Foreign Policy Blogs

Many leaders who are currently in power were decision makers during the time the events of the Rwandan genocide unfolded. Despite peacekeepers showing evidence of what was occurring and Western leaders having full knowledge of the genocide in Rwanda, next to nothing was done to stop the violence.

The situation was ignored to such an extent that peacekeeping forces stationed in Rwanda at the time were left to fend for themselves, despite tradition, law and regulations requiring  assistance from their respective countries and the international community . The Rwandan genocide cost the world approximately two million people, distancing the lessons of the Nuremburg trial away from modern political expediency.

Debate and discussion is essential in ensuring that genocide does not become an expected byproduct of conflict in the modern world. Political motives for blurring the recognition of genocide, creating different parallel narratives, have the purpose of keeping leaders in power in places like Brussels and Washington D.C.

Governments are expected to remember the Nuremberg trials when the U.S. and the rest of the world agreed that genocide should “never again” be perpetrated while outsiders stand idly by. However, the Rwandan experience exemplifies the recent mass extinctions of small minority groups.

While group like CYCI out of Montreal, Canada seek to save individuals from their fates in troubled war zones directly, they operate outside the government’s policy goals and funding. Those groups are only successful due to the commitment of several exceptional and brave individuals who place humanity above all.

Canadian broadcaster Vision TV presented a video debate on the issue of refugees this week on the show The Zoomer. The Canadian government committed itself to assist a large number of Syria refugees. But with questions around ill-planned settlements, the lack of proper identity and security checks for the number of individuals, and the lack of specific assistance to vulnerable groups like Yazidis, Kurdish and Christian Syrians and Iraqis, a heated discussion ensued.

While the debate over Canada’s new refugee policy  is contentious, it is one that is not publicly acknowledged by most local media. Opening up the debate is the first step in preventing another genocide, followed by the acknowledgement of atrocities against minority groups currently fighting for survival in Syria and Iraq. You can watch the Zoomer debate here.

Refugees

The post The Value of Having a Heated Discussion on Refugees and Genocide appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Islamic State fighters on the border between Syria and Iraq. Photograph: Corbis/Medyan Dairieh

Mounting territorial losses and a return to terrorist tactics in Iraq, Turkey and overseas, suggests that the Islamic State’s favored strategy of moving fighters to take territory elsewhere when it comes under overwhelming pressure on one front is no longer working so effectively.

The Islamic State (IS) launched a small offensive last month against Syrian government forces inside the besieged eastern city of Deir ez-Zur. Media reports suggested that the militants had been driven back, but only after they had carried out indiscriminate killings of troops and civilians.

The failed attack comes at a time when the group is under pressure on multiple fronts as Russia, the U.S. and Iran, the major international players opposing it on the ground, have begun to support proxy forces arrayed against it more closely.

Islamic State has a sophisticated and well-run military machine for a militant group. It inherited many highly-trained personnel from Saddam Hussein’s armed forces and seized large stocks of equipment from the Iraqi army when the latter melted away during IS’ conquests of cities like Mosul or Ramadi. But it is not the strongest military power involved in the conflict and its victories have come from preparation, infiltration, nimbleness and a higher morale than its more numerous enemies.

Above all, the group benefited from the political vacuum left to by the collapse of old colonial era borders, the quarreling between Turks, Kurds and Arabs over how to reform their political communities and the mutual hostilities between Russia, Iran, America and Saudi Arabia.

Now the situation in both Iraq and Syria seems to have tilted against the group. In Syria, Moscow’s intervention seems to have injected new vigor into Damascus. Meanwhile the formal ending of a network of complex sanctions on Iran over its nuclear program has strengthened the hand of ‘moderate’ Iranian leaders who see a transactional relationship with Washington as politically possible.

