WHAT YOU MUST READ

Jun 22, 2009

NightWatch makes an interesting observation. See the last line of the quote below:

StrategyPage.com published the following article today. As is its practice, no sources were cited.

“The Chinese are sharing intelligence and equipment with the Pakistanis as the Pakistani Army prepares a final assault on the Taliban’s stronghold along the border with Afghanistan. Pakistan and China are teaming up to fight what government officials call a “syndicate” formed between the Taliban and Chinese Muslim separatists. Uighur separatists operate under Taliban protection maintaining training camps along the border between Afghanistan and Pakistan.”

“In order to enhance Pakistan’s ability to police the border region, China offered to sell Pakistan $280 million in equipment. The only specifics divulged by Chinese officials are that the equipment will include vehicle and mobile scanners which will most likely be deployed to detect car bombs. The security equipment is bound for the Pakistani police as the government announced a plan to recruit 20,000 new officers in the capital.”

The key point of this item is that US intelligence officers must now assume that anything shared with Pakistan will end up in China, on any topic.

Don't push a scared man into a corner

Jun 20, 2009

Charles Ferguson, a wise man I once had a chance to assist, argues against sanctioning North Korea. Here's why:

As far as we know, North Korea has refrained from selling its nuclear weapons and materials to other states or non-state actors. But should harsh financial sanctions be imposed, the country might feel compelled to do exactly that. That prospect has thus far been held off by China, which, fearing North Korea's collapse, has prevented the U.N. Security Council from imposing truly tough sanctions or authorizing the use of force. That might be a blessing in disguise -- and save the world from its own worst nuclear fears.

Offshore: not safe anymore?

If even offshore oil platforms can be attacked by militants, expect a recalculation of political risk around the globe, starting with Nigeria.

An Iran we can relate to

An anonymous interpretation of the repression against Iran's ongoing riots:

If you’re having trouble picturing what this is like, imagine this: an America where the neo-cons are running things and, after an election where they don’t like the results and the ensuing unrest in the country, they call upon the most right-wing, conservative, crazy men to make sure the streets are safe. These men are given uniforms, batons, shields, guns, and authority. Some are told to stay at a certain position; others are told to drive around with their friends on their motorcycles in big, noisy packs. This is fairly similar to what’s going on here – only these guys are way hairier.

If you think this sounds both ridiculous and terrifying, you’re right.

More at FP Passport.

Facebook's Swahili version was recently launched. I think that's at least worth noting. A few random thoughts about the launch:

- over 100 million people speak Swahili, so that's a substantial audience worth targeting.

- even more significant is the fact that Swahili is a transnational language spoken throughout the region, hence the perfect alignment with Facebook's network design.

- yet there remains the question of access. How many people truly have access to the Internet in the region? What impressive and inovative uses could be made of Facebook when it comes to economic dynamism or peacebuilding there?

Turkey on the wrong track?

Jun 12, 2009

Yigal Schleifer reports on judicial abuse in Turkey. The kind of stuff EU influence could help change (if it were still credible in Ankara's eyes).

Japan goes military, level 2

Japan pursues its military ascendency? NightWatch reports:

The Diet stands “a good chance” of adopting legislation that would allow it to inspect North Korean cargo on the high seas, Chief Cabinet Secretary Takeo Kawamura told reporters 11 June. He said the legislation would be prepared during the current session, which runs through July 28, if the U.N. Security Council adopts a resolution urging such actions -- which are not allowed under current Japanese law.

A lot of NightWatch today, but it was an interesting one.

Somalia conflict to go international?

As if Somalia's situation wasn't messy enough already (see here, here), NightWatch reports the conflict could go international:

A senior member of the Islamist insurgent movement, al Shabaab, threatened today to "invade" Kenya if it did not reduce its military presence on the border, Reuters reported. The official asked rhetorically, "What is its Kenya's military doing near Dhobley and our other towns in southern Somalia? If Kenya does not stop this, our troops will cross the border and fight inside their country.

Please, no.

Uighurs: our prisoners only?

More on the Guantanamo Uighur situation by John McCreary over at NightWatch:

The detainees, from the Uighur region of Western China, are no longer considered a threat by the U.S. military, but China says they are "terrorist suspects" who should be returned to China immediately.

This is a confusing story. At a time when the US is having trouble placing Guantanamo prisoners, the US declines to let the Chinese have Chinese citizens whom the Chinese want back. The reason is that now the Uighurs are not a threat to the US, says the US military which has held them for most of a decade and should know.

