Diplomacy & Crisis News

Cette recension est issue de Politique étrangère (1/2016). Rémy Hémez propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de David Revault d’Allonnes, Les guerres du président (Paris, Seuil, 2015, 256 pages).

David Revault d’Allonnes, grand reporter au service politique du Monde, nous propose dans cet ouvrage une plongée au cœur des relations entre le président de la République et les forces armées. L’auteur analyse bien les ressorts de ce « président aux deux visages » : réticent à la confrontation avec ses partenaires et ses adversaires politiques, mais n’hésitant pas à faire la guerre.

François Hollande n’a pas de penchant naturel pour la chose militaire. Il a fait son service national par nécessité politique et a toujours montré peu d’intérêt pour les sujets de défense. De plus, au cours de sa campagne et au début de son mandat, il a exprimé des réticences quant à l’emploi de la force armée. Il était alors focalisé sur le retrait d’Afghanistan. L’auteur introduit d’ailleurs son propos en évoquant un entretien avec François Hollande au cours duquel ce dernier affirme ne pas vouloir céder à « la tentation de l’aventure extérieure », selon lui une échappatoire commode aux difficultés de la politique intérieure.

Pourtant, quelques semaines après cet échange, l’opération française au Mali – qui marque « l’entrée en guerre » de François Hollande – était lancée. En effet, la dégradation de la situation dans la boucle de Niger bouscule le calendrier diplomatique. Le 11 janvier 2013, jour de la décision de l’intervention au Mali, est ainsi une date pivot pour le président François Hollande : il prouve qu’il peut trancher. La communication gouvernementale saura mettre cet état d’esprit en valeur. Le président devient « chef de guerre ». En août 2013, François Hollande est proche de déclencher une nouvelle intervention militaire, cette fois en Syrie. Cette dernière ne sera pas lancée mais le président a une fois de plus fait preuve de détermination.

Tout au long de son ouvrage, David Revault d’Allonnes cherche à expliquer le changement d’attitude présidentiel vis-à-vis de l’action armée. En fait, François Hollande y trouve des satisfactions personnelles et politiques. Les « résultats immédiats » qui sont obtenus tranchent avec les délais nécessaires pour obtenir des effets en politique intérieure et l’administration de la défense est aux ordres. Mais ce volontarisme dans les affaires internationales et militaires est aussi le reflet des institutions de la Ve République : tous les présidents avant lui y ont trouvé un terrain de liberté.

David Revault d’Allonnes dresse aussi le portrait de l’entourage du président dans le domaine de la défense, de ceux qu’il nomme « les faucons du président » : Jean-Yves Le Drian, le général Puga et Cédric Lewandowski. L’auteur décrit très bien l’équilibre délicat entre ces fortes personnalités ainsi que leurs relations avec les Armées et le ministère des Affaires étrangères.

Dans la dernière partie du livre, l’auteur revient sur la lutte contre le terrorisme. Les trois jours sanglants de janvier 2015 marquent, selon lui, la fin d’un processus de « présidentialisation » de François Hollande qui avait débuté avec la guerre au Mali. S’ensuit, une nouvelle fois, l’emploi de la force armée avec le déploiement de 10 000 militaires sur le territoire national.

Très agréable à lire, fruit d’un excellent travail de journalisme, cet ouvrage est une véritable plongée dans les arcanes du pouvoir et nous éclaire quant aux mécanismes politiques régissant l’emploi de la force armée. On peut seulement regretter que les ressorts de l’intervention en Centrafrique ne soient pas plus décryptés et que la voix des militaires ne soit pas plus présente.

Rémy Hémez

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

Expressing concern about possible imminent executions in Gaza, the United Nations human rights office today urged the authorities in Gaza to uphold their obligations to respect the rights to life and to a fair trial and not carry out death penalty.

The United Nations human rights office today urged the Government of Iraq to immediately conduct an independent, transparent and effective investigation into the use of force by security forces against protestors outside the Green Zone in Baghdad this past week.

