Forcefully, they have converted many Hindu women and girls.”

Basu emphasized that the modus operandi of ISIS in Bangladesh has changed: “They have now merged with local operatives because ISIS was declared an international terror organization. So, all of their activities are covert. They camouflage themselves with the ruling parties rank and file and Islamic extremist groups. Due to this, they have kept up their dreadful activities at ease. Even if an arrest is made, it is classified as a local minor incident and small charges are made against the terrorist. No stringent anti-terror law is applied. Dr. Abul Barakat, a Dhaka University Professor, said that if the cleansing of minorities continue in the present way, there will be no more Hindu minorities left in Bangladesh in 30 years.”

The post Hindu rights activist: “Bangladesh is now infested with ISIS” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

U.S. President Donald Trump meets with South Korean President Moon Jae-in (left) at the White House in Washington, DC on June 29. (Yonhap)

U.S. President, Donald Trump and South Korean President, Moon Jae-in, wearing similar-tone-bearing blue ties reaffirmed their ‘ironclad’ commitments to the U.S.–ROK ‘blood alliance’. During a joint press conference, held in the White House Rose Garden on June 30, the leaders affirmed their bond regarding a unified assertion against North Korea’s existential treats. They agreed on the fact that North Korea’s ballistic and nuclear weapons development has reached a tipping point, where ‘maximum pressure’ needs to replace ‘strategic patience’ in a bid to curb North Korea’s evolving errant behavior.

Nonetheless, the two leaders showed a hint of flexibility regarding the extent of strategic choices under consideration, by underlining that their utmost priority is to keep the Korean peninsula peaceful. In this sense, the White House respected Moon’s pursuance of a ‘two-track’ strategy, by acknowledging the importance of initiating a dialogue with North Korea ‘under the right circumstances’. Although the nature of such circumstances remains open to subjective interpretation, the U.S.–ROK alliance has adamantly emphasized that the measures of UN sanctions should be heightened, unless North Korea fulfills its basic obligations to denuclearize itself as a responsible member of international society. In the meantime, the alliance has occasionally softened its tone by making it clear that it does not seek regime change or regime collapse in North Korea. The summit, held for the first time following Moon’s  restoration of presidential powers in South Korea, shared the common goal of denuclearizing the Korean peninsula in a peaceful manner, and re-appreciating South Korea’s leadership role in moving the process toward peaceful unification of the Korean peninsula.

President Moon Jae-in lays a wreath at the memorial to the Battle of Chosin Reservoir at the National Museum of the Marine Corps, in Virginia, June 28. (Blue House photo pool)

Moon began his four-day trip to the White House by attending the dedication ceremony for the Chosin Few Battle Monument on June 28. Surprisingly, Moon’s own parents were among the refugees saved by U.S. Marines from Chinese attack during the Battle of Chosin Reservoir. At the dedication ceremony, Moon sincerely demonstrated his gratitude in his speech toward the U.S. veterans gathered at the event. He confessed his personal indebtedness to them as follows: “If it hadn’t been for those who fought in the Battle of Chosin Reservoir, if the operation to evacuate the port of Hungnam hadn’t been successful, my life would probably have never begun, and I would not be here today”. He also added how the veterans’ sacrifices had not been forgotten by the nation, either: “The Republic of Korea remembers your and your parents’ sacrifice and dedication. Its memory of gratitude and respect will continue forever”.

Such efforts on Moon’s part to revalorize the U.S.–ROK blood alliance were revealed as even more resolute in his trade gift. Leading South Korean conglomerates that accompanied Moon as part of his business delegation announced constructive job-creating investment plans on American soil. Samsung Electronics will invest $1.8 billion in home appliances and semiconductor plant facilities in South Carolina and Texas. Likewise, LG Electronics will spend $550 million on washing machine plants in Tennessee and New Jersey. SK Group and GS Group will begin importing American shale-gas in a few years, while Hanjin Group will purchase 50 additional planes from Boeing over the next seven years. These investments plans were, however, unfortunately not enough to appease Trump’s appetite for the ‘America First’ doctrine. Trump addressed the trade imbalance issue between the two countries in his statement, prognosticating renegotiation of the U.S.–Korea Free Trade Agreement, or KORUS FTA.