That opens up avenues for future areas of cooperation such as military efforts inside Iraq, which have been weakened by the American’s refusal to operate alongside deeply sectarian Iranian-backed Shi’a militia groups doing most of the fighting. Benefiting from the release of formerly frozen funds, Teheran may now swing more of its weight behind the Iraqi government and army in the battles ahead against IS.

The group’s relationship with the leading Sunni regional powers, Turkey and Saudi Arabia, is ambiguous and also deteriorating. Although both Turkey and Saudi Arabia have backed militant jihadi groups in Syria, their proxies have clashed with IS militants repeatedly over territory.

Despite almost certain Turkish complicity in the movement of militants back and forth across the border and in the oil smuggling that funds the group, IS has repeatedly bombed Turkish territory. Up to now the Turkish government has found IS to be a useful counterweight to the Kurds and has refused to allow Kurdish forces to close off the last 60-mile long stretch of territory which is the group’s last access and exit point with Turkey. That calculation may be changing under American pressure and the gradual defeat of Turkish proxies by the Russian-backed Syrian army in the north.

Meanwhile the recent U.S. moves towards reconciliation with Iran have further disillusioned the Saudis with their American partners, but this has not meant that the House of Saud’s selective embrace of Islamic militants has grown to include IS. While Riyadh’s recent spate of executions drew international attention by including the prominent Shi’a cleric Sheikh Nimr al-Nimr, the vast majority were Sunni extremists.

Riyadh has further drawn the militants’ ire by declaring the formation of a global “Islamic Alliance” to fight terrorism. While Riyadh’s major focus is still on thwarting Iranian influence in the Middle East, it also regards the Islamic State as a dangerous competitor.

Lacking outside alliances and with the geopolitical situation slowly starting to tilt against it, Islamic State’s pretensions to act as a legitimate government seem to have its days numbered. IS has already lost substantial territory to Kurdish forces in Syria and major operations in Iraq to retake Mosul will begin in 2016 according to the Iraqi government.

This comes with the caveat that just seizing the areas IS has occupied will not destroy the group itself, unless the re-conquest is also accompanied by the offer of an alternative political program for the Levant’s Sunni Arabs, particularly in Iraq. Already there are reports of security problems in Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, which was recently retaken from Islamic State.

It was the passive support of Iraqi Sunnis in Anbar province that allowed IS to rebuild itself after its previous incarnation Al-Qaeda in Iraq (AQI) was obliterated. IS also has deeper support there than in Syria, where it is competing with a host of other Sunni militant groups.

In Iraq, it was the sectarianism and corruption of then-Iraqi government of strongman Nouri al-Malaki that drove Sunnis into the arms of IS, presently the sole insurgent Sunni faction there. Malaki systematically froze Iraqi Sunnis out of political power and began a process of “sectarianizing” the Iraqi army, leading to its abrupt collapse when IS attacked Mosul in 2014.

If the world’s governments truly wish to see the end of the Islamic State, Baghdad’s numerous competing patrons will have to emphasise together that their support is contingent on allowing Sunnis in Iraq real representation inside the country’s political system.

The post Uprooting Islamic State? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Fauzan al-Anshori, right, an Islamic State recruiter in Indonesia, leads the “bayat”, an oath of devotion, to the leader of Islamic State. Photo: SMH/Screengrab

Should a country’s citizens be allowed to return home after fighting for the Islamic State (ISIS)?  It would seem at first a silly question to ask—why welcome home hardened fighters who have the skills and may have the determination to threaten your country’s population?  Yet according to law in a number of countries, many of these fighters are allowed safe passage home.

Some constitutional and human rights lawyers around the world argue that safe passage should be guaranteed—that every person has the right to citizenship and to remove it would in effect make a person stateless.  Some critics argue that citizenship should only be revoked under judicial review (e.g. conviction by a court of law of an act of terrorism directed at fellow citizens).  Conviction appears to be a high standard and forces the onus of prevention on local police officials. Since preventing terrorist acts is extremely difficult—why take any chances by allowing fighters to return?