This kind of arbitrary decision-making erodes respect for the US. Apparently it is okay for the US to hold Chinese Uighurs indefinitely and for the US taxpayers to pay for their upkeep in Guantanamo, but now the US must protect those Uighurs from their own government – China-- and the US taxpayers must pay $11 million each for Palau to take them. But we still want Chinese cooperation in fighting terror. One might be justified in wondering who makes these decisions and why. When did the Uighurs ever threaten the US?

South Sudan to disarm

I wonder if South Sudanese forces really will disarm as they are expected to in the coming weeks. Given Omar al-Bashir's less than mild stance with those who surround him East and South, I'm not sure I would.

Israel loves Washington too much to bomb Iran

Steven A. Cook explains why Israel won't bomb Iran. It's because:

Unlike in 1981, when the United States had barely a toehold in the Middle East, Washington occupies two countries in or adjacent to the region, maintains military facilities throughout the Persian Gulf, and relies on Arab governments for logistical support. In the event of an Israeli attack, Washington would surely be accused of colluding with Jerusalem, severely damaging the United States' position in the region while provoking a ferocious Iranian response in Iraq, Afghanistan, Gaza, and southern Lebanon. The resulting breach between Israel and the United States would be unprecedented, creating a crisis far more serious than President Dwight Eisenhower's demand that Israel stand down after its invasion of Sinai in 1956 and Gerald Ford's "reassessment" of 1975 (which suspended all military and economic agreements between the two countries for three months when Israel proved uncooperative in negotiating a second Sinai agreement). This is a scenario with which many Israelis, including Netanyahu, are unlikely to be comfortable.

Let's hope he's right.

Turkey to fill U.S. void in place of Iran?

Jun 11, 2009

The more Turkey steps into Iraq, the less Iran will is how I see it. Good. That's the way we should want things. It's not an absolute rule though.

P.S. I thought it might be important for me to make an essential clarification: I have absolutely nothing against Iran or Iranians and would in fact like for the United States and Americans to be closer to both. My point is merely that given the tense relationship between our two countries, in the current state of affairs, it is much simpler and more reassuring from a U.S. strategic point of view for Turkish, rather than Iranian, influence to develop in Iraq.

Thanks Mongolians

This is symbolical, but Mongolia's offer to help the United States get its message through to North Korea is a good illustration of the importance of having good relations with as many countries as possible, especially when they are battled for on a daily basis.

The means to fraud in Iran

I think we all know about WINEP's political orientation, so the following should not be taken at face value. However, this piece is interesting in that it details the different ways in which electoral fraud may happen in Iran. Worth a look.

Police trust

A dangerous case of police negligence in Iraq? Perhaps. And let's not forget that building trust between citizens and those who hold the "legal monopoly over legitimate physical violence" should always be a priority in post-conflict zones. However, in this very case, I'm not sure how badly the police should be blamed for not having immediately towed away a car...

Understanding the DNI

An absolutely excellent piece by David Ignatius about turf wars between Denis Blair, the President's Director of National Intelligence, and Leon Panetta, currently CIA director. Here's the bottom line:

The problem here, really, is with the intelligence reorganization that created the DNI shop in the first place -- in theory, to avoid the kind of intelligence failures that led to Sept. 11, 2001. That reorganization was a bad idea from the start; it created unnecessary new layers of bureaucracy -- the DNI now has about 1,500 people, partly duplicating jobs that used to be done by the CIA. But worse, the reorganization has added to the very bureaucratic tensions it was supposed to avoid.

You should definitely get more here.

The Onion visits Guantanamo

This reads like a joke from The Onion: the United States will soon be sending its former Uighur Guantanamo detainees to Palau, one of the islands used as a set for the famous TV show Survivor! But wait for the best part:

To this end, Palau has sent a group of high-ranking government officials -- including Minister of State Sandra S. Pierantozzi, Minister of Health Stevenson Kuartei, and President of Palau Community College Patrick Tellei -- to Guantánamo to interview the detainees.

Beck says that the team hopes to assess what "skill sets and professional interests" the Uighurs have. They were apparently mostly small-time traders of leather and other goods back at home; Palau's main industries are tourism and subsistence farming and fishing. So, for job retraining and general betterment, "we have an excellent community college," Palau's Ambassador to the United States Hersey Kyota says. "If they want to earn a degree, they'll have the opportunity."

Thanks to FP's Annie Lowrey for an excellent piece!

The price of peace?

I'm no good with numbers and have therefore always been boggled by the huge total of the U.S. yearly defense budget. In part, I just wondered where all the money went. R&D, ok. Procurement, ok. Salaries, ok. But still.

So I guess I found part of my answer this morning reading the following about the price the United States has paid and could soon pay for the use of Kyrgyzstan's Manas air base.