In the greater scheme, however, this trade imbalance is not a major point for the U.S–ROK alliance. There are still many issues that the two countries need to seek agreement on, based on close mutual trust. In this regard, the summit successfully regularized a 2 + 2 ministerial meeting, as well as a high level Extended Deterrence Strategy and Consultation Group under the common purpose of strengthening extended deterrence against the Kim Jung-un’s threats.

Bad Omen for the Future of Two-Track Policy?

The U.S.­–ROK summit approved Moon’s two-track policy, offering the Kim Jung-un an opportunity to exit from its current escalation phase. However, Kim Jung-un dynasty refused to do so, at least initially, speaking instead of its intention to directly play the game with U.S . On the eve of Independence Day, the Kim dynasty tested Hwaseong 14 ICBM, the country’s leader calling the event a “package of gifts” for Americans. The Kim dynasty’s such test since the Moon administration took power overshadowed Moon’s July 6 ‘Berlin Declaration’, which was intended to solemnly manifest the revival of the Kim Dae-jung administration’s inter-Korean rapprochement approach.

In a coordinated response, the U.S., South Korea and Japan swiftly released a joint statement in the middle of the annual G-20 meeting hosted by Germany, calling again for newer and tougher UN sanctions against Kim Jung-un’s provocation, as well as China’s greater role in restraining Kim Jung-un. U.S. ambassador to the UN, Nikki Hailey, at a UN Security Council meeting called Kim’s unexpected gift “a clear and sharp military escalation” and further stated that “we will work with China…but we will not repeat the inadequate approaches [of] the past”. South Korean Foreign Affairs Minister, Kang Kyung Hwa, seemed to concur with these remarks when she told the National Assembly on July 9 that she is in the process of discussing secondary boycotts with the U.S.

As Kim Jung-un’s provocations evolve into a new phase, some analysts suggest that a nuclear freeze in exchange for the suspension of annual U.S.­–ROK military exercises is the only viable solution to the problem. Nevertheless, latest developments testify that the time is not yet right. Perhaps Kim Jung-un’s greed to maximize his negotiation leverage has grown too immense for the carrot-oriented Moon-shine policy  to properly work.

The post The ‘Blood Alliance’s Future Knotted with Blue Ties appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

How Will We Manage When They Know They Can Hit Us?

North Korea’s July 4 launch of an ICBM pushes us to a full reckoning with our motives, values, and national existence. In columnist Charles Krauthammer’s words, for “25 years and five administrations, we have kicked the North Korean can down the road. We are now out of road.” North Korea has put enough “facts on the ground” to present us with a stark choice, between military action or acquiescence to their intercontinental nuclear capacity. UN Ambassador Nikki Haley’s explicit public reference to U.S. military power suggests that U.S. policy makers do not see other options.

Our influence in the world and our security have diminished. We must note that every administration since 1994 paved the road to today; faults and errors are bipartisan and often very human. Regardless, events and arguments will raise questions that portend even greater dangers. We must prepare for a long game, and start by reorienting our foreign policy to America’s basic precepts.

Our reaction to the July 4 test implies that our highest priority is to avoid the threat of nuclear attack. But North Korea will likely gain their nuclear capable ICBMs.  When they do, will we be comforted that  a nuclear attack on the US would be suicide? What if they demand concessions from South Korea or Japan, thinking that we are deterred from striking them? If we only brandish our own military power now that they can hit us, how confident will our allies be in our protection in the future?

North Korea’s operating style will surely confront us with those questions sooner rather than later. The wrong answers will trigger a cascade of losses and doubts. If we show our security commitments to be malleable, allies will disappear. Second, such wavering calls America’s motives into question. Our rhetoric, to protect peace and stability, promote prosperity, and encourage democracy, will look cavalier, or like a cynical cover for raw power. Third, if a nation founded on freedom’s principles will not take risks for others’ freedom, perhaps no one really cares about freedom. Perhaps America’s founding principles are delusional. Fourth, our holding of those principles mark our national identity. If their “self evident” truth is discredited, so will be America’s legitimacy.