Despite the opposition by lawyers, countries are starting to take action. Following the siege of a cafe in Sydney in December 2014, Australia moved to pass measures barring its citizens who join, support or train with extremist groups like the Islamic State from returning home from conflict zones.  The new laws not only apply to Australians fighting overseas, but to those who help raise money or recruit new members for extremist groups.

In Canada, in the aftermath of the terrorist attacks in October 2014 at the Canadian National War Memorial in Ottawa, the country amended its Citizenship Act last May. The amendment now allows the stripping of the citizenship of dual nationals found fighting with any international terrorist organization or found guilty of terrorism, treason, or spying for a foreign government.

Austria, Belgium and Britain have also revised their laws to permit the revocation of citizenship in terrorism-related circumstances, while France is considering a change in their constitution allowing to strip French-born dual citizens of their French citizenship in certain circumstances related to terrorism. The French justice minister, born in French Guiana, recently resigned over the government’s plan. Citizens with dual nationality are being targeted largely since the 1961 UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness prohibits governments from revoking a person’s nationality if it leaves them stateless.

The latest high-profile country to reconsider its citizenship laws is Indonesia, in the wake of last month’s bombings by the Islamic State in Jakarta’s commercial district, which killed eight people and injured 30 people. Lawmakers and security officials are now busy considering the rewrite of the nation’s anti-terrorism laws, which currently permit Indonesians to return home after fighting with ISIS overseas. The fear is of returning experienced jihadis launching more sophisticated attacks than the one that took place last month, which resulted in the deaths of all four attackers.

Indonesia is now home to roughly 100 Indonesians who traveled to the Middle East to join Islamic State, and may have seen very little or no frontline combat before returning. Around 500 Indonesians have made the trip so far to join ISIS.  

The bombings and shootings in Jakarta last month were the first in Indonesia carried out by ISIS, with the last major attack by Jemaah Islamiyah militants occurring in 2009, when suicide bombers killed seven at two luxury hotels in Jakarta. Indonesian authorities are now on high alert following the publication of a new warning by Islamic State that shopping centers, offices and tourist hotspots in Denpasar and Singaraja may be the next targets.

Given the potential threat posed by some of those who left their countries to join Islamic State, immigration authorities in many countries are right to be nervous about letting potential terrorists back into their country.  Citizens in these countries are already reluctant to let in refugees from Syria and Iraq—even women and children. Yet the UN Convention on the Reduction of Statelessness prohibits leaving persons stateless.  

Perhaps the UN convention needs to be revised and updated to specifically address the world we live in today. To date, the 1961 convention argues in Article 9, “A Contracting State may not deprive any person or group of persons of their nationality on racial, ethnic, religious or political grounds”, whose intent is likely to protect non-violent persons from persecution. However, should those persons or groups turn violent, and threaten the state, the UN convention allows for in Article 8:

3. Notwithstanding the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article, a Contracting State may retain the right to deprive a person of his nationality, if at the time of signature, ratification or accession it specifies its retention of such right on one or more of the following grounds, being grounds existing in its national law at that time:

(a) that, inconsistently with his duty of loyalty to the Contracting State, the person

(i) has, in disregard of an express prohibition by the Contracting State rendered or continued to render services to, or received or continued to receive emoluments from, another State, or

(ii) has conducted himself in a manner seriously prejudicial to the vital interests of the State;

(b) that the person has taken an oath, or made a formal declaration, of allegiance to another State, or given definite evidence of his determination to repudiate his allegiance to the Contracting State.

Given proof that a citizen has travelled to the Middle East and trained as a jihadist, and represents a threat upon returning to his/her country of nationality, it would seem that citizenship could be revoked under (a) (ii). Furthermore, many recruits to Islamic State take an oath of allegiance, and if Islamic State can be defined as a State, citizenship can then be revoked under (b).  