United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon welcomed the holding of municipal elections in Lebanon, which are expected to conclude on 29 May, urging all Lebanese leaders to act responsibly to elect the country’s President, a post vacant for two years, without a further delay, his spokesperson said today in a statement.

The Security Council today stressed the importance of strengthening the existing cooperation between the United Nations and the African Union (AU), a regional organization described by a senior UN official as “the most important peacekeeping partner.”

The United Nations Independent Investigation in Burundi, which was set up to investigate human rights violations in the country since April 2015, said today it has completed the deployment of a team of human rights monitors on the ground.

The United Nations human rights expert on racism today urged the Government of Argentina to take urgent measures to sustainably address the invisibility, marginalization and systematic exclusion of indigenous peoples in the country.

Caían casi las 6 de la tarde cuando llegamos a la casa de una importante lideresa local en un lugar remoto del departamento de Guaviare. Nos sentamos a hablar de la paz, el posconflicto y lo que es para ella la realidad de estos asuntos; ella fue muy clara. “Aquí estamos en contra del proceso de paz. Se va la guerrilla y llegan (otros) a robar y matar”. Sigue, “Es que hemos sido muy maltratados por el Estado”. En otra parte, en Putumayo, algunos líderes han expresado lo mismo, que sin la guerrilla no solo habrá problemas de robo y violencia, sino que llegarán el Estado y las Fuerzas Militares, lo cual les da miedo. Aunque estas opiniones son de una minoría – pues hay otros que sí quieren ver la salida del FARC, - es una minoría que puede tener mayores efectos en la paz territorial.

About two months before the NATO Summit in Warsaw, many wonder what the new strategy of the alliance in relation to Russia will look like.

Speaking at GLOBSEC 2016, a security conference in Bratislava held in mid-April, Polish Foreign Minister Witold Waszczykowski emphasized that Poland expected “presence, presence, presence” of NATO troops and bases on the Eastern flank. Other Allies, including the United States and Germany, do not deem it necessary to build new NATO infrastructure. As Jim Townsend, the U.S. Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for European and NATO Policy, put it, “we support an enhanced presence, but we can do it without bases, bases, bases.” The current debate thus centers on the question how heavy the new NATO footprint on the Eastern flank should be.

Yet, while arguing about the differences between a persistent or permanent presence or what German Defense Minister Ursula von der Leyen called a “permanent rotational presence,” the Allies risk losing sight of the bigger strategic picture. The best outcome of the Warsaw Summit would be a clearly articulated common position of the Alliance that is well understood both by Russia and at home.

NATO can build on its previous efforts here. After all, reports on the disagreements among the Allies obscure the fact that NATO has been remarkably united in the aftermath of the annexation of Crimea and Russia’s continued interference in Ukraine.

On the one hand, the Alliance has embarked on the “biggest strengthening of our collective defense in decades”, as Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg underlined at the Munich Security Conference in 2016. In addition to the creation of the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF) and an increase in exercises as decided at the Wales Summit in 2014, the Allies have agreed to strengthen NATO’s forward presence on the eastern flank. Even member states such as Germany, often criticized as overly reluctant, have demonstrated their clear commitment to a renewed emphasis on collective defense.

On the other hand, NATO members have recently tried to reinvigorate the NATO-Russia Council and underlined that they are open to dialogue with Moscow. All members, including those long accused of blocking engagement with Russia, have finally supported this decision. NATO member states should strengthen both aspects of this renewed dual-track policy—responding to the security needs of its most exposed members, while at the same time advocating dialogue and heightened transparency to diffuse tension in their relations with Russia.

The two approaches are not mutually exclusive. On the contrary, only a more visible presence will make a renewed emphasis on dialogue meaningful, signaling to Russia that NATO will not be intimidated by Moscow. And only a clear commitment to dialogue will allow all Allies to back a stronger defensive posture.