The  administration is fashioning responses to the latest launches, and the commentariat is abuzz with attempts to find new angles.  All acknowledge that military action will trigger disastrous counterstrikes, and no one sees Kim Jong Un making compromises.  None can avoid ex-diplomat Evans Revere’s cogently point, that every option for policy toward North Korea leads to outcomes that are beyond bad.  He also notes that any policy will demand skillful diplomacy with many countries, which may not work anyway.  No policy today will avoid the ugly questions, which could discredit America dangerously.

America must turn its focus to reversing any cascade of doubts, into one of affirmation of our nature and goals. Only from affirmation and clear resolve can we build leverage over North Korea or other regimes of its ilk, and it will need time to take effect. Getting to that point requires that we play the long game, with a clear and firm focus.

America’s true bottom line has always been validation of our founding creed, of unalienable rights and government serving to secure them. If we re-voice our policy goals in these terms, we exhibit our true motives, and address the worst possibility of the dystopian cascade.

Our creed need not alienate us from what Freedom House calls “partly free” regimes. Some afford their people more welfare and freedom than others; some are raising those levels and some lowering them. China, though still a one-party state, has a government that knows its public obligations and aims to better the condition of its citizens. We will not be friends as we are with Denmark, but we share some values, as well as common interests. We can see degrees of compatibility,with our ethos as the yardstick.  Using it to calibrate our relationships, we assert our values.  Our global scope for diplomatic collaboration will expand.

A growing understanding of our goals will tip countries like China to focus, more and more over time, on the compatibilities with us.  North Korea will stand out, more and more over time, as an abhorrent outlier, any interest in supporting them less and less worth the cost.

While we should build a new policy base regardless of their threat, we could then point out to North Korea how we adapt to degrees of friendship and enmity — and their weapons, belligerence, and inhumanity put them at the bottom of the ladder. If they feel that Muammar Gaddafi’s overthrow proves their need for a nuclear arsenal, they can be reminded of an arsenal’s failure to save the Soviet Union, and we view their regime as more reprehensible than the Soviets’.

The world ultimately shares our values, which are genuinely the root of our animosity to North Korea. If America aligns our policies by that priority, more will see North Korea as we do – confronting them with a choice between better conduct and the Soviets’ fate.  More importantly, we restore our global influence, in the name of rights and freedom. But it will take time.  We should start as soon as possible.

The post North Korea: Push Comes to Shove appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Natalia Veselnitskaya (Facebook via Talking Points Memo/Kurir)

President Donald Trump’s Russia problems have multiplied with recent reports that his son, Donald Trump Jr., met with a Kremlin-linked Russian lawyer during the 2016 presidential campaign after he was promised damaging information on Hillary Clinton and told that this information was “part of a Russian government effort” to help his father in winning the presidency. These revelations are the clearest indication yet of possible collusion between the Trump campaign and Russian efforts to interfere in the election.

The meeting took place at Trump Tower in New York on June 9, 2016. Initial reports were that the meeting included Trump Jr., the president’s son-in-law Jared Kushner, Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort, and the Russian lawyer, Natalia (or Natalya) Veselnitskaya (Наталия [or Наталья] Весельницкая). It was later learned that the meeting also included Russian American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin (Ринат Ахметшин), thought to be a former Soviet intelligence agent; Russian American translator Anatoli Samochornov (Анатолий Самочернов), who has previously worked with Veselnitskaya; and Irakly “Ike” Kaveladze (Ираклий Кавеладзе), a U.S. citizen born in the former Soviet Republic of Georgia.

The meeting was arranged by publicist Rob Goldstone at the request of his client, Azerbaijani-Russian pop star and businessman Emin Agalarov (Эмин Агаларов). Trump Sr. previously met Emin and his father Aras Agalarov (Араз Агаларов) at the 2013 Miss USA pageant in Las Vegas and Miss Universe pageant in Moscow, both owned by Trump, and in which Goldstone was also involved. A Russian blogger posted numerous photos of Trump, Goldstone, and the Agalarovs meeting in Las Vegas. Goldstone is also thought to have been present at the June 2016 meeting in Trump Tower.