Of course, human rights and constitutional lawyers need to fight for the rights of the innocents, but if my quick, non-lawyer reading of the Article is correct, it would appear that those citizens who travelled to the Middle East (or other regions) to join Islamic State, who took the oath, and who potentially threaten their home countries can have their citizenships revoked. With the proliferation of fake passports, however, these non-citizens will not be left stateless, and will be free to travel to and from weak and failing states, and perhaps even home.

The post Should ISIS Fighters be Allowed to Return Home? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

U.S. President Barack Obama and Cuban President Raul Castro adjust their jackets at the start of their meeting at the United Nations General Assembly in New York September 29, 2015. REUTERS/Kevin Lamarque TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

Written by Matthew Barbari

During his last State of the Union address President Obama made reference to his hope that the long-standing trade embargo between the United States and Cuba would end during his last term in office. “Fifty years of isolating Cuba had failed to promote democracy, setting us back in Latin America,” the President said adding further, “Recognize that the Cold War is over. Lift the embargo.”

Obama has already begun the process of normalizing relations with Raul Castro’s government. On July 20, 2015, diplomatic ties were restored and it was announced that the Cuban embassy in Washington D.C. would be reopened, along with the American embassy in Havana. However, since the embargo still holds, it seems that it will fall upon the next U.S. President to further Obama’s legacy and end the island’s economic isolationism.

Congressional approval has been the biggest roadblock in lifting the embargo. The Republican-controlled Congress opposes the change, still perceiving Cuba as an adversary and leaving little doubt that Obama will not witness the end of the embargo before he leaves office. While many other issues have been at the forefront of the ongoing Republican and Democratic primaries, Cuba is one that each major candidates has touched upon, providing their opinion on how to handle the relationship between Washington and Havana.

Republican Candidates’ Platforms

Sen. Ted Cruz and Sen. Marco Rubio,two candidates in the Republican primary, have been particularly vocal with regard to the embargo. Both Cruz and Rubio are of Cuban dissent and both have publicly denounced President Obama’s policy of normalization, calling for an end to the embargo. Cruz has called Obama’s policy a “tragic mistake,” arguing that it gives legitimacy to the Castro regime.

Cruz believes that opening trade with the island will harm Cubans that aspire for more freedoms by allowing the communist regime in Cuba to stay to place. This sentiment is shared by Rubio, a senator from Florida, the state with the largest Cuban American population. Rubio has long been a critic of the Castro regime, judging Obama’s policy towards Cuba dangerous.

For him, lifting the embargo “threatens America’s moral standing in the region.” He has also stated that if he were elected president that he would close both embassies in Washington D.C. and Havana and would instead tighten sanctions against Cuba until the Castro regime was overthrown. This puts him at odds even with Cruz who advocates for a gradual reduction of sanctions against Cuba conditional on the improvement of their human rights record.

Democratic Candidates’ Platforms

While Republicans tend to support the embargo, many Democrats have sided with Obama, viewing the embargo has a diplomatic failure and call for the relations with Cuba to be normalized. Sen. Bernie Sanders has publicly stated that he is against the embargo and for normalizing relations, while leaving the future of Cuba up to the Cuban people. He hopes that the island will eventually become a democracy and has a track record in Congress of voting for pro-Cuban legislation. In 2015, Sanders co-sponsored a bill presented to the Senate that would allow travel between the U.S. and Cuba.

The Democratic front-runner is former Secretary of State and New York Senator Hillary Clinton. Clinton has stated publicly that she too supports Obama’s call to normalize relations, despite her past record being in favor of the sanctions. She has stated recently that the embargo is an “albatross”on the U.S. in its maneuvering in Latin America and that American foreign policy no longer needs to be viewed “through an outdated Cold War lens.”

Clinton has also taken the stance that if elected she would push Congress to lift the embargo or use her executive power to reduce travel restrictions and increase trade. She claims that during her time as Secretary of State, she asked Obama to consider ending the embargo. However, the process of normalization only began after her time as Secretary ended.

