Foreign Policy Blogs

Chinese ship shown ramming a Vietnamese ship while guarding China’s oil rig Haiyang Shiyou 981 in disputed waters in mid-2014 (VnExpress News photo)

Just when Chinese and Vietnamese relations appeared to be going well, the waters of the South China Sea (and East Sea) may be heating up again.

Speculation is rife among geopolitical analysts following the early departure of a Chinese delegation from the annual Vietnam-China Border Defense Friendship Exchange Program this week in Hanoi. The two Communist countries were scheduled to hold a fence-mending gathering along the border where they fought a short, devastating war in 1979.

Vice Chairman of the Central Military Commission Fan Changlong’s decision to cut short the delegation’s visit, and the cancellation of the event “for reasons related to working arrangements”, is reportedly over a heated argument during a private meeting Fan held with Vietnamese defense officials.

Some analysts, such as Wu Shicun, president of the Chinese-government affiliated National Institute for South China Sea Studies, believe the argument broke out over oil exploitation of the disputed island chains of the Spratly island chain, “One direct reason leading to the cutting short of Fan’s visit might be because Beijing sees Vietnam as breaking its promises about not exploiting oil in disputed areas in the South China Sea”.

Carl Thayer, emeritus professor of politics at The University of New South Wales in Australia, also speculates General Fan requested Vietnam to halt oil exploitation near Vanguard Bank in the Spratly island chain.

He also believes the Chinese response, which “If true, this would be a clumsy and counterproductive act by China,” may be due to Beijing’s disapproval over Hanoi’s efforts to promote strategic cooperation with the United States and Japan: “This setback would also be a sign that China is being more assertive in response to Prime Minister Nguyen Xuan Phuc’s visits to Washington and Tokyo in order to curtail the development of Vietnam’s defense and security relations with these two countries”.

Yet Thayer also warns that a military clash could take place within the next few days, noting that China is deploying 40 ships and several Y-8GX6 turboprop anti-submarine warfare aircraft to the area. The area has seen sparks of conflict before—in May 2011, protests broke out in Hanoi after a Chinese fishing vessel cut a Vietnamese boat’s cable near Vanguard Bank.

Sending that many ships into an area claimed by Hanoi may lead to additional anti-Chinese protests, as witnessed in mid-2014 when Beijing parked its $1 billion deepwater oil drilling rig, the Haiyang Shiyou 981, for 10 weeks in waters claimed by Vietnam as part of its 200-nautical-mile exclusive economic zone set by international law.

At that time, the rig was surrounded by over 100 Chinese vessels, including military ships, some of which rammed or fired their water cannons at Vietnamese ships encroaching near the Chinese rig.

Should the above deployment of naval ships and aircraft actually take place, Chinese military officials would do well to recall Chairman Mao’s quote, “A single spark can cause a prairie fire”.

The post Chinese General Exits Hanoi Early appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Trump’s first press conference, complete with props.

Few moments in the Trump Presidency have proven to be more poignant than his first press conference as President-elect—the thing was that he was not alone during his address to the media. Joined by Trump were six manila folders stacked heavy with documents and agreements detailing his actions on handing his business empire to sons Don Jr. and Eric.

No reference was made to the files themselves during the press conference, neither were they picked up and displayed to the media. The only mention of the documents was at the conclusion the conference in the lobby of Trump Tower. “These papers are just some of the many documents that I’ve signed turning over complete and total control to my sons”, Trump boasted.

At the end of the news conference, reporters were blocked from looking at the papers, while photos emerged of the folders without labels, and in some cases seemingly blank pages, causing a stir on social media.

The pompous display of blank pages and props setting the scene for Trump’s treatment of the press during his presidency could be a point of contention for the future. A more pertinent issue is the extent to which Trump has taken to distance himself from business affairs—are they sufficient measures? Also, what impact can external entities have, namely powerful and influential countries, if Trump and his family are still associated with the Trump Organization?

The first formal announcement of Trump’s sons taking control of business affairs was in January, where it was also made public that he would donate all money spent by foreign governments on accounts accrued at his hotels to the US Treasury.

Speculation on the issue began to surface in March, with Eric Trump declaring, “its something that our integral controlling teams take seriously.” Phil Ruffin, 50-50 joint venture owner of Trump International Hotel Las Vegas with Donald, contradicted the call from Eric Trump, stating “I don’t know anything about that.” Its also been identified the earliest payments will be made to the Treasury will be 2018.

The issue at hand is the potential for other countries to influence government decisions by contributing to the bottom line of the Trump Organisation. Extra caution must be taken when Eric Trump is now the co-chief of his father’s business, considering the New York Attorney General is currently investigating the actions of the now defunct Eric Trump foundation, using the foundation to siphon more than $1.2 billion of charitable donations to the Trump Organization.

Several groups have also identified the fact Trump’s lack of definitive action to distance himself from his business affairs could be deemed unconstitutional.

Under Article I, Section 9 of the constitution states, “No person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.” And while Trump has demonstrated a willingness to curb any conflict of interest by moving his business interests into a trust managed by his songs, the president retained actual ownership of the companies, meaning he still makes money from them.

Sheri Dillon, a tax attorney advising Trump on ethics issues argued the Emoluments Clause does not apply to hotel stays. Since the first day Trump took to office, several groups have taken objection to this, and a number of lawsuits against the president have emerged in the last six months.

Firstly, a liberal watchdog organization named Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics filed a lawsuit in January. Then it was two attorneys general for the District to Columbia and Maryland who took legal action. And as recent as mid-June, a group of almost 200 Democrat senators and representatives decided to follow suit, pardon the pun.

These actions all had one thing in common—scrutinizing Trump´s violation of the emoluments clause, and the stipulation that only Congress can approve the receipt of foreign payments, which Trump has not received. The fear that was with January´s efforts was whether they were entitled to litigate at all, along with the lack of precedence. With increased action however, unprecedented progress could be on the cards in the future.

There is strong evidence some countries are already testing the integrity of the U.S. head of state as he continues to remain a stakeholder of his business affairs. Instances from the Middle East and Asia exemplify this. One brief example—Kuwait´s Washington-based Ambassador switching a booking made in previous years at the Four Seasons to the Trump hotel in D.C., shows suspect actions.

Another Gulf state an arguably more significant diplomatic relationship with Washington is Saudi Arabia, with actions both during and after the presidential campaign coming under scrutiny. Shortly after launching his bid in August 2015, Trump registered eight companies tied to hotel interests. Lets not forget, Hillary Clinton was lambasted for the Clinton Foundation accepting donations from this very country.

More recent action held a more sinister motive. Foreign disclosure filings were released in June, showing the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia paid Trump International Hotel nearly $270,000 through its D.C.-based lobbying firm Qorvis MSLGroup over the last several months. The payments were made for hotel rooms and catering services for dozens of U.S. veterans recruited by the group as an aim to coerce lawmakers to water down Justice Against Support of Terrorism Act, or JASTA. This indirectly implicates the Saudis and their involvement with 9/11, providing the U.S. President an unethical source of income simultaneously.

Speculation over actions in East Asia has also taken place, with revelations of further questionable behavior. It has been discovered the Chinese government has granted preliminary approval of nine Donald Trump trademarks that were previously denied, fueling allegations Beijing might be giving the president´s family business special treatment. One columnist pointed to a series of tweets to show further evidence of Trump´s rebuffing his election promises of putting “America First” in trade deals. One tweet dismissed one of his earlier calls, “why would I call China a currency manipulator when they are working with us on the North Korea problem?”

This is the same nation Trump threatened in June 2016 with, “if China does not stop its illegal activities, including its theft of American trade secrets, I will use every lawful — this is very easy. This is so easy. I love saying this. I will use every lawful presidential power to remedy trade disputes.” If one makes such strong remarks, out of principle, transactions such as these should not take place. Not for #POTUS45.

These are only a few examples of the many dubious business actions that have taken place between the Trump Organization and outside entities—here is a more extensive list. One look at the list is quite scary, really.

If such unethical actions take place in the future, compelling potential further remains for foreign governments to influence decisions in Washington. Blind trusts have been considered the norm for the president´s predecessors Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, yet Trump decided against such action, as it would be too complicated to accomplish. And one could argue, the longer it remains like this; the weight of lawsuits against the US Head of State will continue to get heavier.

After all, the difference between Trump and his predecessor when respecting the Emoluments clause of the Constitution could not be starker. While Obama’s legal team sought the advice of attorney general on whether he could receive Nobel Peace Prize legitimately in 2009, it seems Trump has other ideas on how to treat the U.S. Constitution, with numerous incidents pointing to this.

The post Trump Organization First, America Second appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Photo Credit: Mendi Safadi

Bangladesh is one of the 29 UN member states that does not have diplomatic relations with Israel. Bangladeshi citizens have it written on their passport that they cannot travel to Israel and Israelis cannot go to Bangladesh.

As Bangladeshi Hindu rights activist Shipan Kumer Basu who heads the Hindu Struggle Committee related, “As of now, the Bangladeshi government has severed all ties with Israel. All diplomatic, cultural, trade and even travel is non-existent.” Basu wants for this to change and believes that by empowering the Hindus and other minorities in Bangladesh, this could alter the reality within the country.

Basu, as a Hindu Bangladeshi activist, is quite disgruntled with the present Bangladeshi government: “Sheikh Hasina gave ISIS a stronghold in Bangladesh. She has given them moral, administrative and political support to carry out their dreadful activities throughout the country. A recent survey has shown that even the moderate Muslims don’t like the functioning of the Bangladeshi government. Thousands are lining up along the border and going to India. This will create another huge refugee problem in the subcontinent.”

Basu stressed that Sheikh Hasina’s government is persecuting the minorities of Bangladesh: “The Hindu women and girls are the most vulnerable in our country. They are systematically forced to marry people from the Muslim community. The minority women are sometimes even dragged out of their homes and beaten up. Minority women are forced to sleep with the Muslims to keep them satisfied.”

“In addition, they are forcefully grabbing the lands of the Hindu Temples with the help of the local administration. Many Hindu gods and goddesses were broken to pieces and Hindu priests were severely beaten up by radicals. Not one arrest was made. All of the government people are of the ruling Awami League. The police don’t accept any complaints from minorities. All of the political parties are involved in this dreadful suppression of the minorities.”

According to Basu, the Christians of Bangladesh fair no better: “Recently, a Christian person was killed by radical Muslims. There was a big protest by the local people demanding to punish the perpetrators but nothing happened and no arrests were made. I asked Mendi Safadi, the President of the Safadi Center for International Diplomacy and Public Relations, to help us achieve our rights as minorities. Till now, no minority party is given the permission to register within the country yet there are 11 Muslim parties. Safadi assured us that this corrupt government will be exposed to the international community.”

Basu proclaimed that if Israel empowers the minorities in Bangladesh to address the issues they face with the present government, “We will open all channels with Israel. We will establish full diplomatic ties. There is vast opportunities of work to be done in Bangladesh, which is only at the developmental stage. Our country will have a better opportunity to get the latest technology and equipment. Bangladesh has a population of about 160 million and so we have a huge consumer market. Setting up trade relations will help both countries to grow at a rapid pace.”

The post Hindu Rights Activist: “Bangladesh Should Establish Diplomatic Relations with Israel” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Chemroad Journey vessel from the British Cayman Islands is stranded off Vietnam’s central coast. (FleetMon)

The British Cayman Island-registered ship tanker Chemroad Journey, en route from Singapore to China with some 30,000 tons of chemicals and 27 crew members, has reportedly been grounded on a rocky bottom off the central coast of Vietnam. According to the Maritime Bulletin, the vessel became grounded June 11 and suffers from a hull breach or breaches in its ballast tanks area.

The tanker is around 70 nautical miles off the coast of Binh Thuan Province, threatening the popular coastal resort town of Mui Ne. The Vietnam National Search and Rescue Committee (VNSRC) confirmed the ship was tilting some 15 degrees and could sink, and has demanded the captain of Chemroad Journey not release its chemical load in order to free itself. The tanker is believed to be holding butyraldehyde, ethylene glycol, ethyl hexanol, and ethanol amine, as well as 170 tons of fuel oil and 113 tons of diesel oil.

The response of Vietnamese authorities to the stranded tanker will be closely watched by the Vietnamese public. One year ago, protests broke out in several cities following the release of chemicals from a steel mill waste pipeline in Hà Tĩnh owned by Taiwan’s Formosa Plastics Group. The chemical spill killed over 100 tons of fish along a 200-kilometer coastline just north of the popular beach tourist city of Da Nang.

While Vietnamese authorities were quick to deny the spill reached the beautiful beaches of Da Nang, Vietnam’s environmental ministry has confirmed the region will take at least a decade to recover from the spill.

Vietnam is attracting record amounts of international visitors this year, and many flock to Mui Ne for its clean beach, windsurfing and red sand dunes. Last year’s waste spillage led one Formosa official to try to explain, “It is only possible to choose one: either fishing or the development of modern steel industry”. The spill and subsequent response by Formosa has heightened environmental awareness and anger among the Vietnamese population—to the extent unchecked development could threaten the Party’s claims to good governance.

With Vietnam growing at some 6% annually, the new leadership will need to step up efforts to assure an ever-skeptical population that this much-needed growth can be managed sustainably.

The post Stranded Chemical Tanker Threatens Vietnamese Shores appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

With our ever-growing needs for electricity and our consumption habits, night time is not like what it was a few decades ago. Now our cities are as illuminated as in the middle of the day. Hence the astonishment in discovering this photograph of North Korea plunged into complete darkness.