Emin Agalarov, Donald Trump, and Aras Agalarov (Life.ru)

Rob Goldstone with Emin Agalarov and Donald Trump (Facebook via The Stern Facts)

Aras and Emin Agalarov are respectively the president and first vice-president of Crocus Group (Крокус Групп), a real estate and property development company based in Moscow. Irakli Kaveladze is identified as a vice-president of “Crocus International” (Крокус Интернэшнл) residing in the United States, and was a subject in a 2000 U.S. government investigation into Russian money laundering in the United States.

Sometimes called the “Trump of Russia” and frequently described as a “Russian oligarch,” Aras Agalarov is one of the wealthiest men in Russia and a close associate of Russian President Vladimir Putin. In 2013 he was awarded the prestigious Order of Honor of the Russian Federation by Putin himself. Agalarov also owns a mansion in Alpine, New Jersey currently valued at just under $7 million, which he recently put up for sale.

Vladimir Putin and Aras Agalarov (Minval.az)

A former prosecutor, Veselnitskaya is currently listed as the “general director” or “managing partner” of a law firm in the Moscow suburbs called Kamerton Consulting (Камертон Консалтин), founded in 2003 by Veselnitskaya and her husband (or ex-husband) Alexander Mitusov (Александр Митусов). A former Moscow Region deputy chief prosecutor and deputy minister of transport, Mitusov is now vice-president of corporate and legal affairs for SG-Trans (СГ-транс), a leading provider of transportation services for petroleum and gas products throughout Russia and the former republics of the Soviet Union.

Veselnitskaya’s business in the United States stems from her attorney-client relationship with Russian businessman Denis Katsyv (Денис Кацыв) and his father Petr (or Pyotr) Katsyv (Петр Кацыв), who as Moscow Region minister of transport was the direct superior of Veselnitskaya’s husband Alexander Mitusov. In 2013, Denis Katsyv and his company, Cyprus-based Prevezon Holdings Ltd., were accused of money laundering in the United States in connection with the U.S. Magnitsky Act, enacted in 2012 to counter Russian corruption and human rights abuse. A case was filed against Prevezon in September 2013 by then-U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara for the Southern District of New York.

On behalf of Katsyv and the Russian government, Veselnitskya has been a leading figure in Russian lobbying efforts against the Magnitsky Act. “She was probably the most aggressive person I’ve ever encountered in all my conflicts with Russians,” says Veselnitskaya’s legal opponent Bill Browder, a former investor in Russia and a major proponent of the Magnitsky Act, “She is vindictive and ruthless and unrelenting.”

Veselnitskaya is also a close associate of Yury Chayka (or Yuri Chaika; Юрий Чайка), the Putin-appointed Prosecutor General of the Russian Federation (roughly equivalent to the U.S. Attorney General), noted with Veselnitskaya in Russian media for his opposition to the Magnitsky Act. Chayka seems to play a far more political and ideological role in Russia than his title would suggest. In addition to opposing the Magnitsky Act, he accused the pro-democracy opposition group Open Russia (Открытая Россия) of being a front organization for the U.S. State Department. Veselnitskaya confirmed to The Wall Street Journal that she has been in regular contact with Chayka on matters related to the Magnitsky Act.

Vladimir Putin and Yury Chayka (Current Time)

A 2015 documentary in Russian and English by the Anti-Corruption Foundation (Фонд борьбы с коррупцией) details corruption and abuse of power by Chayka, his family, and their associates throughout the Russian prosecutorate, including ties to Russian organized crime. Following release of the documentary, Aras Agalarov publicly defended Chayka in an op-ed to the Russian newspaper Kommersant. Russian opposition leader and founder of the Anti-Corruption Foundation Alexei Navalny (Алексей Навальный) criticized Agalarov’s defense of Chayka, noting Agalarov’s own corrupt practices and ties to the Putin regime. Veselnitskaya is also connected to Agalarov through her Moscow Region legal practice.