First, demonstrating that attacking one of NATO’s frontline states means an assault on all of NATO requires a multinational presence that goes significantly beyond the decisions taken at the Wales Summit. The Russian government needs to understand that it will not reach its goals by threatening its neighbors and testing NATO’s resolve. Although U.S. efforts to support the Eastern flank are crucial, it would be advisable to integrate it as much as possible under a NATO umbrella. This would not only signal the united stance of NATO, but would also be seen as less threatening by Moscow.

Moreover, the respective host countries should be supported in strengthening their own armed forces. While it makes sense that other Allies police the Baltic air space, they can expect the member states that feel particularly threatened to invest more in their own defensive capabilities, including necessary infrastructure such as airfields that multinational reinforcements would require. Among the Allies on the Eastern flank, only Estonia and Poland fulfill the NATO commitment to spend two percent of their GDP on defense.

Second, a more visible NATO presence necessitates new diplomatic efforts. Although the Alliance sees its moves as entirely defensive, Moscow will still read them as offensive and use them as a pretext for its own “counter measures” that in reality have often been long in the making. NATO should continue to propose new transparency mechanisms. It should also avoid being seen as the party rejecting dialogue, thus serving as an easy target for Russian propaganda. Even if it will not bring immediate results the reinvigoration of the NATO-Russia Council was thus an important message in itself.

NATO must also get better at getting its message across. Above all, this means that national leaders have to be more vocal and stress the differences between Russian and NATO policies. All information fact-sheets published by the NATO bureaucracy will not suffice if national politicians do not actively make the case for the new posture. In some member states, governments try to avoid a public debate on the revamped efforts, portraying them as minor adaptations.

This allows for misinformation and misinterpretations. Media reports sometimes claim that the NATO-Russia Founding Act generally rules out the stationing of troops in NATO’s “new” member states although the wording tells a different story. Few even mention that NATO publishes all its exercises on its website and invites Russian observers.

Russia, in contrast, regularly surprises NATO with snap exercises and ignores proposals to heighten transparency although numerous close encounters between the Russian military and Western military units or even civilian airliners have highlighted the danger of escalation. And while NATO members discuss the deployment of a few battalions, Russia has already announced that three new divisions will be created in its Western military district. For every NATO soldier on the Eastern flank, there will be roughly five to ten new Russian troops. This is hardly an escalation by NATO.

By avoiding public debate to explain and defend NATO’s new posture, national leaders endanger the long-term stability of the Alliance. Some opinion polls already show that the public support for the collective defense commitment is fragile. This is dangerous because deterrence only works if it is credible. But domestic support for deterrence will only be secured if the Alliance convincingly demonstrates that it is not interested in confrontation. It thus needs to offer dialogue, propose additional arms control steps, and think about a long-term perspective for NATO-Russia relations.

In the end, the question of what exactly the enhanced presence of NATO on the Eastern flank will look like is of secondary importance. What will matter most is whether the outcome will send a signal of unity and resolve, supported across the Alliance. In order to achieve this NATO needs both deterrence and dialogue. Both pillars of the renewed dual-track approach should be strengthened in Warsaw.

Tobias Bunde is Head of Policy and Analysis at the Munich Security Conference and Research Associate with the Center for International Security Policy at the Hertie School of Governance in Berlin.

This article was originally published by EastWest Institute Policy Innovation Blog

The post NATO Back on Dual-Track? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The impeachment of president Dilma Rousseff will become a precedent setting case in the historic and legal tradition of Brazil’s democracy. Whatever side Brazilians are on regarding president Rousseff’s six month suspension and possible permanent impeachment, a response was to the crisis was necessary. After so much popular demand for change and a severe corruption scandal facing Rousseff’s party—the Worker’s Party or PT—some action had to be taken.

As of now, it is unclear whether or not Rousseff will survive the Senate trial. The accusations against her that lead to the suspension are not directly tied to the corruption scandal plaguing the PT. President Rousseff has been accused of boosting her own economic policy record by using funds from state banks to cover budget shortfalls, which may have violated fiscal responsibility laws in Brazil. Although extremely worrisome, these practices are not linked to the corruption scandal which lead to the revelations that PT party members were taking bribes from large Brazilian companies.