It is easy to imagine the surprise of astronauts aboard the International Space Station (ISS) when they photographed East Asia and saw a ‘black hole’ between China and South Korea. No, the Sea of Japan has not joined the Yellow Sea by drowning North Korea. According to the NASA: “Coastlines are often very apparent in night imagery, as shown by South Korea’s eastern shoreline. But the coast of North Korea is difficult to detect. These differences are illustrated in per capita power consumption in the two countries, with South Korea at 10, 162 kilowatt hours and North Korea at 739 kilowatt hours.”

How can we explain the total blackness of this country of 25 million inhabitants? In a few words, the legacy of the Kim Dynasty.

Pyongyang, the capital of North Korea (DPRK), offers the surreal spectacle of immense, endless and wide arteries definitely devoid of any traffic, lined with sinister gray buildings and soulless. There are few people in the streets of this capital. Where are the shops? The crowd, the frenzy that one observes in all Asian cities?

One symbol: The Ryugyong Hotel, a sort of stylized Russian mountain that had to peak at 330 meters and offer 360,000 square meters on 105 floors has long offered the spectacle of a desolate concrete blockhouse structure. Started in 1987, the construction was stopped in 1992 due to frequent power cuts as the government was going through a lot of financial hardship. It was during these same years that North Korea went through a severe famine.

How is this possible in a country where resources abound? The industrialization of Korea has essentially served to over-militarize the country. The figures are eloquent: first army in the world in number of military per thousand inhabitants and fifth army in the world in terms of numbers. Moreover, DPRK is now the 9th state to possess nuclear weapons, which raises the concern of the international community.

On the agricultural side, the picture is even more dramatic. North Korea has gone through a series of appalling natural disasters: floods and droughts, but aggravated by the implementation of agrarian reforms in Moscow: massive deforestation, intensive agriculture have washed out and deeply impoverished the soil. To obtain oil at preferential tariffs, North Korea had to trade agricultural commodities. Its situation deteriorated further after the collapse of the USSR. Russia naturally stopped the financial aid provided to the people’s republics during the communist era.

With a mineral resource estimated at 24 times that of South Korea, the DPRK has a major economic asset, particularly with a view to the reunification of the peninsula, since it would restore complementarity between the North (where most of the heavy industries were located in 1945) and the South, which traditionally harbors the best agricultural land.

According to the Bank of South Korea, the mining sector accounted for 8.7% of the DPRK’s gross domestic product in 2004: if energy resources (coal) are the main resource in mining production, North Korea is also rich in several strategic minerals: its reserves of magnesite, tungsten, graphite (2006 production: 32,000 tons, 6% of world reserves), gold (2006 production: 2 tons) and molybdenum (ores) place the DPRK in the first rank worldwide. The North Korean subsoil also contains tungsten, mercury, phosphates, silver, fluorine, titanium and molybdenum.

North Korea is second country in the world (after China) for magnesite reserves, estimated at 490 million tons. Annual production of magnesite (10% of the world total) ranks North Korea third in the world.

In addition, there are offshore oil reserves, not exploited, in the Western Sea, whose location straddles the Chinese and North Korean maritime areas. Coal production (mainly anthracite, with reserves estimated at 1.8 billion tones), or 23 million tones per year, is allocated in 600 mines. It is concentrated in the areas of Kaechon, Pukchang, Sunchon, and Tockchon, in South Pyongan, and Saebyol in North Hamgyong. Some of the production is exported to China (2.27 million tones in January-December 2005, accounting for nearly 10% of China’s coal imports).

Early to mid-1960s the north Korean economy actually outpaced that of South Korea. During this time both sides of the Cold War were pouring aid into both countries in an attempt to show that their system was superior. South Korea grew fast, but North Korea held its own.

Iron resources in 1970 had made the North Korean iron and steel industry the fourth most powerful in Asia, after Japan, China and India. At the end of the 1980s, the extension of the Kim Chaek Iron and Steel Complex had raised the annual steel production to 7 million tons. If energy shortages subsequently affected production capacity, they tend to be restored: in 2007, steel production was estimated at 1.23 million tones (up 16% from 2004) but decreased to 1.079 million tones in 2015. Iron production (5 million tons in 2005) places the DPR Korea at 18th place worldwide.

Copper is produced mainly in the Musan mine (North Hamgyong), the largest in Asia (its reserves are estimated at between 3 and 7 billion tons), which also produces iron, and the Unryul mine (South Hwanghae). Copper ore production amounted to 4.91 million tones in 2005 (of which 1 million tones were exported to China in 2005, compared to 600,000 tones in 2004) and 5.13 million tones in 2007.

In the case of non-ferrous metals, other production (zinc: production 2006 67,000 tons, lead: production 20,000 tons 2006) is produced in the Komdok mine (South Hamgyong) and refined in Mungyong. Production of fluoride (12,000 tons) ranks North Korea fifteenth in the world.

Given North-South complementarity in the mining sector, this sector has given rise to several inter-Korean projects, carried out on the South side by the state-owned Korea Resources Corporation (KORES), in particular for the exploitation of graphite.

The mining resources of the DPRK are also being developed in partnership with foreign countries, with China and Germany among others, in particular to modernize production structures. In 2005, a Sino-North Korean agreement (between the Chinese Metal Mining Company and the DPRK Ministry of Foreign Trade) was the first in the mining sector outside of a special economic zone. Anthracite mines in Yongtung, whose annual production amounts to 1 million tons. On December 12, 2008, an agreement in the coal and chemical industry was signed between China and North Korea.

The UK’s Ericon Company and the Dancheon mining bureau in North Korea had also agreed to set up a joint management company. According to the agreement, the Ericon Company was to invest about 400 million Euros in a mine, magnesium plant, and the Dancheon Port; however, this project was terminated without any results.

It is difficult for foreign investors to participate in the management of joint companies with North Korea. Foreign investors want to establish their own companies and operate the mines. The rights of investors to ownership, exports, and other key business arrangements related to the North Korea mining industry are unclear. North Korea is not forthcoming about its mining projects and will not provide information without prior investment agreements with foreign companies.

Additionally, the antiquated infrastructure (including power, rail, and ports) and resulting low productivity make mining operations difficult for foreign investors. North Korean groups specialize in production and trade for the mining sector, such as the Korea Kwangsong Trading Corporation and the Korea General Magnesia Clinker Industry Group

Attempt to expand oil capacities

As of March of this year, North Korea has expanded its oil import capacity as Washington seeks to tighten sanctions on its nuclear and ballistic missile programs. The expansion of the oil terminal in Nampo, a port city on the west coast of North Korea, has been under way since October 2015. The report is based on satellite images taken on October 4, 2015, and again on October 4, 2016.

It seems that North Korea has built a second wharf at the oil terminal and the dry land between the two docks should be used for a new oil terminal and storage facilities. North Korea imports 90% of its energy from China and crude oil is considered a vital link for the army and economy of Pyongyang.

Ed Royce, chairman of the Foreign Affairs Committee of the US House of Representatives, introduced in March new legislation to significantly strengthen sanctions against North Korea, including sanctions against those supplying crude oil and other products related to the North.

Seoul welcomed the legislation by saying it could be a “strong message” to exert “tangible pressure” on North Korea.

According to Chinese Customs data, in the first quarter of 2017, imports from China to North Korea increased by 18.4% compared to the same period of last year, while its exports to North Korea increased by 54.5%. From January to March 2017, China’s trade with North Korea amounted to 8.4 billion yuan (1.15 billion euros). China’s trade surplus with North Korea reached 1.52 billion yuan (208 million euros)—an increase of 37.4%.

From 19 February, China suspended imports of North Korean coal. It did not import it at all in March. As a result, in the first quarter of 2017, coal imports from North Korea were only half of what they were a year ago. According to Reuters, following the implementation of this suspension, Beijing ordered commercial companies to return the cargo of coal from North Korea.

As North Korea reach out to new friends late April, it urged Algeria to help it exploit its oil. This is what justifies the visit in the Algerian capital of Sin Hong Chol, the deputy North Korean Minister of Foreign Affairs. The official proposed to the Algerian authorities to look at the opportunities offered by his country, particularly in the field of exploration.

It was also an opportunity for the official to call for the strengthening of energy cooperation between the two countries, while highlighting his country’s skills in the field of hydrocarbon processing. With a total embargo on oil imports because of its nuclear tests, North Korea could, if indeed it received the aid of Algeria, develop a solid hydrocarbon industry in order to emancipate itself from this blockade.

According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA), as of July 2015, North Korea has no proven oil reserves or petroleum and other liquids production. During North Korea’s industrial peak in the 1970’s and 1980’s, the country was able to import oil from China and the Soviet Union at below market prices. Following the end of the Cold War, these deals ended, and North Korea’s oil consumption dropped from 76,000 barrels per day (b/d) in 1991 to 17,000 b/d in 2013.

It is difficult to get an exact estimate of the amount of oil imported into North Korea each year, states the EIA. Some estimates report that North Korea imports more than half of its oil from China and some volumes from Russia. North Korea has the capacity to refine 64 thousand barrels a day, however as a result of the economic decline, has utilization rates below 20 percent. Despite this, North Korea is able to refine enough crude oil to meet some of their domestic demand.

Patricia Schouker is an energy analyst based in Washington DC and an Associate Member of New College at Oxford University. Twitter: @Patricia_Energy.

The post Energy Security in North Korea: From Defiance to Survival appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Saudi Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister, Mohammad bin Salman, discussing the Islamic coalition on Dec. 15, 2015 (Reuters).

During the Arab-Islamic-American summit in Riyadh, leaders and representatives from Arab and Muslim countries stressed their countries’ commitment to combating extremism and terrorism. At the summit, it was decided to establish a strategic alliance. Nations facing a ‘common threat’ often pool their defense efforts in alliances.

While the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is a formal alliance, nations can also cooperate implicitly in informal ones. In fact, Saudi Arabia had already announced the formation of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (the ‘Islamic NATO’) end of 2015.

In many ways, defense is a public (“collective”) good. This means consumption of the good by one person does not reduce the amount available for others to consume. It also means that the benefits a given person derives from the provision of a collective good do not depend on that individual’s contribution to funding it.

The same reasoning applies to countries within strategic alliances: whatever the nature of the Islamic NATO, the defense efforts aimed at its ‘common goals’ are a collective good.

Empirical evidence on the political economy of alliances tells us that wealthier countries—like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates (UAE)—would spend significantly more on defense. Smaller states will thus be more inclined to “free-ride” as long as everyone (in the Arab Gulf, the Levant, East Africa and the Sunni world) benefits.

Since the 1960s, “burden sharing” (the specific efforts each member has to make) has been a recurring test of the theory of collective action. As in the case of NATO, members of the Islamic NATO might often bargain over burden sharing. But any ambiguity in this definition will create further tensions within the Islamic alliance. For instance, the alliance might deploy forces in faraway places than the traditional theaters of Yemen, Syria or Iraq. Some members will try to do these missions on the minimum while continuing to cut their defense budgets in response to their macroeconomic difficulties, fiscal pressures and welfare state budgets at home.

In addition to the challenges of free-riding and burden sharing, a ‘shared goal’ (fighting terrorism) might lead to a massive growth of the size of government (among the bigger members of the alliance). When counter-terrorism ends, government control diminishes, but never back close to its pre-war level. In his book, Crisis and Leviathan, economic historian Robert Higgs was the first to point out this pattern (which he called the “ratchet effect”).

In other words, the leader of the Islamic NATO (Saudi Arabia) will face increased spending (in terms of increased defense/security spending; increased subsidies needed to increase public support for the increased provision of the collective good; possible financing of compulsory military service; and so forth). This entails that the Saudi government must obtain resources through the tax system (or through implicit taxation, such as inflation) adding further complexities to Vision 2030.

Another point on a ‘common threat’: the defense budgets of the Islamic NATO’s members will diverge as long as defense strategies and choices diverge. Allies would have differing views on the sources of threat to their national security: while some countries consider Iran as their chief source of threat; to others, the Islamic State (ISIS) is the chief threat.

In his classic work on what defense goals best meet threats; which military means best serve those goals; and how to compare the value of military and other spending, Warner Schilling attributes the difficulty to uncertainty about future threats with the result that “the defense budget, while susceptible to rational analysis, remains a matter for political resolution.”

The last two words above are critical for the Islamic NATO: how much defense is enough will be answered through politics and tradeoffs. Thus, larger members will be promising private goods (especially financial aid and/or regional investments) to smaller ones in return for contribution to the public ones. Yet, this strategy is extremely expensive and usually well beyond the means of all states except, for the time being, the leader of the alliance (Saudi Arabia).

Also, we should expect smaller states which strongly identify their “special relationship” with Saudi Arabia as an important key to their security and their political clout to be willing to contribute significantly (both in terms of troops and risk-sharing).

Islamic NATO could survive, if and only if Saudi Arabia carefully compares other goods to offer (than public goods) and assesses the burden sharing perspectives within the alliance. That said, smaller members can and should be expected to provide their comparative advantage in areas such as ground forces and niche capabilities.

If the above-mentioned challenges are hard to reach, the Islamic NATO will be a fractured, uniquely privileged group.