Rob Goldstone’s emails to Donald Trump Jr. initiating the meeting with Veselnitskaya named the “Crown prosecutor of Russia” as the source of the damaging information on Hillary Clinton that the Trump campaign would receive through Veselnitskaya. Since there is no such title as “Crown prosecutor” in Russia, it is believed that Goldstone was referring to Prosecutor General Yury Chayka. Chayka’s office has denied any involvement in the meeting.

Veselnitskaya and Denis Katsyv are also linked to Russian American lobbyist Rinat Akhmetshin and translator Anatoli Samochornov through their collaboration in lobbying against the Magnitsky Act with a group called the “Human Rights Accountability Global Initiative Foundation” (HRAGIF). Akhmetshin has been called a Russian “gun for hire” in Washington’s lobbying world, and HRAGIF has been the subject of complaints for likely violations of the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA) over its unregistered work on behalf of Russian interests.

Casting further suspicion on the Trump administration for its Russian ties is the dismissal in May of the federal money-laundering case against Denis Katsyv and Prevezon Holdings, represented by Veselnitskaya. As noted, the case was formerly handled by U.S. Attorney Preet Bharara, who was fired by Trump in March. In May his Trump-appointed successor abruptly settled the $230 million case with Prevezon for only $5.9 million and no admission of guilt just two days before the case was scheduled to go to trial. On July 12 following reports on Trump Jr.’s meeting with Veselnitskaya, Democrats on the House Judiciary Committee sent a letter to Attorney General Jeff Sessions to “demand answers” on the settlement.

Veselnitskaya denies any connections with the Russian government, and told NBC News that she neither had nor offered damaging information on Clinton to Donald Trump Jr. or others associated with the Trump campaign. Rather, she said, it was Trump Jr. and associates who solicited information from her. She added that she knows Emin Agalarov took part in arranging the meeting, but denied ever meeting him in person. For its part, the Kremlin claimed to have “no information” on Veselnitskaya nor knowledge of who she is.

The Agalarovs have also denied any involvement in Russian efforts to influence the U.S. election. The Agalarovs’ U.S. attorney, Scott Balber, told CNN that Veselnitskaya previously worked for the Agalarovs in her capacity as a Moscow-area real estate lawyer. Balber’s previous clients include Donald Trump and Russian uranium company Tenex in a 2015 case involving violation of the U.S. Foreign Corrupt Practices Act. Rob Goldstone has also hired a lawyer, Bob Gage, “to handle Russia-related inquiries.” Donald Trump Jr.’s lawyer, Alan Futerfas, is being paid from Trump Sr.’s campaign fund.

The post Connecting the Dots Between Trump and Russian Lawyer Veselnitskaya appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

What Will The Department of State Become?

The State Department issued the report on an internal “listening survey” on July 5. The report is not public, but reports indicate that its first recommendation is to define a mission for the Department of State. It also addresses a host of other concerns, and current and past State personnel complain that the Department is being gutted, among other things. But the Department has had no continuity in its mission since the Cold War. In and of itself, the “Listening Report’s” first recommendation addresses the key question of U.S. diplomacy and foreign relations.

With the fall of the Soviet Union, tight cohesion around Containment gave way to issue-by-issue policy-making. Without that doctrine, FSOs became subject to office-chiefs’ parochial priorities, and their stances would inevitably contradict each others’ — and their previous work as they moved from post to post. Today not even the anti-terrorism mission gives clear guidance.

There are two special challenges to setting a State mission. First, today any person in the world might be the next hacker, dictator, suicide bomber – inventor or artist. Second, the definition of diplomacy, the Department’s expected expertise, analogous to Defense’s in the use of arms, is itself indistinct. State needs a clear function, in which it can even reach individuals, through today’s chaotic world.

A U.S. foreign policy mission will only endure if it rests on a nuanced knowledge of the tenets, nuances, and implications (including philosophical, political, and strategic) of our Declaration of Independence. This specialized knowledge should lie at the heart of a common professional identity, personally held by each U.S. diplomat. It could be imparted by a single institutional move — to shape new formative training for diplomats.