Clinton has had to defend her current position on Cuba as it contradicts her past record, having supported the embargo during her 2008 presidential campaign. Even during her time as First Lady under President Bill Clinton, she was in favor of measures to strengthen the embargo such as the Helms-Burton Act of 1996. While Clinton is allowed to change her mind about policy issues, it raises the question whether she truly supports such policies or is looking to please her pro-normalization voting base in the bid for the Democratic nomination.

Regardless of candidates’ stances on the Cuba embargo, little will happen as long as Congress remains opposed to ending it. With Raul Castro set to step down in 2018, the coming years will be crucial in Cuban history. Whether we want the U.S. to be a part of it is ultimately up to us.

The post The Cuban Embargo After Obama: The Presidential Candidates’ Platforms appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

China’s African strategy

Speculations over China’s plans to set up a “logistical facility” in the East African country of Djibouti were put to rest following an announcement by the Chinese foreign ministry that the two countries have reached a consensus on the proposal. Although lacking a detailed timeline, the agreement will come as a natural conclusion to what has been an ever tightening of relations between the two countries, dating back to China’s involvement in anti-piracy missions in the Gulf of Aden back in 2008.

However, unlike NATO countries and Japan who are also conducting anti-piracy missions in Djibouti, China currently has no permanent naval base in the region. According to the Chinese Foreign Ministry Spokesperson, Hong Lei, “In fulfilling escort missions, [China] encountered real difficulties in replenishing soldiers and resupplying fuel and food, and found it really necessary to have nearby and efficient logistical support.”

Djibouti was the natural choice for the Chinese given that the former French colony already hosts a number of European outposts as well as Camp Lemonnier, the U.S. expeditionary base from where drone operations in Yemen and Somalia are conducted.

In recognition of Djibouti´s geostrategic importance, the country has been the recipient of many financial blandishments from China over the past few years. These include the $590 million injection of funds for the development of its port, aimed at transforming it into a major transshipment terminal, and investment in the $4 billion railway connection between Djibouti and its landlocked neighbor, Ethiopia. It also comes on the back of a deal to set up a free trade zone for Chinese companies in Djibouti and allow Chinese banks to begin operating in the country.

While undoubtedly important, China’s first overseas military facility in Djibouti only accounts for a small piece in a much bigger puzzle being put together by Beijing. Djibouti, and its much larger neighbor to the north, Egypt, mark the final stage posts in the maritime leg of China’s ambitious One Belt One Road (OBOR) project: a vast trade route encircling half the globe and connecting China with Europe along the ancient Silk Road.

Supported by the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and the Silk Road Fund, the overland route will see massive investments in infrastructure, stretching from western China through central Asia and the Middle East into Europe via Russia, Greece and Turkey.

For the maritime route to be successful, it will require that Chinese merchant ships are able to reach the Suez Canal unhindered after traversing the Indian Ocean. Djibouti’s position on the cusp of the Red Sea, leading into the Suez Canal and the Mediterranean, makes it a vital node in that network.

Given that investment in OBOR is expected to top one trillion dollars over the next 10 to 15 years, it is no surprise that the People´s Liberation Army has been slowly moving away from its traditional stance of protecting the homeland and towards establishing a force projection capability in line with its expanding overseas interests.

This newfound assertiveness, of which the base in Djibouti is China’s first statement of intent, is being watched with caution by Western capitals. But according to Shen Dingli, a professor of international relations at Fudan University in Shanghai, as quoted in the New York Times, it is keeping in line with the behavior of any power whose financial interests abroad are in need of protection.

“The United States has been expanding its business all around the world and sending its military away to protect those interests for 150 years,” Mr. Shen said. “Now, what the United States has done in the past, China will do again.”