The post The Future of the ‘Islamic NATO’ appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Welcome to the twilight zone of foreign policy and geopolitics where facts and fiction are inseparable and alliance formation is ever more elusive. In a tweet sent out early on Monday morning June 5th, the Saudi Ministry of Foreign Affairs announced: “Protecting national security from threats of terrorism and extremism, Saudi Arabia has decided to sever diplomatic and consular relations with the State of Qatar.”

The official statement accused Qatar of supporting “various terrorist and sectarian groups aimed at destabilizing the region, including the Muslim Brotherhood group, Daesh (ISIS), and Al-Qaeda, promoting the ethics and plans of these groups through its media (Al-Jazeera)”. The charge seems hyperbolic if not dubious.

While the diplomatic discontent between Saudi Arabia and Qatar has been written on the wall since the Arab Spring, it caught foreign policy experts in the Middle East and the West by surprise. Saudi Arabia has assembled a coalition that include UAE, Bahrain, Egypt and few others that are less important politically and economically to join in an effort to squeeze Qatar into submission. They simultaneously cut their relationships with Qatar and denied that tiny state any access to their sea, land and airspace. A significant amount of Qatar’s food import comes through Saudi Arabia and this being the holy month of Ramadan it could have severe consequence on the former’s food supply.

International Reaction

While the diplomatic dominoes were falling one after the other, the Pentagon, via its military Central Command, has issued a statement confirming that there was “no plans to change our posture in Qatar,” in reference to the US military base and troops stationed in that country. On the other hand, Avigdor Lieberman, Israel’s Defense Minister went public with his nation’s enthusiasm: “There is no doubt that this opens very many possibilities of cooperation in the struggle against terror”.

Meanwhile, Kuwait and Turkey have offered diplomatic intervention and urged all parties to de-escalate and exercise restraint. The Emir of Kuwait has been busying himself with ‘shuttle diplomacy’.

So, what is driving this issue, and why now? The possible answers might not please all parties.

Chameleons In The Desert

Multilateral diplomatic divorces of this nature are not something that occur haphazardly. If it is a single motive it would have to be a multifaceted one. And since the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is the epicenter of Arab oil wealth, it is fair to conclude that there are other actors, interest groups and nations whose hands are not always visible.

Of course, each actor who is part of this coalition is there to gain something; some of them might have short-term interests while others are motivated by the strategic outcome or the long-term.

The HackGate

The recent public release of hacked emails of UAE Ambassador to the US Yousef Al-Otaiba raise many questions and implicate UAE along with some former US officials as a co-conspirators in a multiparty effort to isolate Qatar.

Virtually the entire agenda of a two day conference that took place a year ago between Foundation for Defense of Democracies (FDD)—a neocon think tank—and high level UAE government officials seemed as a deliberate effort to project Qatar as a rogue nation that finances and hosts “terrorist organizations”. Within 24hrs after since the hacked emails appeared in the public domain, the operation to sever relationship with Qatar was in full force.

Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt and Bahrain share four particular interests:

First, to uproot the Muslim Brotherhood as they have what’s generally considered as a legitimate moral grievance per el-Sisi led coup in Egypt and the subsequent atrocities of public massacres, mass incarceration, etc. And the brotherhood’s various institutions, expertise and intellectual capacity present to the coalition threats that are more consequential than that of ISIS and al-Qaida.

Second, to isolate Iran to prevent it from broadening its political influence in the Middle East, especially in Yemen and Syria.

Third, to seriously look into the split, or the two-Yemen solution since the Yemen war is becoming a bloody quagmire.

Fourth, to undermine Qatar’s rising political clout with blockade and negative campaign especially since 2022 World Cup could elevate its international profile and influence.

‘Hiding In The Shadows’

Erik Prince of the infamous Blackwater is a close friend of Sheik Mohamed bin Zayed al-Nahyan the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi and he has an ‘intimate relationship’ with the US President Donald Trump. According to journalist Jeremy Scahill, Erik Prince is the de facto Trump adviser on military and intelligence matters. He “was with Donald Trump and his family at Trump Tower on election night in November.” Erik Prince is also the brother of Trump’s loyal friend, hefty campaign donor, and Secretary of Education, Betsy Devos. There is no RealityTV that can outdo this reality.

As someone who considers conventional military apparatuses to advance geopolitical interests both costly and obsolete and that paramilitary options could adequately fill their roles and achieve their objectives, Prince sees Trump’s myopic world view and rhetorical attack on Qatar as a valuable opportunity to rearrange US Qatar military partnership. For Prince and company, this is an opportunity to carve out his enterprise a much broader role. Prince and UAE partnership already has contracts in Somalia (Bosaaso Seaport) and Somaliland (Berbera Seaport).

The Trump Factor

In late May, at the Riyadh Summit, Donald Trump had addressed 50 Arab and Muslim leaders. In hindsight, Donald Trump clearly had four objectives. Two of them were for his political base and the Israel and Saudi lobbies: Escalate the anti-Iran rhetoric to pave the way for US pullout of the Iran deal negotiated by former President Barack Obama. Further isolate the Muslim Brotherhood to ultimately place that outfit in the international terrorist list.

The other objectives were to dominate the headlines to turn mainstream media away from the scandalous saga of the Trump presidency, ongoing investigation and Senate hearings implying illegal shenanigans.

And lastly, to hand the Deep State whom he is convinced is actively conspiring against him a payback punch by shaking the foundation on the US military arrangement with Qatar and thus the American grand strategy.

Any shake up in the current arrangement will make space for paramilitary entrepreneurs such as Erik Prince to expand their sphere of influence and indeed business. The danger in this option is that these private paramilitaries are accountable to none.

Trump wasted no time in taking credit. In his own special way and through his favorite platform, Trump praised Saudi Arabia and the Covfefe Coalition with these two historic tweets:

During my recent trip to the Middle East I stated that there can no longer be funding of Radical Ideology. Leaders pointed to Qatar – look!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

And

…extremism, and all reference was pointing to Qatar. Perhaps this will be the beginning of the end to the horror of terrorism!

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) June 6, 2017

Notice the contradiction between Trump’s tweets and the Pentagon statement quoted earlier.

In these times of uncertainty when a number of Middle East states have been collapsing one after another, Qatar has been making sound strategic decisions. It is the richest nation in the world in terms of per capita and is the standard bearer of Arab progress. It has press freedoms that standout in the Arab world as media in countries such as Egypt and Lebanon have been growing flagrantly jingoistic or sectarian. Also, in 2022 it is set to step up to the global center stage as it becomes the first Arab and first Muslim nation to ever host the FIFA World Cup.

This enviable position has emboldened Qatar to act independently when it comes to its own self-interest and maintaining strategic partnerships with Iran and Turkey—the two main contenders against Saudi Arabia’s quest for Middle East leadership. Though the Kingdom has zero tolerance for ‘insubordination’ and criticism, sustainability of its current stance is very questionable.

When the dust settles down, geopolitics will supersede the Kingdom’s neighborhood politics and traditional sword dance.

The post The ‘Covfefe’ Coalition to Squeeze Qatar appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

U.S. Secretary of Defense Jim Mattis and Tomomi Inada, the minister of defense for Japan, during the IISS 16th Asia Security Summit in Singapore on June 3, 2017. (DOD/Air Force Staff Sgt. Jette Carr)

The Shangri-La Dialogue concluded last weekend in Singapore, marked by sharp differences between Beijing and Washington over the South China Sea and Taiwan. Hailed by its sponsor, the International Institute for Strategic Studies (IISS), as the most important regular gathering of defense professionals in the Asia-Pacific region, the forum (previously known as the Asia Security Summit) remains the only annual meeting for defense ministers from across the Asia-Pacific region according to its website.

Since its launch in 2002, the Dialogue has attempted to build confidence and foster security cooperation among Asia’s defense and security policymakers. On Sunday, however, Beijing expressed strong dissatisfaction with some countries both inside and outside the region, who “have been bent on going against the trend, making repeated erroneous remarks, ignoring the facts and confusing black from white with entirely ulterior motives”. The remarks by Chinese Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Hua Chunying were in reference to “irresponsible remarks” made by U.S. Secretary of Defense James Mattis and Japanese Defense Minister Tomomi Inada.

In his speech at the forum, Mattis had alluded to China’s activities in the South China Sea, stating “We oppose countries militarizing artificial islands and enforcing excessive maritime claims unsupported by international law”. Inada, in her remarks, also mirrored Mattis’ remarks, saying “In the East and South China Seas, we continue to witness unprovoked, unilateral attempts to alter the status quo based on assertions incompatible with existing international norms”.

In her regular press conference on June 4, Hua Chunying disputed their remarks, stating “China builds relevant facilities on islands and reefs of the Nansha Islands for the purpose of improving the working and living conditions for people stationed there, better defending its sovereignty and performing China’s international obligations and responsibilities. It is totally within China’s sovereignty to deploy necessary defense facilities on its own territory. It is exercising the self-preservation and self-defense rights that a sovereign state is entitled to, and has nothing to do with “militarization”.

Unfortunately, some defense ministers at the forum would disagree with China’s claim of sovereignty over all the Spratly islands and their waters, which are contested among Brunei, Indonesia, Malaysia, Taiwan (ROC), the Philippines and Vietnam. Others would disagree with her definition of “militarization”, including the Merriam Webster dictionary, which defines “militarize”: 1) to give a military character to; 2) to equip with military forces and defenses; and 3) to adapt for military use.

According to AMTI, China “appears to have built significant point-defense capabilities, in the form of large anti-aircraft guns and probable close-in weapons systems (CIWS), at each of its outposts in the Spratly Islands.”

This latest refusal to acknowledge its militarization of occupied artificial islands bodes ill for any reasonable dialogue between Washington and Beijing – and will no doubt add to the distrust and discord between China the other littoral nations which claim features in the South China Sea.

The post Mattis and Inada Draw Fire at Shangri-La Dialogue in Singapore appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Following the twin terror attacks in Iran that killed at least 16 people, ISIS claimed responsibility for them on its affiliated website and the Iranian regime blames the Saudis, whom they claim support ISIS.

However, more than one Middle Eastern dissident stated in exclusive interviews that perhaps what happened in the Iranian Parliament building and in Khomeini’s mausoleum was an inside job perpetrated by the Iranian regime. According to Iranian human rights activist Kaveh Taheri, “This is likely to be closer to the reality if you focus on the tragic events.”

“It could be completely staged,” Iranian journalist Mohsen Behzad Karimi related. “There is a big chance due to the security measures and the wrong date. If it was an ISIS attack, they would do it two days earlier, when thousands of people were commemorating Khomeini’s death in the same place. In addition, penetrating the parliament is impossible. There are three layers of security.” As one of the victims related, “We are not allowed to bring a pen into the Iranian Parliament but the attackers easily fired at us in the building.”

Iranian dissident Shabnam Assadollahi added that the attackers were dressed as women wearing chadors and they shot most of the victims in the legs, which is not ISIS style terrorism: “Have you ever seen ISIS members shooting at people like that? They create horror in public areas for ISIS creates fear among ordinary people. They don’t shoot in the legs. They behead people. They don’t go to parliaments. I believe it was a plan to create victimhood.”

Syrian Kurdish dissident Sherkoh Abbas concurred, stressing that the Iranian regime wanted to portray Sunnis in a negative light especially after the GCC meeting on the Iranian threat and Trump’s meeting with the Saudis.

Middle East scholar Robert Sklaroff stressed that Trump developed a strategy in recent times to rid the world of ISIS without empowering Iran: “And that is why he has embedded Americans with Kurdish forces attacking Raqqa for it is impossible to be a player without having placed pieces on the board.” He added that in recent times, the Sunni Gulf Arab countries are more pro-NATO than pro-Ankara and they are very hostile towards Iran, which is why these countries are increasingly cooperating with the US.

According to Abbas, all of these developments are not positive for the Islamic Republic: “Now the Iranians are going to the next step, which is the GCC and other Sunni Arabs are behind horrible terror acts within Iran to make themselves as a victim and to distance themselves from ISIS.” He implied that this is an Iranian strategy to derail America’s relations with these countries. In addition, Abbas argued that the twin attacks can be used to justify Iran’s presence in both Syria and Iraq as well as to crack down further upon their own people: “When you have a terror attack, people prefer security over freedom and democracy.”

Aside from the issues mentioned above, these twin attacks in Iran occurred at a time when the Iraqi Kurds are preparing a referendum on independence that can suffer as a buffer against Iranian aggression in the region and Abbas noted that there is an alliance between Russia, Iran and Turkey to thwart Kurdish national aspirations: “They agreed on a safe zone in Syria with the blessing of Assad. That tells you there is an understanding and agreement. This is a marriage of convenience. The Kurds are in the middle and are targeted by Iran and Turkey. The twin attacks gives them legitimacy to stay in Iraq and Syria to thwart Kurdish national aspirations. Before, they had no reason for there were no attacks on them.”

According to Karimi, even if ISIS was responsible, they had to have been given a free pass by the regime to implement the terror attack: “They let it happen. It was a very good moment. It happened on the very day that the US Senate was to decide on Iranian Revolutionary Guard terrorist activity. At the same time, there were a lot of activities going on about Iran in the EU. It was the right moment from the Iranian regimes point of view to victimize themselves and to show the world that they are also under attack.”

Abbas argued that some of ISIS is compromised by the Iranian regime: “ISIS is not a homogenous group. There are ISIS groups that you can call on as needed. Many of those ISIS groups are Syrian military and intelligence officials. These staged things occurred in the past in Syria in order to coerce Kurds, Christians and others in order to submit that Assad is their only protector so they can’t shift to any other alliance.”