Indeed, the end result of her trial may result in the reversal of her impeachment as the focus of the corruption scandal was not on her personal actions, but that of PT party members. Nevertheless, the scandals have left a indelible stain on her party’s image that will remain after the Senate trial.

There are strong precedents to it. In the British parliamentary democracy system, it is a customary tradition that a minister in charge of a department affected by a scandal should step down from his or her position, even if the minister was not aware of or linked to the scandal personally. There are two reasons for this custom: to maintain accountability of a department by the top decision makers so that the public ultimately benefits, and to ensure the legitimacy of the government and their party in the future application of policy making and governing.

President Rousseff may survive the impeachment trial as the case against her is not as solid as many of the accusations rallied against her fellow party members. But the governing party will no longer be perceived as legitimate in the eyes of the Brazilian public. Rousseff’s possible success in the Senate trial will only prolong the inevitable: a loss in the next presidential elections and the implosion of the PT.

Claims that the constitutional process leading to her impeachment is tantamount to a coup, or that horrific results will come from an opposition government, or that the interim president will perpetuate Brazil’s dysfunctional political system abound . All parties should accept that if a government is not seen as legitimate by Brazilians, an immediate election should be called in. It is what a healthy democracy should demand and a positive end result of their constitutional process.

The post Challenging Brazil’s Democratic System May Make It Stronger appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

An opposition supporter holds up a giant hundred Bolivares note with the word, “Hungry” written on it during a gathering to protest against the government of President Maduro, and economic insecurity and shortages, in Caracas. (REUTERS/Carlos Garcia Rawlins)

By Matthew Barbari

Problems for Venezuela and its president Nicolas Maduro continue to mount as the country heads inexorably towards its collapse. An economic system centered around oil exports revenues, a government that can no longer provide public services such as electricity or medical care, and growing civil unrest and violence have led Venezuelans to look for an alternative to Chavismo.

Under Hugo Chavez—Maduro’s predecessor—the Venezuelan economy boomed due to the high price of oil, with barrels selling for well over $100. With crude oil accounting for 96% of the country’s exports, Chavez’s political movement relied on heavy spending on social welfare programs.

However, the government failed to improve the oil production process, leading to a lower than average export price. With the price of a barrel produced in Venezuela dropping to around $20 in February, the entire economy dropped with it. This collapse in oil prices has compounded with an incredibly high inflation rate causing supply shortages in most basic necessities.

The economic troubles have permeated through all aspects of life of Venezuelans. Massive food shortages, lack of proper medical care and constant power shortages are pushing the country close to a humanitarian crisis and are enraging even the most loyal of government supporters.

While Hugo Chavez was sufficiently charismatic to maintain public support during previous economic struggles, President Maduro is not. Increasingly fearing popular outbursts against the government and in a desperate attempt to control the crisis, he has recently declared a nationwide state of emergency.

The growing unrest has been building for some time and has led opposition parties to gain more seats in the National Assembly. There is also growing support for a recall election and a referendum to impeach President Maduro. However, the opposition is not organized in a cohesive unit against the Maduro government.

The situation has now deteriorated to the point where there is concern regarding “plausible scenarios” where Maduro’s own party or a military coup would force him out of office—triggering further civilian uprising and possibly the outbreak of a civil war.

Even though there have been gradual increases in oil prices over the past months, Venezuela has had to slow down production due to rampant power outages, failing to take full advantage of the market’s improvement. No matter the outcome of the referendum, Venezuela is heading towards bankruptcy and chaos. Hugo Chavez’s dream is turning into a nightmare for the Venezuelan people.