"At the moment, they are discussing terms for a new deal to rent Manas airport that is worth $350 million per year," Alexander Knyazev told The Associated Press. He refused to reveal his source for the information.

The United States currently pays $17.4 million annual rent for Manas, but contributes $150 million overall every year to the local economy through service contracts and aid packages, according to U.S. officials.

Considering the U.S. military has bases in approximately 40 countries, I can see how the figures quickly add up. It's expensive being a global hegemon (all bias set aside).

Vietnam - China

Anh Le Tran points to increasing tensions between Vietnam and China. They purport to the classic stuff: massive influxes of Chinese workers and goods (i.e. unfair competition) and territorial (actually, maritime) disputes. This is interesting because in the great game that will be the 21st century, while geographic proximity will likely be the most immediate driver of allegiance, the United States, European Union, and China will be competing hard for influence over a free Second World. That means they'll have to behave. If China doesn't, maybe others will.

Urgent: the Sons of Iraq and Al Qaeda

Following up on a previous post of mine about the necessity to integrate Sunni Sons of Iraq into Baghdad's greater future: Rafid Fadhil Ali points out today that Al Qaeda may be making the situation even more perilous for Iraqi and U.S. governments by moving towards "pardoning" the SoI for their attacks against the terrorist group. Exactly the kind of PR move we don't want:

Al-Qaeda would not have missed the opportunity to gain something out of the row between al-Maliki and the Sahwa councils. The leader of al-Qaeda in Iraq, Abu Hamza al-Muhajir (aka Abu Ayoub al-Masri), called upon the Sahwa fighters to switch their loyalty back to al-Qaeda and the insurgent groups.

"The Sahwa fighters are criminals," he said. "They committed crimes against their religion and people. However, if they abandon what they do and sincerely repent to Allah we will not chase or hunt them down. Those who were in groups which claim jihad will have our word to ensure their safety on condition that they do not carry arms again until we make sure that their repentance is sincere."

Former Guantanamo detainee interview

France 24 (a surprisingly great channel by the way) has a major interview with a former Guantanamo detainee (Lakhdar Boumediene). It's well worth watching. I don't have many comments, except that it's appalling. And also perhaps that it shows the heavy weight of path dependency; i.e. when you go down a road (like arresting innocents), it's hard to reverse course (for fear of precisely this type of publicity). A final, interesting point: when asked what allowed him to keep his mental sanity, Boumediene pointed to 1) his faith, 2) his family.

P.S. For interviews of major world economic and political leaders, visit Leader's Talk.org

Brazil and the United States

Jun 10, 2009

Just in case you haven't been following, Nikolas Gvosdev has been keeping a remarkably close eye on U.S.-Brazilian relations in recent weeks. It's well worth the read.

U.S. military: tamed?

Despite my views on the devastating collateral damage of some U.S. military operations, Thomas Barnett does have a point when he says only the United States (at this point) at least sometimes moves to admit and correct its own errors. This leads me to a broader point: just like international law works 99% of the time despite being nearly powerless when it comes to preventing wars from breaking out, I think it's fair to argue that the U.S. military is one of the world's best controlled despite dramatic and perhaps increasing occurences of abuses. That doesn't mean it's perfect. Just that it isn't (far from it) as bad as many people think.

Russia: WTO for all or for none

Moscow has come out saying that it no longer is interested in joining the WTO unless it can do so as a package deal with its Belarussian and Kazakh trading partners. I'm no expert of the issue but see this as total bluff. The Russians know it'll never happen and they don't care. They've lost interest in WTO accession a long time ago and are using this move as a way to assuage their partners' fears that Moscow will go it alone on any subject at any time. In particular, Belarussian president Alexander Lukashenko has been repeatedly disappointed with Putin's lack of interest in advancing the political integration goals of their two countries' 1997 Union Treaty. As one author famously put it: Moscow refuses to deal with Minsk on an equal footing, while Minsk refuses to deal with Moscow as a subordinate. The WTO issue is a non starter and therefore a perfect place to relaunch a stagnating relationship.

Iranians: don't even try?

So it's true Khatami was barred from enforcing any major reforms during his tenure. But does that mean that trying to push reform through in Iran is a risk not worth taking? Seems to me that would be like saying it's not worth cracking down on crime since doing so will only push criminality further underground.

Somalia off the grid

Somalia keeps on sliding off the media radar, as I already deplored last year.

Shhhh

Edward Luttwak, whom regular readers know I (sometimes) admire, writes about North Korea's recent military tests:

These are extreme provocations. Only a military attack could exceed them. Our response, of course, must be diplomatic. But only a very special kind of diplomacy can yield positive results: a diplomacy of silence.