In some corners, the Iranian regime clearly benefited from these twin attacks, giving credit to claims that the twin attacks were an inside job. Canada’s Foreign Minister mourned the two attacks in Iran but she did not condemn Iran for assisting the Taliban and deporting ISIS to Afghanistan. Furthermore, Senator Bernie Sanders proclaimed on the US Senate floor: “Let us tell the people of Iran that while we have serious disagreements with them on a number of issues that today when they are mourning and dealing with the shock of a terrorist attack, today is not the day to pass this legislation.”

Assadollahi stressed that as the Cinema Rex Arson Attack demonstrated in 1978, the Iranian regime has no problem committing an act of terror as an inside job and blaming it on others. In the Cinema Rex Arson Attack, which killed at least 470 Iranians, the mullah’s blamed Savak (the Shah’s Secret Police) for the attack but later on, it was proven that the Islamists who now make up the present Iranian regime were responsible for it: “They don’t have any problem terrorizing the nation. They don’t have any love for our country. Their interest is Shia political Islam.”

According to Taheri, Iran’s Supreme Leader proclaimed that “terrorist fumbling with firecrackers won’t impact the Iranian nations’ willpower” yet the Iranian regime has not even declared a public day of mourning in solidarity with the victims. As an Iranian dissident, he declared: “We stand firmly with the people of Iran and will advocate for their right to freedom and true democracy. Violence and terrorist acts against the people of Iran must not be tolerated and shall be condemned unequivocally.”

In conclusion, Abbas proclaimed: “If the Arab GCC are serious about the Iranian threat, now is the time to put Arab nationalism behind them and to view the Kurds as allies to prevent the emerging threats of Iran and Turkey. Turkey is interfering in Syria. The Turkish Parliament approved sending its military to Qatar. Iran is supporting Qatar. It is interesting what is going on in that area. They need to view the Kurds and Israel not as a threat.”

“It is easier to win by supporting an independent Kurdistan, Balochistan, and Azeristan. It won’t cost a lot of money like wars. Then you don’t need a few hundred troops to fight the battle. You let the people there fight for themselves and naturally, you benefit from that for fighting Iran even with a few thousand troops won’t defeat Iran. Saddam tried and failed. Therefore, let the minorities do it for you.”

The post Middle Eastern Dissidents: Iranian Regime Responsible for Twin Attacks appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

President Trump is setting up a “war room” to counter the Russia probe. With all of the talk about Russian government tactics for meddling in Western democratic processes, I thought it would be interesting to tease out what the Russians might do in such a war room.

There are several timely monographs detailing Russian tactics in Central and Eastern Europe (CEE), including from the Center for Strategic and International Studies, Jamestown Foundation, the journal of Comparative Strategies, and Yale Press. Together, these pieces highlight three tactics that Russia might use if it were running Trump’s new war room:  high-level pressure, information dissemination and persuasion, and revisionism.

We have already witnessed high-level pressure in the form of Trump asking investigators in federal agencies to halt a line of query and pledge loyalty to the president, or be fired. The White House could next offer deceptive interactions, such as pretending to support an investigation by slowly offering information, while at the same time trying to subvert it.

This has been used by Russia in regard to conflict resolution measures in separatist and war torn parts of Eurasia. By pretending to be for peace, Russia has been able to delay resolving conflicts, while aiding one side, or sometimes both.

Meanwhile, the White House could find an otherwise legitimate actor to apply pressure on members of the investigation teams. This could include carrots, such as favors, or sticks, such as the collection and threat of dissemination of personally embarrassing information or threatening to support a politician’s opponent in the next race. This has done by Russia to gain leverage over political outcomes and business assets in CEE.

Another means to apply pressure could be a significant increase in White House staff allegiant to the president. Tens more people working the case for the White House could substantially strengthen their collection of information and abilities to counter information. Since Putin came to power, Russian embassy staff in every CEE capital has increased, including hundreds of intelligence agents working across Europe. This has strengthened counterespionage efforts, as well as recruitment.

The Trump team could tap into a growing admiration of the ‘strongman’ Putin and his way of governing.  Among broader society, there is already a sympathetic base that does not like the ‘Russia bashing’ by the liberal media.

A counter effort to recruit businesspeople, journalists, academics, and other public figures in the U.S. to speak more positively about ties to Russia could take place. Russia has covert and overt funds for this and has managed to retain a list of pro-Russian voices throughout Europe.

The Trump Administration could also infiltrate and pressure civil society in America by creating a fund to cultivate divides, and then offer mediation services, all the while recruiting subversives. By manipulating societal tensions, the government and society will turn their attention to addressing this issue rather than the Russia probe. In Russia’s case, this has included encouraging campaigns for minorities, advising on separatist tactics, and even arming groups in third countries.

The second tactic—sophisticated information dissemination—has become a hallmark of Russia in CEE, including the buying up of media outlets.

More recently, Russia’s toolkit includes cyber, trolling, and propaganda dissemination combined with actions, or “active measures,” such as disinformation campaigns, media manipulation (particularly on political and public opinion), media creation, or spreading confusion and fear, i.e. “psychological operations.” The White House has several loyal media outlets that could ramp up their operations.

Ideologically, the White House could claim victimization by creating an alternative story behind the “witch hunt” on Russia. Russia has gone after foreign funded NGOs, multinational institutions, and the media, labeling them “enemies of the state” and crippling their capability, including jailing citizens and closing down organizations.

An image of the wounded Russians at the hands of the sinful, racist, and fascist Russophobic Westerners could translate into the wounded conservative at the hands of sinful, violent, and irrational liberals.

Finally, rewriting the wrongs of history by literally revising history is a Russian tactic. According to current historical rewriting, Russia tried to join the West, but was rebuffed. So, it had no option but to create new alliances by revising borders and international alliances. In blaming ‘the other’ by revising the Obama/Clinton years as sacrificing American greatness and making America weak, the Trump Administration is righting wrongs by making relations with Russia great again.

Trump’s war room against the Russia probe, if run by the Russians, could employ the tactics of high-level pressure, information dissemination and persuasion, and revisionism. Governments in CEE, meanwhile, are taking measures to counter Russian tactics.

The first step is recognizing what is happening and mobilizing to counter it.

The second step is informing society about potential subterfuge, such as false media reports and disruptive organizations.

The third step is to strengthen government institutions and ensure they remain independent and immune from corrupt practices.

The fourth step is ensuring freedom of the press, protecting journalists from influence as well as external financing for media outlets.

Fifth and final, educational bodies must continue to check for historical accuracies and take measures to reeducate society.

Perhaps most important of these countermeasures is that we, the people, make more of an effort to discern when these tactics are being used and urge our lawmakers to take action. We face a critical point in preserving our democratic system, our freedom of the press, and our own interpretation of ourselves.

Stacy Closson is a Global Fellow with the Kennan Institute at the Wilson Center in Washington, D.C. and a Truman National Security Fellow. She lives with her family in Bismarck. Views expressed are her own.

The post President Trump’s War Room on Russia, As If Russia Were Running It appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Brett Edkins and Dr. Brzezinski in Guilin, China.

By Brett Edkins

When I first met Zbigniew Brzezinski, he was 78 years old. I was a recent college graduate looking for a job.

It was 2006, and three decades after serving as Jimmy Carter’s National Security Advisor, Dr. Brzezinski was still a giant of American foreign policy. On every major issue, diplomats, scholars, and politicians sought his opinion and strategic guidance. His long opposition to the war in Iraq was now the mainstream consensus, and it made him a sudden and surprising darling of the political left.

Sitting in his office in a brown, tufted leather chair, Dr. Brzezinski quietly reviewed my resume and transcript. I did not think I would get the job as his research assistant, so I was not too anxious. I was just excited to be meeting someone so famous. Brzezinski paused. “What happened in biochemistry?” he asked. He sounded serious. I wasn’t sure what to say. How could I explain away that terrible grade? After what seemed like a long pause, Brzezinski grinned. He was ribbing me.

Thankfully, Brzezinski hired me despite my biochemistry grade, and for two years I had a front row seat to American foreign policy.

One of my first tasks was to accompany Dr. Brzezinski to a meeting with Democratic members of the House of Representatives. A black town car with tinted windows drove us to Capitol Hill. Addressing the group, Brzezinski outlined a simple four-point approach to ending the war in Iraq. Brzezinski had an uncanny ability to speak in self-contained, perfectly constructed paragraphs. After his remarks, a few congressmen asked me to send them a copy of Brzezinski’s speech. I told them, there was no speech, no prepared remarks.

Afterwards, Nancy Pelosi ushered Brzezinski out of the building, along with former Secretary of State Madeline Albright and former NATO Supreme Allied Commander Wesley Clark, who also addressed the group. I found myself walking next to Albright and tried to make small talk. She worked for Brzezinski in the Carter White House and helped him write his memoirs, Power and Principle. Brzezinski, she told me, was the nicest boss she ever have. When they worked together, Albright never knew what to call herself, “assistant” or “research assistant,” so Brzezinski told her to use whatever title helped her get what she needed from other people. Albright said that quickly devolved into calling herself “Grand Empress of Diplomacy” or something similarly outrageous.

The next few weeks were spent editing Brzezinski’s new book, Second Chance, which assessed the foreign policies of Presidents H.W. Bush, Clinton, and W. Bush, and suggested that America had one last chance to restore its political credibility and reclaim the mantle of the world’s leading power. Brzezinski and I bickered (politely) throughout the editorial process, as I tried to make his dense, insightful prose lighter and more colloquial. Sometimes I won. Usually he won. But we both enjoyed the back-and-forth.

The book became a New York Times bestseller after Brzezinski appeared on The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. I munched on M&M’s in the studio’s green room as Brzezinski and Stewart cracked jokes and talked about the book. Brzezinski leveled some harsh criticism on President Bush for squandering the global consensus after 9/11 on a war of choice in Iraq, and for his “Manichean paranoia”—his tendency to see the world in black and white, divided us from them, and using our assumed moral superiority as an excuse to justify immoral acts.

When Dr. Brzezinski was on your side, you could ask for no better spokesman. During the Bush years, he excoriated neoconservatives for advocating the ill-conceived and historically naïve war in Iraq. “You don’t change a region by injecting a foreign army and pulverizing a state and then saying that you are, in fact, nurturing democracy,” he once said. His sharp tongue warned against expanding the conflict into Iran, as some in the administration wanted.

In October 2007, Brzezinski and I traveled to China, along with his wife Emilie, a renowned sculptress known to her friends as Muska. The Chinese held Dr. Brzezinski in high regard for his role in normalizing diplomatic relations between our countries. When Jimmy Carter was elected president in 1976, normalization was far from certain, despite the progress made under President Nixon. Brzezinski, however, was determined to make it happen. In 1978, over the objections of the State Department, he went to China to begin negotiations. By December, an agreement had been reached to establish full diplomatic ties, ending decades of estrangement and hostility and laying the foundation for what is arguably the most important bilateral relationship in the world today.

On our first full day in China, Brzezinski and I met with former President Jiang Zemin, instantly recognizable in his oversized black glasses. Jiang cheerfully told us about his exercise routine and weekly lessons in English and world history. He recounted the many Brzezinski books he had read. And he discussed Taiwan, the Iranian nuclear issue, and other global issues with Dr. Brzezinski. In the next ten days we met with the Chinese prime minister, defense minister, foreign minister, and dozens of other dignitaries and scholars.

Our Chinese hosts, mostly former military officials, took us on a whirlwind tour of the country. In Beijing, we visited the Forbidden City. Fourteen black-suited bodyguards circled Brzezinski at all times. In Guilin, we took a boat down the Li river. Our host offered us a snack of fried fishes on a stick. Quick on his toes, Dr. Brzezinski feigned a seafood allergy, and I got stuck scarfing down the little anchovies. In Zhengzhou, we toured a Buddhist temple and a provincial museum. Every night ended with a large dinner and toasts of highly-alcoholic baijiu. After one particularly extravagant ten-course meal, Brzezinski quipped, “How do you like my 1.3 billion friends?”

Meanwhile, back in the United States, the 2008 presidential campaign was heating up. In August 2007, Dr. Brzezinski became one of the first foreign policy heavyweights to endorse Barack Obama. Brzezinski even campaigned with Obama in Iowa in March 2008, introducing him for a major speech about the Iraq War, a conflict that both men opposed from the beginning.

He also used his sharp tongue to defend Obama from critics. In the midst of the Democratic nomination fight, Tucker Carlson, then of MSNBC, asked Brzezinski about Hillary Clinton’s claim that Obama had no foreign policy experience. Brzezinski let it rip: “Well I sort of don’t take that very seriously. She says she’s been to eighty countries and trips. My travel agent has been to a 150 countries and trips. That doesn’t make him qualified to be president.” Then he compared Clinton to Mamie Eisenhower. The Morning Joe crew roared with laughter, calling the critique “devastating.”

Dr. Brzezinski did not suffer fools or foolish arguments. He would listen politely, then calmly dismantle your argument until there was nothing left. As his research assistant, you had to present your work logically, carefully, and, above all, you had to be prepared for a tough cross examination.

This was excellent preparation for law school, which is where I went after my two-year stint with Dr. Brzezinski. Back when he hired me in 2006, I had a rudimentary understanding of foreign policy, but no framework for understanding the geopolitical implications or overall significance of events happening abroad. Brzezinski changed that, instilling in me a sense of realism and history.