The post The Collapse of Chavez’s Venezuela appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

/ Armée, Armement, Commerce des armes, Commerce international, Économie, Géopolitique, Industrie de l'armement, Relations internationales, Armes chimiques et biologiques - Armées / Armée, Armement, Commerce des armes, Commerce international, Économie, Géopolitique, Industrie de l'armement, Relations internationales, Armes chimiques et biologiques - Armées

Written by Loïc Burton

The Kurds are often hailed as the West’s most reliable partner in the fight against the Islamic State. From its victories in the border town of Kobani in Syria and in Sinjar in northern Iraq, the Kurds have taken advantage of the chaos in the region to get closer to achieving their dream of statehood.

On March 17, after the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF)—under the umbrella of the Kurdish Democratic Union Party (PYD)—managed a streak of military victories, Kurdish leadership declared a federal region across much of northern Syria called Rojava. This in an attempt to formalize the semiautonomous zone controlled by Kurdish forces after five years of war, while falling short of complete independence from Damascus.

As a key ally in the coalition against ISIS, Syrian Kurds are in a much stronger position to bargain for their political autonomy. However this is anathema to both the Syrian and Turkish governments. The former—reinvigorated thanks to the Russian intervention—now believes that it could regain control over all of the country while the latter fears that increased Kurdish self-governance might increase tensions with its own Kurdish restive minority.

In Iraq, Masoud Barzani, president of the Iraqi Kurdistan Region, has announced his intentions of holding a referendum on independence by the end of the year—a first step toward achieving full-fledged statehood. However, some believe the referendum will be used to distract the population from more pressing problems such as the region’s flailing economy.

In February 2014, as a result of a dispute with Baghdad, the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) was cut off from its share of the federal budget. In June, with the emergence of ISIS, security spending skyrocketed while an influx of 2 million refugees and internally displaced persons added pressure to its infrastructure and service delivery. The final blow occurred in mid-2014 with the global drop in oil prices hitting the region particularly hard—oil revenues account for as much as 80–90% of the KRG’s budget.

In addition to these recent developments, the KRG struggles with perennial issues. In a population of 5.2 million, 1.4 million are on the government payroll Moreover the practice of “ghost-employees”—arms of the government claim more staff than they actually have to inflate their budgets—is widespread. All these factors combined create an unsustainable economic situation and threaten to stall the momentum gained against ISIS: security services are currently only paid every four months.

Looking beyond the borders of Syria and Iraq, Turkey is the most concerned about the Kurds for the reasons aforementioned. As its fight against the Kurdistan Worker’s Party—to which the PYD has close ties—in Turkey’s southeast intensifies, Ankara has bombed Kurdish fighters in Syria and allegedly tacitly helped ISIS to prevent Syrian Kurds from forming a contiguous entity along its southern border.

Turkey’s downing of a Russian fighter jet in November 2015 has put Ankara and Moscow at odds with each other. Since then, Russia has been much more inclined to support Syrian Kurds and the PYD, allowing the Rojava administration to establish its first overseas representative office in Moscow in February 2016.

Finally, the U.S. relation with the Kurds is complex: although the Kurds are reliable allies, Kurdish aspirations for autonomy complicate America’s strategic interests. Indeed, in addition to the risk of seeing the fragmentation of Iraq, American support for Syrian Kurds has increased tensions between the U.S. and Turkey—which allows the U.S. to use its military bases to conduct operations in the region.

Kurds are independent political actors whose interests are not always aligned with Washington. The coming months are essential for the future of their polity and the region as a whole.

Recommended Readings

Anne Barnard, “Syrian Kurds Hope to Establish a Federal Region in the Country’s North,” The New York Times (Mar. 16, 2016).

Zach Beauchamp, “America’s Kurdish problem: today’s allies against ISIS are tomorrow’s headache,” Vox (Apr. 8, 2016).

“Why Iraqi Kurdistan Is Struggling to Pay Its Bills,” Stratfor (Jan. 28, 2016).

