Foreign Policy Blogs

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

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

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

And this is important because…?

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

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

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

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

If Section 702 is so important why is it controversial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is Section 702 still controversial?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They don’t sound enthused.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Making Matters Worse

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

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

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

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

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

Lies and deception

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

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

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

Can Farmajo be rescued?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Flags of Catalunya

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(Photo: Nigeria Electricity Hub)

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

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

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

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

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

Millions of Nigerians Remain in the Dark

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

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

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

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

Infrastructure Insufficient but Investment and Possibilities Continue

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

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

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

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

Policy is Catching Up

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

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

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

Future Remains Bright with Right Commitment

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

—

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Consider:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Written by John Paluszek, Executive Editor, Business in Society

www.businessinsociety.net

@Biz_in_Society

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

Donald and Ivanka Trump with Dubai partner Hussain Sajwani

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Drought in India.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

India’s bipolar role in Bhutan’s young democracy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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