For most, Zbigniew Brzezinski will be remembered as a foreign policy great—a man who helped end the Cold War, establish diplomatic ties with China, and negotiate peace between enemies in the Middle East. For me, he was an example to emulate, to strive for. He was also a genuinely fun person to work for. I will miss him.

 Brett Edkins is an attorney and a Forbes contributing writer living in New York City. He graduated from Yale Law School in 2011.

The post Remembering My Mentor Zbigniew Brzezinski appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Moon Jae-in, The 19th President of the Republic of Korea. (flickr)

The Blue House’s new tenant, South Korea’s 19th President, Moon Jae-in, readily takes up his cudgels against South Korea’s ‘accumulated evils’, foregoing the tea time celebration for his overwhelming election victory.

The former senior presidential secretary for civil affairs under the Roh Moo-hyun administration unsurprisingly trounced the remaining four major candidates in the 19th presidential election. Moon overwhelmingly garnered 41% of the total votes, followed by Hong Jun-pyo (Liberal Korea Party) at 24% and Ahn Cheol-soo (People’s Party) with 21%. The conservative camp’s expert curmudgeon, Hong Jun-pyo’s impressive infighting remarkably clipped the fledgling wings of bland political amateur, Ahn Cheol-soo.

Yet his polarization strategy was not effective enough to stop swing voters’ dispersive dislodging to the scattered value niches on the political spectrum. A significant number of Korea’s non-Moon supporters cast their ballots to the major centrist right candidate, Yoo Seung-min (Bareun Party, 7%), and even to the major far-leftist candidate, Shim Sang-jung (Justice Party, 6%). This dispersive voting behavior is also attributable to the May 9 election’s 77% turnout rate, the highest in two decades.

Two weeks after his inauguration, Moon remains popular. A poll released on May 26th revealed that approximately 88% of the Korean people are confident that the liberal president will perform successfully. The record-breaking popularity trend also transferred to the new ruling party, the Democratic Party, challenger against the decade long conservative reign, which for the first time in its long opposition party career earned an approval rate higher than 50% at 51%.

Riding the tide of such a surge of public trust in the government, the new president’s focus is to dissolve the so-called ‘accumulated evils’, the corrupt and malfunctioning bureaucratic residues inherited from past military regimes’ strong statism.

The opening decisions of the “Moon Jae-in administration” (as it is officially titled) appear to have been strategically orchestrated. Some of the administration’s nominations regarding Blue House staff and the cabinet clearly conveys the message that the administration is determined to reform the two main origins of Korea’s ‘accumulated evils’: the supreme prosecutors’ office and family-owned conglomerates, or chaebols.

Corrupt precedents indicate that a number of politically greedy prosecutors at the supreme prosecutors’ office have parasitized presidential powers by neglecting their investigative neutrality in favor of the Blue House’s agendas.

The newly appointed Blue House Senior Civil Affairs Secretary, Cho Kuk, is a long devoted human rights activist and a progressive law professor with no bureaucratic background. Considering the fact that the position has generally been one of the last echelons for Korea’s prosecutors, Cho’s outsider stature is a foreboding overture that galvanizes future theatrics in the administration’s reformist campaign against the supreme prosecutors’ office.

Can the rookie with the blemish of having participated in socialist activities agreeably dismantle ossified bureaucratic mannerisms and pure-bloodism within the organization? The answer to this question will primarily be shaped by the ironically pure liberal elite’s un-value-laden rational calculation regarding the extent of reform.

The newly appointed Blue House Chief of Staff for Policy, Jang Hasung, is also a bureaucratic maverick. Nicknamed ‘chaebol (Korea’s family-owned conglomerates) sniper’, the progressive economics professor has been an ardent proponent of shareholder activism throughout his career with the People’s Solidarity for Participatory Democracy. I

n Korea, chaebols’ owner-family-directed excessive abuse of corporate power over small shareholders has increasingly been a significant obstacle to economic democratization. For example, inter-affiliate overseas trading for the top 10 conglomerates have quintupled over the past four years, further establishing the already deeply embedded circular-shareholding corporate governance structure. Such moth-eaten and corrupt corporate governance culture has nevertheless been exonerated by the public, largely because amoral families are the main breadwinners of the export-oriented economy.

The Korean people are, however, unhappy with the cyclic recurrence of this mega-‘Gap-jil’, their indignation toward it exemplified by the glaring torch of the Candlelight Revolution. Undoubtedly, ordinary Korean people will find Jang’s appointment a refreshing move.

Despite the ongoing impasse in the National Assembly concerning approval of the nominees for its cabinet members, the Moon administration has thus far successfully embellished the façade of the Blue House with a ‘cool’ yet ‘humane’ liberal reformist image. The administration is overall younger, more gender-balanced, and more region-representative, compared to the former Park administration. Most importantly, in stark difference to the Park administration, the Moon administration prioritizes effective but less formalized communication with the Korean people in its endeavors to strengthen the country’s grassroots democracy.

Nonetheless, the administration faces an onerous political challenge in terms of continuously surfing the populist tide. The president needs to skillfully survive the tsunami of Korea’s unprecedented ‘parliamentalizing’ politics. The success of his ‘cooperative governance’ in collaboration with the leviathan opposition forces in the National Assembly will largely be determined by his capability to institutionally accommodate integration throughout the country.

With the regime’s unfloundering popularity, some scholars argue that the constitutional-reforms-oriented decentralization of presidential powers should be preceded by the party-reforms-oriented decentralization of party leadership. The assumption underlying this argument is that intra-party factional hegemonism is a major problem in Korean politics and as such, congressmen, independent of their party bosses’ influence, can better-serve the public’s diverse interests.

However, what must be remembered is that unless the degree of the demand-side innovation in public services (the degree of the public’s new and evolving civil participation, as well as the vitality of their social capital) is commensurable to such decentralization of party power, the society may encounter irrational adaptive problems if the polarization of presidential powers is accompanied by un-pluralistic populism.

The post The ‘Moon’ Drive: Fast, Furious, yet Deft appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Fred Johnston

In April, a clandestine meeting took place in New Zealand that included attendees from representatives of the FBI, CIA and National Security Agency plus the United Kingdom’s MI5 and MI6, amongst others. They were brought together to discuss and facilitate intelligence sharing between the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and New Zealand, colloquially known as the Five Eyes network.

These nations have been coming together since an alliance was established in 1946 through the UKUSA agreement, with the other three countries joining the collective over the following ten years. The partnership was established on mutual trust and potential advantages for each country, coming at a time when the looming threat of communism from the Soviet Union swept through sections of Asia during the Cold War.

During said period, the alliance paid dividends. In the 1970s, Anglo-American operations were essential in tracking Soviet submarines using a variety of means, while the United States relied heavily for decades on listening posts lying in former British imperial territories. Half the cost of running the Cypriot site was paid for by the US, demonstrating its significance in acquiring intelligence from the Middle East with this post.

The merits of a shared surveillance alliance are plain to see, though one could argue the future of Five Eyes could be jeopardy. In March, former CIA analyst Larry C. Johnson claimed Britain’s intelligence agency, the Government Communications Headquarters (GCHQ) had intercepted communications within Trump Tower during the 2016 Presidential election.

His evidence for such sensational claims? GCHQ Director Robert Hannigan had resigned three days after Trump’s inauguration. Hannigan said he was to care for his ill wife and elderly parents, but Johnson declared he “doesn’t believe in coincidences”. The real reason for the resignation, he surmised, was clear: The British government had been gathering intelligence on the Trump administration, and once Trump was made aware of this, Hannigan was forced to step down.

Unfortunately, this unproven claim became tangled in the echo chamber of the media—Johnson’s theory were soon picked up by Andrew Napolitano, a Trump confidant and pundit for Fox News. Two days later, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer cited Napolitano’s comments at a briefing, which evoked a forceful denial from their British allies.

One would think maintaining a positive relationship with like-minded, democratic allies with whom intelligence information has being shared for decades would be seen as a priority for the United States. Yet with the Trump administration demonstrating distrust for the UK in recent months, doubts grow around whether such arrangements will continue in the future.

Ties with traditional US allies have not only grown fractured with Britain. At the conclusion of bruising meetings with NATO and G7 countries, Germany Chancellor Angela Merkel remarked at an election rally, “The times in which we could completely depend on others are, to a certain extent, over. I’ve experienced that in the last few days. We Europeans truly have to take fate into our own hands.”

A not-so subtle commentary on the degeneration of Germany-US relations, which really began to slide with George W. Bush and Gerhard Schroeder’s split decision on the Iraq war in 2003. It also signals the level of diplomatic success experienced by Trump during these meetings—if the head of state of arguably Europe’s biggest economy is losing faith, it does not bode well for the US.

While Trump’s actions are a cause for concern on the diplomacy front, he has also made strong accusations against the intelligence community—his own, that is. In February, Trump took to Twitter with the following claim, “Information is being illegally given to the failing NY Times and Washington Post by the intelligence community (NSA & FBI). Just like Russia.”

This was in response to the resignation of national security advisor Michael Flynn over potentially illegal contacts with the Russian ambassador during the 2016 Presidential campaign. Whether or not the contact took place is a different matter of debate—Trump’s public comments toward the intelligence community undermines the work this industry has performed for many decades (in a Tweet, no less). If Trump treats his own reconnaissance agencies with such disregard, it would be understandable for other nations to be weary of sharing sensitive information with Donald at the helm.

When examining the US approach towards shared intelligence, one may assume there are doubts on the legitimacy and significance of such agreements. After all, this agreement was sought at the beginning of the Cold War; we no longer exist in a bipolar world of “us and them”, where the threat to Western society lying on the other side of the wall. Does Western society still require joint intelligence and security arrangements, like the Five Eyes network, or are such agreements obsolete?

Firstly, the current manifestations of Five Eyes’ traditional threats, demonstrating their prioritization of military and defense, is a worrying trend. Throughout history, access to the Mediterranean Sea had been crucial to Russia.

Earlier this year, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said the “Mediterranean region was the core of all essential dangers to Russia’s national interest”, which shows a reigniting of interest from Moscow. Along with Russia’s intervention in Syria, Five Eyes member countries must be concerned with Moscow’s military expansion intentions.

Meanwhile, China’s provocative military build-up, its assertive behavior in the South China Sea and its power of persuasion to garner political influence from states within the region should also be under close attention from Five Eyes.

A study by the RAND Corporation, titled “War with China: Thinking Through the Unthinkable” found that, “improvements in Chinese military capabilities mean that a war would not necessarily go the way US war planners plan it. Whereas a clear U.S. victory once seemed probable, it is increasingly likely that a conflict could involve inconclusive fighting with steep loses on both sides.”

Secondly, the alliance faces an ever-evolving threat from terrorism. Through groups such as al-Qaeda and more recently Islamic State, extremism has become harder to monitor and is increasingly prevalent in the societies of the Five Eyes and their partners. One study has found that ISIS publishes 38 unique pieces of content per day. This, along with the advent of social media to inspire and influence citizens in the West, has shown the pressure to disrupt would-be attackers has never been greater.

Finally, the recent Wannacry attacks shone a light on a growing problem in the technology sector—cyber crime. In the attacks, over 160,000 internet-connected computer systems were infected and forced the user to pay a $300 U.S. “ransom” in order to retrieve information from the affected system. Although reports showed the hackers made less than $100,000, a paltry sum when one considers the hysteria it caused, the cost of cyber crime on society is growing.

One study showed that by 2021, the damage of data, stolen money, theft of personal and financial data, amongst other acts, would cost up to $6 trillion. An eye-watering figure such as this should be the impetus for the majority of world leaders to take action on cyber crime, let alone the Five Eyes collective.

The Five Eyes surveillance network has served a great benefit to its member countries since its inception 70 years ago. With an inexperienced politician as Head of State in the U.S., the status quo of diplomacy and how to approach intelligence gathering have dramatically altered with his presence. His actions prove to undermine the intelligence community, not just in the US but also multilaterally.

In this day and age however, do we really need such integrated surveillance and intelligence operations? In one word—yes.

Fred is a Central Australian who works as a schoolteacher in Bogota, Colombia by day and aspiring social commentator by night. His interests mainly lay in social injustices carried out by those who have misplaced their moral compass—usually politicians and big business. You can follow him on Twitter @FreddyKuma.

The post Is The Five Eyes Network Still Relevant Today? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

By Col. Tomasz K. Kowalik and Dominik P. Jankowski

It all started with a military exercise in 2008. “Today, Georgia. Tomorrow, Ukraine. The day after, the Baltic states—and later perhaps the time will come for my country, Poland!” Those words were uttered 5 August 2008 by Poland’s late president, Lech Kaczyński, in the presence of five European heads of state who had come to Tbilisi in a gesture of solidarity with the just-invaded Georgia. Almost 10 years later, this statement anticipates Europe’s current security dilemma.

These days, pundits are increasingly speculating on what Russia’s next large-scale military exercise—code-named Zapad-2017—may bring. Will it be just another saber-rattling event that will once again lower the security threshold by adding uncertainty and unpredictability—and make us increasingly numb and desensitized to those large-scale exercises?

This time, will a Russian ally have to reluctantly accept the stationing of more foreign troops on its territory? Or will it lead to yet another Russian military incursion into a neighboring country? Which security Rubicon will be crossed this time?

Understanding Russia’s modus operandi in recent years, and what its large-scale military exercises are designed to accomplish, could offer answers and highlight areas that the international community should closely watch. It also indicates a way ahead for the West.