The post The Future of Kurdistan: Great Decisions Spring Updates appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

A protester demonstrating against Taiwanese conglomerate Formosa during a rally in downtown Hanoi on May 1, 2016. (HOANG DINH NAM/AFP/GETTY IMAGES)

Last week, Rupert Colville, spokesman for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights (UNCHR), called on the Vietnamese leadership to respect the right of freedom of assembly, after security officials stifled city-wide protests over an environmental disaster engulfing the country.

In a press briefing note released by UNCHR on May 13, the agency said it is “concerned about the increasing levels of violence perpetrated against Vietnamese protesters expressing their anger over the mysterious mass deaths of fish along the country’s central coast.”  

In recent weeks, Vietnamese citizens have rallied in the cities of Hanoi, Ho Chi Minh City, Nha Trang, Vung Tau and Da Nang over reports that at least 100 tons of fish have died along a 200-kilometer stretch of coastland in central Vietnam since April.  Many of the protesters are angry over the slow response of the new leadership to pin the blame on a unit of Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics, which operates a $10.6 billion coastal steel plant in Ha Tinh province.

Vietnamese fishermen, whose income has been severely depleted by the pollution, led authorities to an illegal pipeline thought to be responsible for the poisoning of the fish, which was traced to the steel plant.  Formosa management claims to have safely treated the discharge, and initial government findings sought to deflect the blame from Formosa to a red tide caused by an algae bloom.  Newly-elected Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc has promised a thorough investigation, vowing “We will not shield anyone found causing the pollution.”

Yet Vietnamese citizens are losing their patience, and the urge to demonstrate has been building momentum, alarming authorities. Vietnamese security apparatus allowed the first two protests on consecutive Sundays to attract hundreds of demonstrators.

Security officials cracked down on demonstrators the second week, however, using tear gas was used to disperse the crowd, and reportedly beating around  300 people and arresting others, according to the UNCHR report.  Videos and pictures circulating on Facebook also showed punches thrown and protesters being dragged off into buses.

In response to reports of demonstrators being beaten and arrested, the UNCHR issued the following statement: “We call on the Government of Viet Nam to respect the right to freedom of assembly in line with its international human rights obligations.”  This statement drew a harsh response from the permanent Vietnamese representative to the UNCHR,  Ambassador Nguyen Trung Thanh, who called the statement “inaccurate, unobjective and unverified.”  

While Article 25 of the 2013 Vietnamese Constitution ensures freedom of assembly and speech for its citizens, stating “The citizen shall enjoy the right to freedom of opinion and speech, freedom of the press, to access to information, to assemble, form associations and hold demonstrations,”  Ambassador Thanh noted that freedom of assembly must be exercised without detriment to public order “to ensure traffic order, security and safety for the people, especially the elderly, women and children.”

This past Sunday, Vietnam’s state television, and several other major state-run channels, warned potential demonstrators to ignore calls by “reactionary forces” who intend to disrupt public order, saying “their intention to abuse and disturb was revealed when many subjects called for using knives and petrol bombs to attack the functional forces and to overthrow the authorities.”   

Authorities were also quick to blame the demonstrations on an anti-government plot by a terrorist organization named ‘Viet Tan’ (Vietnam Reform). Viet Tan’s website claims it “engages in actions that empower the Vietnamese people”, with its mission to “overcome dictatorship, build the foundation for a sustainable democracy, and demand justice and human rights for the Vietnamese.”

While it is arguable whether the safety and security of the people were endangered by the demonstrations (or by Viet Tan), the state television broadcast, a shutdown of Facebook, and a heavy security presence in Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City were enough to quell any significant gathering of protesters on the third Sunday of protest.  No more than 100 protesters gathered in Ho Chi Minh City, most of whom were quickly dispersed or detained.  

U.S. President Barack Obama was originally scheduled to arrive in Vietnam on May 22, a Sunday in which protests could flare again, and also the day in which Vietnam holds its election of the nation’s lawmaking National Assembly.  His trip has now been moved to the 23rd, and although his itinerary is still under discussion, events on the ground in recent weeks may give the issue of human rights more prominence.  

The post UN Calls on Vietnam to Respect Freedom of Assembly appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.