Under it, no communications whatever would be sent to the North Korean regime, there would be no informal dialogues with any North Korean diplomats anywhere, and, above all, no attempt would be made to renew negotiations in any format.

I tend to agree.

SOFA at risk?

The NYT reports Iraq could hold a referendum on U.S.-Iraq Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) some time this summer, thereby taking the risk of pushing U.S. troops out of the country far before the agreed-upon date of December 31, 2011.

Passage of the agreement was contingent on the approval of several other measures, including legislation requiring a referendum on the agreement. If the Iraqi people vote down the security pact, the American military would have to withdraw all troops within a year from the date of the vote, which could be held as soon as this summer.

American diplomats are quietly lobbying the government not to hold the referendum, but so far Iraqi politicians have decided to go ahead with it to avoid appearing to be in the pocket of the Americans in an election year.

Three thoughts on this:

1) If it happens, it'll be an interesting display of Iraq's sovereignty and (if respected) of the United States' post-imperial posture.

2) It would however be a risky move for both Iraqis' security and U.S. interests in the country (though this may be disupted if you consider both that current violence is due to nothing but the United States' continued presence and that Washington is losing prestige and military leeway every day it stays in Iraq).

3) As the article's author, Alissa J. Rubin, rightly points out, the vote will be an interesting test of newly-appointed Ambassador Hill's tactical wit (in trying to push back the referendum).

Ahmadinejad leading a silent coup?

Kamal Nazer Yasin, a respected Iranian political analyst, wonders if Mahmoud Ahmadinejad isn't conducting a slow moving coup against all of his opponents in the country through intimidation by his allies in the security apparatus and accusations of corruption against his political enemies. If so:

Forcing Rafsanjani, Karoubi and other lions of the revolution into retirement would leave Ahmadinejad with virtually no checks on his authority as he attempted to implement his neo-conservative agenda, which would have a particularly devastating effect on women’s rights. In effect, Ahmadinejad would also sacrifice economic modernization for re-imposing a rigid social structure.

Despite all of its institutional flaws, Iran is essentially a democracy. That would make any such downturn particularly worrying.

Khamenei: a fight against the clergy?

Meir Javedanfar has an interesting piece (as always) about the "quiet revolution" led by Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei in Iran against the country's clergy. As Javedanfar explains, one reason for this is Khamenei's longstanding rivalry with religious figures:

Should the current trend continue, the era of the clerical presidency may soon be over in Iran. Although the clergy will continue to occupy other posts such as the Assembly of Experts and The Expediency Council, nevertheless, the evolving nature of the revolution and its needs may mean that in the next decade, their power and prestige may also become diluted.

China: to do it for its own sake?

Jun 9, 2009

How do you get China to pressure North Korea? How do you make anyone act in your interest? Convince them that it is in their interest. Should be easy if it's true.

To counter the Chinese concern, Mr. Steinberg and his delegation argued to the Chinese that failing to crack down on North Korea would prompt reactions that Beijing would find deeply unsettling, including a greater American military presence in the region and more calls in Japan for that country to develop its own weapons.

Mrs. Clinton seemed to reflect this concern in the interview on Sunday. “We will do everything we can to both interdict it and prevent it and shut off their flow of money,” she said. “If we do not take significant and effective action against the North Koreans now, we’ll spark an arms race in Northeast Asia. I don’t think anybody wants to see that.”

More by David E. Sanger in the NYT.

Azerbaijan: check move?

Could Azerbaijan go NATO before Georgia, Ukraine? Possible, but do we want that? Are we prepared to face the possible consequences just yet?

India moves to secure homeland

India could finally be moving towards revamping its intelligence and, most importantly, counter-terrorism apparatus. This is good news because:

1) it could save many lives,

2) it's an important reform for India's moderates to lead if they are going to preserve the trust of their country's voters and foreign backers,

3) it's a far better move than would be (and has been) blaming Pakistan for all security wounds.

Yet, like any other major reform, the key will be wether or not it is implemented.

Japanese defense

Japan's defense warning system is somewhat weak, including because:

the MoD and the MoFA are seldom on the same page. In effect, the two agencies rarely coordinate their efforts effectively, no matter whether missiles are flying or not. This disjointed approach might be constantly undermining Japan's crisis management system during critical showdowns with North Korea, for example.

"The Japanese government is notoriously stove-piped. There is no central 'National Security Council' type of organization in Japan, so sometimes information is not distributed in a timely fashion," said one Japanese defense analyst. He added that the August 1998 "Taepodong shock" was blown way out of proportion.