Train with a purpose

In the last decade, Russia has expanded its military capabilities through regular and specific exercises that have often involved offensive, aggressive and anti-Western scenarios. Such maneuvers enhanced troop readiness status and effectiveness, especially since Russian forces train as they fight.

Those drills also served concrete political and strategic communications purposes as a show of force and a narrative for the national leadership. They intimidate and threaten countries against whom the exercises were designed, but also, in some cases, they disguise military movements—helping Russia prepare and subsequently conduct real military operations.

Timing and geographic proximity are useful. In early August 2008, when Russian troops invaded Georgian territory, they surprised the rest of the world, which was following the Summer Olympics in Beijing. Russia’s 58th Army had just finished its Kavkaz-2008 military exercise, coincidentally occurring just ahead of the invasion (15-31 July) and located just north of the Georgian border.

Fast-forward five years to 2013. Russia re-introduced a military training concept known as the snap exercise. These occur with no-notice and often involve large numbers of troops. After putting into motion four such snap alerts in 2013, Russia conducted another such exercise from 26 February to 3 March 2014. That exercise engaged not only large numbers of airborne troops and transport planes but also long-range aircraft. Officially, the exercise also involved 1,200 amphibious combat vehicles, 880 battle tanks and 120 attack helicopters.

Yet there was more. Under the guise of that exercise, Russia deployed a large contingent of troops to Crimea and its vicinity. The next step was Crimea’s effective capture by troops which officially had taken part in a regular military exercise. The result was Russia’s illegal annexation of Ukrainian territory.

Now comes 2017. Another large-scale Russian exercise is scheduled for September. Unlike previous snap exercises, Zapad (West) takes place every four years and is announced well in advance. It also encompasses several preparatory episodes and smaller exercises—some of them usually occur with no advance notice—and all of which culminate in these Russian-led multinational maneuvers.

This year’s exercise—set to take place both in Belarus and in western Russia (including the Kaliningrad oblast)—might be among the largest since 1991.

As a possible indicator of Zapad’s size, Russia has ordered more than 4,000 railcars to transport its troops. Based on this, up to two Russian armored/mechanized divisions (around 30,000 military personnel) could be deployed to Belarusian territory.

Along with troops already moved there, the anti-access/area-denial (A2/AD) assets brought to Kaliningrad over the last few years, troops traditionally flown into the area during such exercises, and those stationed along Russia’s border with the Baltic states (numbering three new Russian divisions in the Western Military District), it’s clear that Russia can, if it so decides, easily exert significant pressure on its neighbors.

Thanks to this military build-up, all under the pretext of the Zapad exercise, Russia’s options are many. It could, with little or no warning, launch a limited or provocative hybrid operation (to see what happens), test responses on NATO’s eastern flank, or present a security threat to Ukraine where the Russo-Ukraine conflict remains in full swing.

What to watch

Considering this grim view, what are some significant indicators and warnings to watch for? Observers should pay attention to three elements regarding Zapad-2017.

The first is a military deception or maskirovka. Russia has learned to deceive the West by masking and disguising its movements effectively. It continues to hone this technique by mastering novel elements. A recent case in point was last year’s shipment of SS-26 Iskander-M missile launchers—under the guise of a logistics exercise—aboard a civilian cargo ship to Kaliningrad.

Here, Russia’s chronic lack of transparency in continually sending false messages while pretending to be open—essentially offering a mixture of lies and disinformation—aims to encourage the idea that it is actually benign and seeks a true partnership with the West. But the West should be able to distinguish empty gestures from real offers of military transparency.

The second area of concern is Russia’s inclination to train its troops in the use of its nuclear arsenal during these large-scale exercises. According to numerous media reports, during both Zapad-2009 and Zapad-2013, nuclear attacks on NATO member countries were allegedly considered—to the West’s amazement.

Imagine NATO troops training for a nuclear strike on Russian cities. Now consider the many tactical nuclear weapons in Russia’s arsenal and recent developments in doctrine that allow for an easy transition from conventional to nuclear warfare during military operations. Nuclear forces are a factor of consideration for Russia’s neighbors.

Add to that Russia’s obvious violation of the 1987 INF Treaty—which eliminated all short-range and intermediate-range nuclear and conventional missiles, as well as their launchers—and one could conclude that Russia has the potential to be on a collision course with the West.

In that context, Russia’s planned training of Chemical, Biological, Radiological and Nuclear defense (CBRN) troops should be closely watched. If indeed large CBRN formations engage in such an exercise, it could imply that Russia is getting ready for a potential nuclear development.

The third and final element to monitor is Russia’s long-term military build-up and regional stability. How will Belarus—Russia’s only ally in the region—react and behave during the exercise?

On one hand, it provides a de facto Russian military forward presence, as some Russian units are already permanently stationed there. On the other hand, what if Russia suddenly decides not to leave Belarus with its military build-up after Zapad-2017? This not so improbable scenario might further destabilize the region’s already tense situation. What would NATO and the West do?

What now

In advance of the Zapad exercises, three things should be considered. First, we need to stay the course with the decisions taken at NATO’s Warsaw Summit and make sure the Alliance’s enhanced Forward Presence (eFP) is fully implemented, along with a Multinational Divisional HQ in Poland to better coordinate multinational efforts. The eFP—defensive in nature—should be properly trained and equipped to fulfill its mission of providing deterrence and defense in allied states.

NATO should also make sure the follow-on forces are more regularly exercised, including in a non-permissive environment. Moreover, NATO should keep working on a comprehensive strategy to counter Russia’s A2/AD systems. This should be closely linked with enhancing the NATO Defense Planning Process and investing in the right kinds of military capabilities that can defend alliance territory.

Second, we need better and more robust intelligence, surveillance and reconnaissance (ISR) and situational awareness. NATO requires a proper reporting mechanism at the highest political and military levels to function across the alliance.

In essence, NATO members need a solid multinational tool to provide reliable, accurate, measured and sober analysis of intelligence and capabilities along the alliance’s eastern border from Norway in the north, via the Baltic states and the Suwałki gap, down to Romania and Turkey in the south. In today’s security environment, a well-functioning indicator and warning mechanism that can distinguish true posture and intentions from a maskirovka is crucial.

Third, reciprocal transparency is key in avoiding an uncontrollable military escalation or “spillover” effect. Russia frequently violates the provisions of the OSCE Vienna Document, which was designed to ensure transparency in military exercises. Russia often intentionally lowers the number of troops involved in its exercises or splits them—either by providing a small gap in time between events or holding them in different training areas simultaneously under joint command—with the goal of avoiding notification or observation thresholds. Let’s be blunt: essentially, the Russians are trying to dupe the West.

Finally, a growing lack of transparency on the Russian side, combined with an increase in Russian snap exercises (four in 2013, eight in 2014; 20 in 2015 and 11 in 2016) limits room to maneuver with a genuine dialogue and puts political pressure on Western decision-makers.

Since 2016, Poland, along with numerous allies, has strived to avoid situations in which a military incident or a snap exercise might unexpectedly spark armed conflict. Three Polish proposals are now on the table: modernization of the Vienna Document (Chapter III on risk reduction); reciprocal, advanced briefings in the NATO-Russia Council on one Allied and one Russian exercise (preferably Zapad-2017) this year; and voluntary briefings on national exercises in 2017 in the OSCE (Forum for Security Co-operation). Not surprisingly, we are still waiting for Russia to engage on a basis of reciprocity regarding any of these proposals.

Conclusion

Russian military exercises have become a dangerous tool, politically and militarily. The “train as you fight” approach—especially when nuclear attacks are an option—poses a serious threat to the West. It’s not enough that we be prepared to respond militarily. We must also be able to send clear unambiguous messages of unity, cohesion and readiness. As long as Zapad-2017 style exercises are a tool of coercion, no one can take regional stability for granted.

All in all, the West needs to send Russia an unequivocal message that it is ready to engage in confidence-building measures. At the same time we must verify Russia’s actions. We should undoubtedly make efforts to build reciprocal trust, but that will not come immediately.

Finally, Russia needs to understand that if it messes with the alliance, it will pay dearly.

All opinions are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position or views of the institutions they represent. Col. Tomasz K. Kowalik, PhD, is director of the Military Foreign Affairs Department at the Polish Ministry of National Defense. Dominik P. Jankowski is head of the OSCE and Eastern Security Unit at the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs.

This article was originally published by Center for European Policy Analysis.

The post The Dangerous Tool of Russian Military Exercises appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

In an exclusive interview, Syrian Kurdish leader Sherkoh Abbas explained a novel idea for promoting peace between Israel and the Arab world.

He argued that by establishing an independent Kurdistan, the Arab world will be forced to be more focused on the Iranian threat and Neo-Ottoman ambitions rather than thwarting an independent Kurdistan in order to save Iraq and Syria as independent Arab states and compromising with the Iranians and Turks on the Kurdish issue. This enables them to cooperate more with Israel.

In an exclusive interview, Syrian Kurdish leader Sherkoh Abbas introduced a novel idea for promoting peace between the State of Israel and the Arab world. The center of his idea revolves around the fact that both the Kurdish and Jewish peoples are outcasts in the Middle East, who are despised beyond logical reason. According to his arguments, the Arab countries will always unite with Turkey and Iran in order to thwart Kurdish independence in order to keep the Kurdistan regions of Iraq and Syria within these current Arab states and until recently, also to be against Israel.

In recent times, the Arab countries have warmed up to Israel, as demonstrated by Israel’s close relationship with Sisi’s government and Israeli Communication Minister Ayoob Kara’s meeting in Ecuador not too long ago. However, despite these positive developments, Abbas argued that Israel’s rapprochement with the Arab world rests on shaky grounds for he claimed that even if the Arab countries are wary of Erdogan’s neo-Ottoman ambitions and the Shia Crescent to the point that they are willing to cooperate with Israel, their desire to thwart Kurdish independence allows them to overcome their differences with the Turks and Iranians and to unite with their enemies, a reality which makes rapprochement between Israel and the Arab world more difficult.

“When I was in Syrian Kurdistan, most of the Arabs including the Syrian Opposition and the Syrian regime views Israel as a dagger in the heart of the Arab world from the Persian Gulf to the Atlantic,” Abbas related.

“They view the Kurds as creating another Israel and would be another blow or dagger in the Arab heartland and the Kurds are Zionists in disguise. For the Arab world, the Kurds are 40 million strong and they don’t deserve a state but they want another Arab state.”

“They attack Sykes-Picot for creating artificial borders but then they defend it regarding the Kurds in order to thwart an independent Kurdistan. These borders were used to defend the colonial borders. Turkey wants to be a Khalifa or Sultan but that clashes with the Shia Crescent yet on Kurdistan, they agree and work together. The US and Sunni countries feel they can recruit them against Iran but it is a mistake for they will always make an agreement on the Kurdish issue. Thus, allowing the Kurds to be freed of the Arab nations of Iraq and Syria would pave the way down the road for the Arabs not to have a common interest with the Iranians and Turks to thwart Kurdish independence.”

“For me, it is ridiculous that we got no hope in Turkey or among Syrian Arab Sunnis or the Sunni Arab states. This shows you cannot rely on the Arab states. They will insist on a Palestinian state or getting the Golan back.”

According to Abbas, only the Kurds are Israel’s natural allies: “They can stop the Sunni challenge, Neo-Ottoman ambitions and Iran. They have positive political capital. Now is the time to work with them.”

In recent times, Abbas noted that Iran, Russia, Turkey and Syria started to spread conspiracy theories in order to undermine Kurdish gains once they started to work with the Americans and tried to delink from Assad and Russia: “Russia is painting a picture that the Kurds are colliding with ISIS.”

Abbas compared this to elements of the Syrian Opposition who accused Israel of cooperating with the Al Nusra Front: “They always invent conspiracies. Iran and Assad have some element and units called ISIS on demand that attack the minorities and Kurds in order to force them to cooperate with the regime. Also, they want to portray Sunnis or any rebels as ISIS terrorists to get Iran and Assad out of isolation and to make them more favorable and acceptable or better than the alternative. When Iraq started to take shape towards being divided and the same in Syria, they spread conspiracy theories or accusations. They say America and Israel are trying to divide Syria. This is what Turkey is spreading. Iran and Assad also.

“Now, also Russia portrays a gap between NATO and Turkey. Initially, they tried to see the Kurds as the victims and rightly so. Then, they felt uncomfortable after they witness the Kurds cooperating with the U.S. and so they are trying to derail the process of the Kurds getting gains in Syria and Iraq. The best way to counter this is to support an independent Kurdistan.”

Abbas argued that an independent Kurdistan won’t just block the establishment of a Neo-Ottoman Empire or the Shia Crescent or Iran aiding Hezbollah as well as other terror groups. He claimed that if the establishment of an independent Kurdistan in Syria and Iraq becomes a reality, the Arabs will view it as a loss for the Arab homeland but nevertheless, a fait accompli just like the State of Israel and this will make it easier for Israel to cooperate with the Arab countries.”

“Once an independent Kurdistan in the heartland of the Arab world is a fait accompli, he claimed that the Arabs will once again view Iran and Erdogan’s Neo-Ottoman ambitions to be their number one threat, allowing Israel to face no obstacle in their rapprochement with the Arab world for without this being a reality, they can always forget their issues with Turkey and Iran in order to unite to thwart an independent Kurdistan. Without an independent Kurdistan coming into fruition, he stressed that they would have no reason to compromise.”