The Declaration is the base on which diplomacy works for Americans. Training must also provide a common grounding in world affairs disciplines, including military, economic, historical, and cultural, plus exposure to a broad range of American realities. But it now must impart fluency in our founding tenets as the bedrock capacity.

An analysis of the diplomats’ function, extracted from Jeremy Black’s History of Diplomacy, shows diplomats’ performance hinging on an understanding of their leader. To represent their nation, report on trends in their host country, and as needed negotiate or facilitate, they needed to know the person (for most of history, be it monarch or dictator) who embodied the nation. U.S. diplomats need to know 300 million people, all with unalienable rights.

America’s fundamental common feature is our explicit, deliberate founding on principle, which binds us regardless of complexity and disruption. The principle — of unalienable rights and government dedicated to secure them — is abstract and dualistic, so understanding requires reflection as well as recitation. But that passage is the focal point: it forms our founding civic creed. The Constitution, the Federalist Papers, and the Bill of Rights follow it, and refer to its terms. Our history can be seen as revolving around it. It created America’s nationality and defines the basis of our national interest.

Our diplomats must project the narrative of America’s founding creed, to governments and individuals, in all channels of discourse and in our policy formulation. Much as a major league pitcher can snap off a curveball or slider as needed, diplomats will need a mental “muscle memory,” to discuss, in direct response on any given case, how our principles apply, why they are valid, or how they benefit humanity. Diplomats who have internalized our narrative as professional reflex can voice and shape policy in its spirit, to set others’ perceptions by our lights.

Infusing this expertise in diplomats’ formative training will push it down to the lowest levels. The junior officer will have the same compass as an ambassador, so even improvised responses to unexpected issues will naturally fit our grand interest. Each diplomat will likewise share an innate sense of the essentials for reporting to Washington. In inter-agency processes, State representatives will be equipped to voice and apply America’s fundamental values for any policy decision.

Steeping our diplomats in our founding creed, and simultaneously imparting topical skills, will marry policy knowledge with America’s nature in a professional cadre. Such operational norms could give Americans comfort that our foreign policy reflects our nature. All Americans, whether they study the creed or not, share its values, so a mission based on it will respect any electoral mandate. State will take on an air of “America’s Desk,” our experts in the national interest.

Such a conception of U.S. diplomacy, carried by the diplomats themselves, would give clear orientation for policy and institutional arrangements.

U.S. foreign policy faces a new era that calls for new policies and practices. George Kennan, facing his own foreboding new era, made an observation I still find relevant: To survive, he said, the United States “need only measure up to its own best traditions.” Today, a new State embodying our founding tenets will ensure our best future.

The post The Department of State’s Listening Survey Calls For A Mission appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Donald Trump and Donald Trump, Jr.

The words above were spoken by former National Security Advisor Condoleeza Rice in reference to Iraq’s purported possession of weapons of mass destruction (WMD) prior to the Iraq War. With the latest allegations against Donald Trump being labelled by some as Russiagate’s “smoking gun” occurring simultaneously with the U.S.’ nuclear standoff with North Korea, Russia, and China, Rice’s quote is actually much more relevant and truthful now than when it was originally uttered. Washington’s Russiagate obsession not only exacerbates its increasing isolation on the world stage, but also, more crucially, its increasing isolation from its own citizenry.

Recently, U.S. President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin met on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Hamburg, Germany to discuss a whole range of issues. Despite the exclusive nature of the meeting, Syria was apparently a priority issue as it was soon announced afterward that a Syrian ceasefire in the south of the country had been negotiated between the U.S. and Russia.

However, very shortly after this meeting, which ran for four times as long as originally scheduled, the latest allegations involving Donald Trump’s “collusion” with Russia during the 2016 U.S. Presidential election surfaced in the form of actions taken by his son, Donald Trump Jr.. Curiously, this is eerily reminiscent of an earlier Syrian ceasefire agreement negotiated by the previous U.S. administration and Russia which was undone by the mistaken U.S. bombing of Syrian military personnel.