More on that by Peter Brown at the Asia Times Online.

Israel: new petro state?

Israel has just found a possibly huge source of gas off its coasts. This is a big deal:

The huge Tamar prospect has almost certainly averted a major energy crisis for Israel within the next decade. Israel currently imports 85 percent of its energy. With no oil of its own, it must import supplies from as far afield as Russia, Norway, Mexico and West Africa. A deal cut with Egypt in 2005 guaranteed natural gas imports from the Nile Delta for 15 years, starting from last summer.

More by Peter Glover at the World Politics Review.

Dirigiste?

UPDATE: Here is a short article to provide background for the video below.

Whoever said the Russian economy was state-controlled?

Why the focus?

Maybe this is just me 1) not seeing the whole picture, and 2) being far too cynical, but I'm not sure I understand why the Obama administration is dedicating so much time and effort to the Israeli-Palestinian issue. Considering:

-- the absence of political will on the Israeli side;

-- the absence of political (and geographic) unity on the Palestinian side;

-- the absence of a feeling of urgency (given the fact that the administration is still in its early days);

-- the existence of far greater (Iraq, China) and more urgent (DPRK, Iran) matters on the table;

-- the high chance that, like all administrations before it, this one's early plans will be cut short by an unforeseen event.

Other, totally unrelated thought: when is the next National Security Strategy to be drawn up? Is it up to the president to decide on this? Perhaps it would be useful to erase all traces of the previous administration's Weltanschauung, don't you think?

Hot dogs

This NYT op-ed about hot dogs and their ability to help resolve the Iranian nuclear crisis is both funny and to the point in highlighting the role of small steps and etiquette in the advancement of diplomatic goals.

You and me forever

Jun 8, 2009

Noam Sheizaf, writing for Foreign Policy Watch, points to the fact that "One should never overlook the importance of personal and ideological ties in international affairs." and that Israeli PM Netanyahu might be on the way to understanding that. As Sheizaf puts it:

It is clear today that the new Israeli government has failed to appreciate the magnitude of the changes happening in Washington. Part of the reason is poor timing: the Obama team has been preparing a new policy since November. Netanyahu had just a month in office before he met the new president. One could guess that the fact that the first person to leave office after the Israeli elections was the Israeli ambassador in Washington didn't do much good either.

But the roots of the problems run deeper. In the last few years, the Israeli officials, the Jewish establishment in Washington and, most notably, Netanyahu himself, moved closer and closer to the Republican Party, and especially to its Neo-Con wing, abandoning a long lasting policy of real bipartisanship by Israeli representatives and supporters. [Emphasis added.]

Speech writing

Jun 7, 2009

Can you imagine being 31 years old and authoring such a speech as President Obama's Cairo address? His name is Ben Rhodes.

Here's the transcript.

Here's the video:

And, bonus, President Kennedy's Berlin Address (which is arguably totally unrelated but nevertheless historic).

The Indian Ocean

For years Robert Kaplan has written about the same thing, over and over: the rise of transnational threats and the redefinition of security. While he has a point in many of his writings, they have tended to become somewhat repetitive. That's why it's very much welcome that he's apparently working on a book about the Indian Ocean. As he rightly points out, the region will be key to 21st century politics and we all ought to be looking into it. One of the few books I've found on the subject for now is this one. Haven't gotten to it yet, but will try to. If Kaplan's recent Foreign Affairs piece is any indication of the quality of his coming opus, his book should be well worth the money.

If you're interested, you can also take a look at M K Bhadrakumar's Asia Times Online articles on naval rivalries in the Indian Ocean, or at Kaplan's Atlantic piece on the Pakistani port of Gwadar.

Expert needed

I need an expert to help me understand something. Here's the thing: I've been reading about how Hezbollah could turn out to be (willingly or not) the grand victor of today's Lebanese elections, thereby giving rise to a situation not unlike that of Hamas' victory in 2006 whereby Western governments will have to choose whether they are willing to endorse the group's democratically established leadership or not.

The problem is that the above script clashes with other information I thought I'd gathered. I.e. 1) That Hezbollah has been part of Lebanon's government for years already, hence: no new situation there. And 2) That Hezbollah presented fewer candidates in today's election than in the previous one, hence: it couldn't increase its participation to government even if all its candidates make it through.

This might all sound amateurish, but I'm really trying to make sense of it. Can you help?

WHAT YOU MUST READ

Linkbar

Jun 22, 2009

Jun 20, 2009

Jun 12, 2009

Jun 11, 2009

Jun 10, 2009

Jun 9, 2009

Jun 8, 2009

Jun 7, 2009