“Thwarting an independent Kurdistan will always keep them together no matter how many differences they got,” Abbas stressed. “Kurdistan has so much oil and water resources that they will never give up on. The Iranian Shah and Saddam Hussein made an agreement. Saddam essentially gave up territory to the Shah in order for the Kurds to stop being armed and the Kurds lost in the 1970s. He was willing to give up territory just so that they won’t give up their rights over Kurdistan.”

“They felt that giving territory to Iran is good to keep Kurdistan in the North. Turkey and Iran had many disagreements in recent weeks but what brings them to the table is the Kurdish glue. Everything else is minor compared to the Kurdish issue. But by having the Arab Kurds go their own way, then they will have to face the reality. They will only worry about Iran and the Neo-Ottoman Empire that can threaten the Saudi leadership. That will force them to reach out to the Kurds for they are the buffer that can stop those two countries from marching on them.”

He also argued that this in turn will enable the Arab countries to support peace with the State of Israel without any other interests distracting from it: “Furthermore, Kurdistan can be a new beginning in that part of the world besides Israel in promoting democracy and coexistence, a positive influence that can help many Muslims in that part of the world to adopt moderate Islam.”

The post Syrian Kurdish leader: “Peace is Obtainable by Supporting an Independent Kurdistan” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The Art of the Deal?: Chinese president Xi Jinping and U.S. president Donald Trump.

Russia isn’t the Trump administration’s only foreign conflict of interest problem. President Donald Trump, his daughter/senior adviser Ivanka Trump, and son in-law/senior adviser Jared Kushner also have a growing China problem.

At a Beijing hotel on May 6, Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole Kushner Meyer appeared before a crowd of wealthy Chinese investors to pitch an investment scheme for a Kushner Companies luxury apartment complex in Jersey City, New Jersey known as “One Journal Square” that would help Chinese investors secure U.S. visas and green cards. Meyer repeated her pitch to investors in Shanghai on May 7, and planned to do so in other Chinese cities. Meyer highlighted her ties to the Trump administration through her brother Jared, raising concerns over conflicts of interest and drawing harsh criticism back home in the United States (Video: Bloomberg, CBS, CNN, MSNBC, Reuters).

Negative media attention to the Kushners’ activities in China led to a half-apology from the Kushners and cancellation of further Kushner appearances in China, but doesn’t seem to have dampened Chinese enthusiasm for the Kushner “visa-for-sale” scheme. This is not the only time that conflict of interest questions have been raised regarding Trump-Kushner business ties with China.

A brochure for Jared Kushner’s sister Nicole’s event in Beijing read: “Invest $500,000 and immigrate to the United States.” The visa scheme in question is the controversial EB-5 visa or “golden visa” program for wealthy investors (which has been called “the ‘crack cocaine‘ of real estate financing”), from which the extended Trump-Kushner real estate family has previously raised Chinese money, and which President Trump extended “without long-promised changes” the day before Nicole Kushner Meyer appeared in Beijing.

Nicole Kushner Meyer, in black, speaks at EB-5 investment pitch in Beijing, May 6 (ABBAO).

The Kushners’ partner in China is Beijing-based Qiaowai [Overseas] Group (侨外移民 or 侨外集团, QWOS). Other U.S. partners for the project include New Jersey private equity firm KABR Group and Florida-based EB-5 “shady broker” the U.S. Immigration Fund (USIF). Qiaowai CEO Ms. Ding Ying (丁颖, aka Vivian Ding) attended President Trump’s inauguration in January 2017 and reportedly met Trump and members of the Trump-Kushner family. Ding has touted her attendance at the inauguration for marketing purposes in Chinese media and and at Kushner events in China.

As veteran China reporter Bill Bishop observes, it appears that Ding “knows how to work American politicians” and how “to navigate the swamp to hawk EB-5s”: In April 2016 according to Chinese media, former New York mayor and Trump surrogate Rudy Giuliani appeared with Ding and USIF chairman Nicholas Mastroianni II in Beijing to promote a Times Square EB-5 investment scheme. Giuliani appeared again with Ding and Mastroianni at a high-priced November 2016 EB-5 “forum and showcase” in Shanghai. Incidentally, Mastroianni also contributed $100,000 to Trump’s inauguration fund (See also New York Times).

Qiaowai CEO Ding Ying at Trump inauguration (ABBAO),

Rudy Giuliani and Ding Ying promote EB-5 scheme in China (QQ).

The Kushners were apparently not prepared to deal with U.S. media attention to their activities in China. Journalists from The New York Times and The Washington Post were forcibly removed from the event in Beijing, and reporters were barred from the event in Shanghai. Reporters in Beijing were told, “This is not the story we want.” Nicole Kushner Meyer hung up on a reporter from The Wall Street Journal when contacted by telephone in Shanghai.

Washington Post researcher Congcong Zhang wrote on Twitter that she was threatened for covering the Beijing event. “I was threatened, harassed and forced to delete recordings and photos of the Kushner family recruiting Chinese investors in U.S. Green cards,” said Zhang, adding that “People from the Chinese company that works with the Kushners on the investment visa surrounded me and grabbed my shoulder…. They tried to force me to leave, then grabbed my phone. I could only get it back if I agreed to delete all recordings and videos.”

Kushner investment pitch in Beijing, May 6 (Javier Hernandez via Twitter).

The Kushners’ activities in China have drawn harsh criticism from across the U.S. political spectrum. To many observers it appears that the extended Trump-Kushner family is treating the U.S. presidency as a business platform. Nor would this be the first time the Trump-Kushners have been accused of running the White House “like a family business.”

“It’s highly problematic,” Noah Bookbinder, executive director of Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington, told National Public Radio. “It appears that Jared Kushner’s family business is using his name and his official position to bring in investment.” Bookbinder and former Obama administration ethics adviser Norman Eisen wrote in The Washington Post that “this sales pitch is clearly unacceptable” and that “Jared Kushner and Ivanka Trump should recuse themselves from China policy.”

Former George W. Bush administration ethics adviser Richard Painter called the Kushners’ actions in China “corruption, pure and simple,” an “abuse of power,” and “very, very close to solicitation of a bribe.” Painter also wrote on Twitter that incoming French president Emmanuel Macron “should ask that the Statue of Liberty be returned to France and replaced with a giant statue of Jared Kushner with his hand out.”

Kushner Companies has since half-apologized for name-dropping its White House connections to promote its investment scheme. “Ms. Meyer wanted to make clear that her brother had stepped away from the company in January and has nothing to do with this project,” said a Kushner Companies spokesperson, “Kushner Companies apologizes if that mention of her brother was in any way interpreted as an attempt to lure investors. That was not Ms. Meyer’s intention.”

Following extensive and embarrassing media coverage of its activities in China, Kushner Companies backed out of planned further appearances in Guangzhou, Shenzhen, and Wuhan. According to Hong Kong’s South China Morning Post, however, rich Chinese investors are more eager than ever to invest in the Kushners’ EB-5 scheme, and showed up in droves to the event in Shenzhen despite the Kushners’ absence. As Reuters reports, Qiaowai’s promotional materials have continued to tout its Trump-Kushner connections and to “guarantee” green cards for investors in violation of U.S. EB-5 rules.

Now U.S. Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA) is calling for an investigation into “potentially fraudulent statements and misrepresentations” by Kushner partners Qiaowai and USIF. In a May 25 letter to the Department of Homeland Security and the Securities and Exchange Commission, Grassley wrote that “a closer look” at Qiaowai and USIF is “clearly warranted, as reports suggest both companies have long employed questionable practices.” Additionally on June 1, Democratic members of the Senate and House Judiciary Committees sent a letter to Kushner Companies requesting information on how it has used the EB-5 program and expressing concerns that Kushner Companies and its partners “may be seeking to benefit from the Kushner family’s connections to the White House.”

On June 5 it was further revealed that Kushner Companies is seeking a $250 million loan to pay off investors, including Chinese EB-5 investors, in a luxury Jersey City apartment tower known as “Trump Bay Street.” Major U.S. banks are hesitant to lend on the project due to its connection with Jared Kushner, the Trump administration, and the controversial EB-5 program, so unregulated lenders and foreign banks are likely to fill the void, potentially adding to the vast Trump-Kushner array of foreign conflict of interest problems.

As noted above, conflict of interest questions have previously been raised regarding Trump-Kushner business dealings with China. Trump Tower’s biggest commercial tenant is Chinese state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China (ICBC), which is due to renegotiate its lease during Trump’s term as president. Since his inauguration, Trump has won Chinese government approval for 38 new Trump trademarks in China; and Ivanka Trump’s clothing company won approval for three new trademarks in China on the day she and her family dined with Chinese president Xi Jinping at Mar-a-Lago, Trump’s private Florida resort, in April.

All in the Family?: Trump-Kushner and Xi Jinping families at Mar-a-Lago (large).

Ivanka Trump has also come under fire for reported sweatshop conditions at factories in China where her company’s products are made. The recent arrest and disappearances of investigators looking into conditions at these factories in China prompted The Washington Post to ask, “Is China offering Ivanka Trump unseemly favors?”

If so, then it seems reasonable to ask what China might expect in return. Since former China-hawk Donald Trump’s inauguration as president, China has already secured Trump’s obeisance to Beijing’s “one-China policy” on Taiwan, Trump’s inaction on Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea, Trump’s silence on human rights, and Trump’s dictator-love for Xi Jinping. What more could China want?

The post Trump-Kushner China Dealings Raise Conflict of Interest Concerns appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Trying to militarize the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC – center left), Arab League (LAS – top left) and Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC – bottom left) through the IMAF poses a threat to the European Union

President Trump took the floor at the Arab Islamic American summit on May 21st. But it was also a summit of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT). With his official American support to this organization, Trump jeopardized the security of the European Union. Leaders and citizens of the EU should be alert to this risk.

Who are the IMAFT members?

The Arab Islamic American summit can be also labeled an ˮOIC Minus 2“ summit. Of all 57 members of the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) assembling all Muslim countries of the world and countries with significant minorities, 55 were present—all except Iran and Syria.

The IMAFT Alliance was founded in December 2015 under the leadership of Saudi Arabia and is currently of 41 member states. Out of the 57 OIC members, 40 are members of IMAFT, in addition to Eritrea.

Membership of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) and the Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC)

The core of IMAFT is made by 19 members of the Arab League (LAS) from Mauritania to Oman and from Lebanon to Comoros: Mauritania, Morocco, Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Sudan, Somalia, Djibouti, Comoros, Yemen, Oman, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Bahrain, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Jordan, Palestine and Lebanon. All LAS members except Iraq, Syria and Algeria (though, leaders of Iraq and Algeria were present at the Riyadh summit).

It is good to note that three LAS members, Somalia, Djibouti and Comoros are ethnically non-Arab countries but they are “politically” Arab. For this reason they will be considered Arab for simplicity’s sake.

Membership of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) and the League of Arab States (LAS)

There are also 6 Asian members of IMAFT: Turkey, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Maldives and Malaysia. In addition to that, there are 16 Sub-Saharan African members: Senegal, Gambia, Guinea, Guinea-Bissau, Sierra Leone, Cote d’Ivoire, Mali, Burkina Faso, Togo, Benin, Nigeria, Niger, Chad, Eritrea, Uganda and Gabon.

Four countries with a Shi’a government—Iran, Iraq, Azerbaijan, and Syria—are non-members of this Sunni alliance. However, Azerbaijan, together with Indonesia and Tajikistan, have been invited to become IMAFT members.

But why Trump’s participation at the summit could jeopardize the security of the European Union?

The military alliance as a security threat to the EU

Muslim states, especially  Arab states, possess a vast military arsenal. Saudi Arabia, with its population of 30 million, has the world’s fourth largest military spending right after the U.S., China and Russia. The Kingdom spends a third more than France or the UK, with a population of over 60 million, and two and a half times more than Brazil, a country of 200 million.

The United Arab Emirates, with a population of 6 million, are the 14th largest spender globally—their military spending is similar to Italy’s and slightly exceeds Turkey’s.

According to the World Bank, the 22 Arab League members had an overall military budget of USD 214 billion in 2015 corresponding to 8.2% of their combined GDP. For comparison, the military expenditure of the 27 EU members (except the UK) total USD 203 billion, which accounts for 1.4% of their GDP. After subtracting the three Arab non-members of IMAFT and adding the 22 non-Arab IMAFT members, the total military expenditure of the 41 member IMAFT was USD 222 billion in 2015, according to the World Bank and the EU Institute for Security Studies.

One should not forget that the statistics do not include all military expenditures. In Egypt, Pakistan and Turkey, the army is a major industrial and trade owner. Furthermore, the Egyptian military budget is boosted by not negligible direct U.S. subsidies.

The Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) as compared with the European Union (EU)

The US President is helping build a military colossus on Europe’s southern border, whose military spending exceeds the military budget of the EU members. This alliance would include almost all southern neighbors of the EU, from Morocco to Turkey, including Tunisia, Libya, Egypt, Palestine and Lebanon.

Realizing that the European Union is unable to defend itself against the expansionist policy of Russia with just one third of the EU military budget (USD 64 billion), the EU citizens do have serious reasons to be alarmed.

One must realize that many of the IMAFT members have combat-regular guerilla or regular forces. In the last two decades, they actively participated in the civil wars in Iraq, Syria, Libya, Yemen, Afghanistan, Somalia, Sudan, Chad, Cote d’Ivoire or Sierra Leone, in military occupation of Western Sahara, war against Ethiopia, military campaign against Saddam in Iraq, the Houthi in Yemen, the Arab Spring in Egypt and Bahrain, Boko Haram in Nigeria or against the ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and Libya.