Regarding North Korea, this state’s missile and nuclear tests continue to receive front page attention in the U.S., culminating in the recent North Korean ICBM test on the U.S.’ national holiday, the 4th of July. However, what receives far less attention is the perceived impact of the U.S.’ THAAD system on both Russia and China, both of whom may assist the U.S. on this issue only if it suits their own respective national interests.

With respect to Russian concerns, the Baltic Sea, Black Sea, and Syrian theaters of operation collectively represent more than enough opportunities for both the U.S. and Russia to miscalculate and underestimate each others’ resolve in dealing with vital national security interests and overlapping spheres of influence. However, none of these theaters rises to the nuclear level (yet). Conversely, merely the Russian perception that U.S. deployment of THAAD in South Korea will impact Russia’s ability to strike the U.S. with nuclear weapons will more than likely just lead to Russia increasing its own first-strike nuclear capabilities in order to guarantee this deterrence capability for itself.

For China, the THAAD security dilemma is even more paramount than Russia’s as China’s known nuclear arsenal is much more limited than both Russia’s and the U.S.’. As with Russia, China is already in conflict with the U.S. on a range of issues and within differing geographical areas. These include, but are not limited to, the recent U.S. arms sale to Taiwan, continued U.S. “freedom of navigation” maneuvers in the South China Sea, tacit U.S. encouragement of Indian cross-border military incursions, U.S. admonishment of China on human rights and trafficking, and U.S. sanctions on Chinese banks and individuals accused by the U.S. of assisting North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.

These tactics may be part of an increased high-pressure strategy by the U.S. to get China to assist it in resolving the North Korean Crisis. However, as a true “ally” (which Trump labelled China shortly after Mar-a-Lago), China’s inevitably going to ask the U.S., “What will China get in return from the U.S. as true allies who respect each other’s core interests?” China’s “double cancellation” proposal and insistence upon its “new model of great power relations” paradigm are both emblematic of this dilemma.

Fundamentally, the U.S. has no good coercive options with respect to North Korea, either in the form of a threatened military strike, or continued ineffective sanctions. Also, at this point, neither Russia nor China are in a powerful enough position to change North Korea’s calculus that nuclear weapons possession is the ultimate guarantor of regime survival. Bilateral negotiations between North Korea and the U.S. won’t work without some form of buy-in from China. Therefore, though difficult and time-consuming, the only viable option for the U.S. is to restart some form of the now-stalled Six Party Talks where the vital national interests of all concerned regional states are acknowledged. Without this, and without some form of regional economic engagement with Asia post-TPP, the U.S. risks further isolation in  Asia on this particular issue.

Domestically, Russiagate continues to insult the intelligence of many Americans. Due to a historical, isolationist strain in early American culture, many Americans to this day are far more cognizant of the domestic issues which directly impact their everyday lives, not international relations. Of course, this is changing everyday, but former President Clinton’s maxim of “It’s the economy, stupid.” still rings true today.

To suggest to large numbers of Americans residing outside Washington and between the U.S. coasts that somehow Russia reminded them of the importance of basic questions is quite…indigestible. These questions might include: “How am I going to put food on the table for my family and myself in this economy?”, “How am I going to pay off all this student debt while being underemployed in a stagnant economy?”,  “How am I going to ensure that life is better for my children than myself in this economy?”, and “How will I take care of my ageing parent(s) if I lose my job and my insurance in this economy?”

As with great power relations in geopolitics today, interests predominate in domestic affairs as well. While some in power may perceive it to be beneficial to use Russiagate as the bell from Pavlov’s dogs experiments, this utility is only temporary. Unless certain elements in Washington understand that by actually helping to answer their various constituents’ questions above, they serve their voters’ long-term interests as well as their own, then they will continue to erode their own actual power and legitimacy on a daily basis. As of this writing on Bastille Day, this is an important lesson to not only learn, but an even more important one not to forget.

The post “We Don’t Want The Smoking Gun To Be A Mushroom Cloud.” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.