To make it even worse, countries like Saudi Arabia, the Emirates, Oman or Kuwait buy exclusively the latest military technology —their military own more state-of-the-art weaponry than the EU members.

Officially, IMAFT is being built as an alliance to counter terror. However, some analyst title it a NATO-like alliance which evokes its potential durability. An organization that started its life with a military intervention in Yemen (instead of fight against terrorism), can easily turn to expansionist policies in the long run.

Let us consider the large Muslim minorities in the EU states, primarily in France (8%), the Netherlands, Belgium and Germany (6%), Austria and Sweden (5%), Denmark and Italy (4%), with a tendency for rapid growth due to high birth rates and immigration. The late Libyan dictator Qaddafi had threatened the Europeans that the Muslim minority in Europe would have been his future secret weapon against the “native” Europeans thanks to its birth rate.

Earlier this year, Europeans got evidence of the manipulation of minorities for political gains. During the Turkish referendum campaign, Turkey’s President Erdogan interfered unprecedentedly with the internal affairs of the EU states, gaining the vote of  the Turkish minority in Germany, helping him introduce a more illiberal regime at home. The late theoretician of nationalism Ernest Gellner had postulated that some diaspora communities tend to be more radicalized than the population in their countries of origin.

In connection with the migration crisis, IMAFT is becoming the second biggest threat to the Europeans, right after Russian assertiveness on their eastern border.

The military alliance as an economic challenge to the EU

Out of the total 13 members of the oil cartel OPEC which can influence global oil prices, 7 countries are also members of the IMAFT military alliance: Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Kuwait, Libya, Nigeria and Gabon. These members exploit 20 of OPEC’s 33.5 million barrels daily, i.e. 59% of the OPEC production.

580 out of 1210 billion barrels of proven reserves is located in these 7 countries, making it 48% of the total OPEC reserves. Adding Iraq, IMAFT’s ally, the daily production of the alliance makes 71% of the OPEC production and its proven reserves correspond to 60% of the OPEC reserves.

Membership of the Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT) and the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC)

Russia and other OPEC countries are the two most important oil suppliers to the EU. A formal American support to IMAFT led by Saudi Arabia de-facto transforms OPEC to a military alliance. Europeans have an extensive experience with Russia using the oil and gas pipeline taps as its weapon. By militarization of OPEC, the European Union is getting two military rivals of its two most important suppliers.

Summary

The Islamic Military Alliance to Fight Terrorism (IMAFT), with an official American support, is becoming a second military bloc on the borders of the European Union. After Russian expansionism on its eastern border, IMAFT is a security and economic challenger to the EU on its southern border.

With Trump’s foreign policy so distinctly ignoring the security interests of Europe, the citizens and the leaders of the European Union should do everything to build own military capacities of the EU, such as anEuropean army directed by a European foreign policy, and an EU membership in NATO.

Double threat on the borders of the European Union: Russia and IMAFT

Links:

List of all 41 members of IMAFT: http://www.arabianow.org/saudi-arabia-leads-islamic-military-alliance/

Participants of the Arab Islamic American Summit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Riyadh_Summit_2017

IMAFT and EU members military expenditures, according to the World Bank: http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/MS.MIL.XPND.GD.ZS

Arab League members military expenditures, according to the EU Institute for Security Studies (EU ISS): http://www.iss.europa.eu/uploads/media/Alert_27_Arab_military_spending.pdf

The share of the 15 states with the highest military expenditures, according to the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI): http://america.aljazeera.com/content/ajam/articles/2015/4/13/military-spending-spikes-in-middle-east-east-europe/jcr:content/mainpar/textimage/image.adapt.990.high.SIPRI_global_share_military_expenditure_041315.1429016026374.jpg

 

The post Trump Jeopardizes EU Security in Riyadh appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Women protest against local government corruption, arrest of opposition leader in Al-Hoceima, Morocco on June 3, 2017. (Photo: REUTERS/Youssef Boudlal)

The kingdom of Morocco is not known for political activism or protests. Certainly not when compared to the Arab Spring uprisings that led to regime change in several of its North African neighbors. Yet in the last 2 weeks the traditionally stable Morocco has seen the largest popular protests and government backlash since the 2011 Arab Spring.

At the time of Arab Spring, Morocco’s king ceded some power to the elected government after some protests cropped up demanding an expansion of democracy. However the move has been largely symbolic without any meaningful change—the king retained a large amount of power and influence. King Mohammed VI, in power since 1999, is part of the Muslim world longest-ruling royal family. In addition, since 2011 Moroccan police have cracked down on protests to limit unrest and prevent similar revolutions to those in Egypt and Tunisia.

Tensions between police and activists in the northern city of Al-Hoceima have resurfaced, and spread, in the last several weeks. An opposition group called Hirak had been gathering support in criticizing the Makhzen—the king’s governing authority in the region—since a local fisherman was killed after a dispute with police. On May 26th, after a preacher criticized Hirak leader Nasser Zefzafi, protesters gathered in the streets and clashed with police. Police also issued a warrant for Zefzafi’s arrest, amidst signs from local residents posing the question to them, “Are you a government or a gang?”

Violence ensued as police used force to break up protests. The next day, May 27, authorities arrested 20 people in Al-Hoceima, charging them with “threatening national security.” Zefzafi, a well-known activist aided by large group of supporters, fled the city before he could be arrested.

However Zefzafi was tracked down and detained a few days later. On June 2nd, protests erupted again in Al-Hoceima. This time “several thousand people” gathered in the city’s main square, chanting “we are all Zefzafi” and “the people demand prisoners be freed.” Police quickly surrounded the group in an attempt to limit the number of people with access to the gathering. In the nearby town of Imzouren police fired water cannon to disperse hundreds of protesters who clashed with security forces.

On June 4th, police acted to disperse a women’s protest organized by Hirak. In addition to showing outrage over Zefzafi’s arrest, the group demanded action to address Makhzen (local government) abuse and corruption as well as the need for more jobs and improvements to regional infrastructure. Once again police surrounded the protesters, and pushed the leader of the event away from her supporters. “We go to sleep in fear, and we wake up in fear,” said Fatima Alghloubzari, 54 who tried to join the protest on Saturday. “We never imagined our city would become like this.”

Several articles on these events pointed out how rare political unrest is in Morocco (and how police presence at protests is usually significant). Perhaps this explains why, as Patrick Markey of Reuters points out, “the unrest around Al-Hoceima and the Rif region is testing nerves in a kingdom that presents itself as a model for stability and steady reform, as well as a safe haven for foreign investment in a region widely torn by militant violence.” Even limited protest can be dangerous in a country used to very little.

It certainly makes sense why the regional government (and, by extension, the monarchy) would want to quash the Al-Hoceima protests as quickly as possible. The Arab Spring showed how quickly such shows of displeasure can spread. But cracking down could produce the opposite of the intended effect by drawing even more to the people’s cause. Zefzafi’s arrest likely generated more attention to his cause than a peaceful protest would.

It’s still too early to see where this recent unrest will lead, but in a country relied on to be a stabilizing regional force, the Hirak movement is worth paying attention to.

The post Arab Spring Sequel? Unrest Grows in Morocco appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

(Photo Credit: Mirza Ismail)

Yezidi leader Mirza Ismail describes how the situation is extremely dire for women and children on Mount Sinjar while the international community and global media outlets ignore it.

In recent days, media outlets across the world have been speaking about the ISIS massive car bomb near the German Embassy in Kabul, the ISIS car bomb outside an ice-cream shop in Baghdad, a priest who was kidnapped by ISIS in the Philippines and how Iraqi forces are confronting the ISIS-held neighborhoods in Western Mosul. However, there has been virtual silence regarding the present situation on Mount Sinjar.

According to Yazidi leader Mirza Ismail, the situation on Mount Sinjar has not improved since 2014. In fact, he claimed that the situation has even deteriorated. Nevertheless, he proclaimed: “The international media has not been covering the present situation on Mount Sinjar I think because the Yezidi fighting forces and the Shiite Popular Mobilization Force made the decision to start fighting against ISIS terrorism and to liberate the Yezidi region of Sinjar as well as the rest of Iraq from ISIS.” He claimed that if other groups were doing the fighting, they would have covered it.

New mass grave found on Mount Sinjar (Photo Credit: Mirza Ismail)

“For the last 7 days, the Iraqi Popular Mobilization Forces and the Yezidi fighters have taken control of all the Yezidi villages on the southern side of Mount Sinjar,” he related. “The Iraqi government has provided many Yezidi fighters with different types of weapons to defend the Yezidi region of Mount Sinjar. The Joint Forces have discovered several new Yezidi mass graves nearby every village on the southern side of the mountain. According to my colleagues, the numbers of mass-graves found in Yezidis’ villages south of Mount Sinjar are 10 so far.”

According to Ismail, the situation for Yezidi civilians on Mount Sinjar is still very dire:

“They lack everything that is needed for daily life, such as food, clean drinking water, doctors, healthcare, hospitals and education for the children. There is a lack of schools and teachers. There are a few tent schools for some children but not enough for all children there. In the villages north of the mountain, the children have difficulty getting to school because of the lack of transportation, as the government has not provided it. The children lack school supplies, good food, clean drinking water, winter clothing, health care, etc. Our organization and many others are trying to help the children the best that we can but the needs are larger than the capacity of NGOs. The conditions in the shelters are very bad as the civilians still cannot go back to their villages because many of the houses were destroyed by ISIS and booby-trapped, a reality that has killed many young Yezidis.”

Yezidi female fighter (Photo Credit: Mirza Ismail)

Ismail stressed that the plight of the Yezidi women is especially difficult for while most of Iraq has been liberated, most of the Yezidi women are still enslaved by ISIS:

“The Yezidis on Mount Sinjar believe most of their women and children were transferred outside of Iraq when ISIS saw they would be defeated. On the other hand, many Yezidi women have picked up arms and defended the region but they lack the proper training and weapons, which the Yezidis have been asking for a long time. Unfortunately, nobody has bothered to help yet. Sadly, the international community finds it very hard to give some arms to an ancient and indigenous Yezidi nation seeking self-defense and they find it much easier to sell high-tech weapons to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and other Islamic countries, who use them to kill innocents such as the Yezidis.”

Despite all of these recent developments, the United States, Israel, Canada and the international community at large has not responded to what is happening on Mount Sinjar. Ismail claims that this is for political reasons. Nevertheless, Ismail argues that even if it is not politically correct to say so, he believes that “the only solution for the Yezidis and Chaldo-Assyrian Christians to survive as a people with human dignity is to have an autonomous region in Sinjar and Nineveh under international protection” and he hopes that the international community will recognize this sooner rather than later.

The post Yezidi Leader: “The World Ignores the Plight of our People on Mount Sinjar” appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The medium-range RSD-10 Pioneer (SS-20) missile system (RIA Novosti / Anton Denisov) / RIA Novosti

The United States recently test fired an Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) system that intercepted and destroyed its intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) target successfully.

The capability to destroy ICBMs had been the last major technological challenge since the Cold War. While this system seems successful at this stage, intercepting multiple ICBMs or one with multiple warheads still looks out of reach. Moscow has been surrounded by a ring of ABMs for some time; their effectiveness has never had to be tested since their deployment.

The strategy that prevented the exchange of ICBMs between the United States and the Soviet Union for decades was a slow progression of communications, dialogue and treaties that reduced the stockpile of nuclear arms. This dialogue also enabled the United States and the Soviet Union to humanize each other and tamp down on propaganda intended to solidify and embolden each side to fight to the last person.

This did not mean that a country’s resolve was reduced. Dialogue was taken from a position of strength, but also used the confidence each country’s population had in their resolve to come to a meeting of minds. With confidence came respect, and the Cold War fizzled away within the next generation.

As an ABM system can physically show the willingness of a country to defend itself, the perception of strength must also be present in order for a dialogue to be successful. The perception that a country can be disabled, obstructed or even controlled by a foreign power makes it seem that any actions in relation to their adversary will result in harm or oppression.

When it becomes possible to see adversaries as less human, it creates an environment of reactionary strategy, something the cold warriors were keen to measure, control and completely avoid. The perception of self-weakness and the feral reaction to achieve security can be more dangerous than many of the weapons systems themselves.

The reality is that the United States is able to defend the country from military and cyber threats, and has the capability to retaliate in if it is targeted, and most likely has in many cases.

The United States is not weak in this regard, and news coverage of anything to do with Russia seems to lack the perception of humanity in relating to a relatively strong adversary. The worst case scenario of a lack of introspective reporting on issue surrounding Russia could lead to a hot conflict, or a bias against Russians and Russian speaking people living in Western countries.

While it most likely will not lead to an exchange of ICBMs, the value of having an open dialogue even with an adversary has proven to be of value, and limiting the ability to re-establish a method of deterrence through communication is ignoring past successes for the sake of little gain.

Humanizing an adversary, even those who seek to cause harm is of more value than the best ABM system. A fictional show like The Americans may be more useful than many news reports in understanding how to approach adversaries in different ways, not for the sake of information, but in opening a communication channel and avoiding the kind of mistakes that could have have turned  the Cold War hot. Misunderstandings and actions that promote a feral response to defense are extremely dangerous with any adversary.

The post Actual and Perceived Defense of the Homeland appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.