However, while China is free to pursue its political ambitions, its presence will most definitely have a negative impact on Djibouti’s freedoms. Beijing’s strict policy of noninterference means that President Ismael Omar Guelleh knows that Beijing will not be critical of his bid to run for a fourth term as president this coming April.

Ever since he inherited the presidency from his uncle in 1999, Guelleh has used a combination of coercion and bribery to keep his hold on power. In 2010 he amended the constitution and scrapped term limits, reneging on earlier promises to run for no more than two terms.

Since then the country has continued its slide down the international rankings for press freedom and human rights and political instability has grown. In 2014, Djibouti suffered its first terrorist attack against Western personnel in the country, stoking fears that the presence of foreign soldiers in a poor, oppressed Muslim country could provide a fertile breeding ground for Islamic extremism. And last December, up to 19 opposition activists were killed when police opened fire at a religious procession, prompting the International Criminal Court to officially place Djibouti on its watch list.

While Guelleh has promised to transform the country into Africa’s Dubai or Singapore, feverishly courting Beijing and Washington for continued financial assistance, the upcoming presidential elections will most likely dispel the fiction that Djibouti and its people are actually benefiting from international attention.

The post China’s Military Pivot to Africa just got Serious appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

From Iraq to Syria, in Lebanon and in Yemen, both are competing for dominance in an ever-deepening tussle for supremacy across the Middle East and North Africa (MENA). Yet to understand what may happen in the coming years, is to push past the one-tracked, sectarian explanation of current hostilities, and to construct a more multi-faceted and profound, realist-oriented discussion of the conflict.

Toby Mathieson- in discussion with the Council on Foreign Relations- described Riyadh’s use of sectarianism as a ‘tool they use’ to mobilize Sunni support both at home, and across the MENA region. Former US State Department adviser, Vali Nasr, concurs, attributing Nimr’s execution to a Saudi desire to ‘rally Sunnis at home’, as well as to shore up Sunni support from a variety of regional actors.

For Riyadh, a mobilization of internal and external Sunni support is necessary for purely realist reasons – to reinforce the House of Saud’s legitimacy, and subsequently to guarantee its survival, in the face of a revitalized Iran.

The hastily convened ‘Islamic Military Alliance (sans Iran and Iraq) is a convenient sectarian front for what is ostensibly a zero-sum competition for leverage in the Middle East. Further evidence abounds with the Saudis’ role in attempting a rapprochement between wary Sunni ‘bedfellows’, Egypt and Turkey.

Quite simply, Saudi Arabia is using the highly divisive issue of sectarianism to shroud its true intentions – to prevent the hegemonic rise of a re-energized and unshackled Iran. Its policy actions for a number of decades point to such a conclusion.

The formation of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) in 1981 was designed to counter Iran’s rise after its 1979 Islamic Revolution, and to support Saddam in his nearly decade-long conflict with Iran.

Iranian rancor at Saudi support for Saddam still remains to this day. The Islamic Military Alliance must be viewed in the same light as the formation of the GCC.

An attempt to assuage intra-Sunni squabbles (in the case of Turkey and Egypt) is a further policy prescription by which Riyadh can present a united front against Tehran.

From an Iranian perspective, since the ascension of the Ayatollah Khomeini to the position of Supreme Leader, Iran has sought to buttress links with co-religionists across the region, forming a Shiite crescent comprising Assad’s Alawites and Lebanon’s militant group, Hezbollah.

This ‘crescent’ is wholly fuelled by Iranian desires to return to what Tehran sees as its rightful place within the Middle Eastern order – as the true regional hegemon; a re-Persianization of Iran’s status if you will. Covert support for Yemen’s Shiite Houthi rebels is additional sign of Iranian strategic designs on the MENA region. Iranian exportation of its Shiite ideology across the region must therefore be understood within the context of a regional balance of power, and Iranian attempts to dominate as it has done so before.

The Saudi kingdom is afraid. Its grip on power is predicated upon its religious legitimacy and the social contract that binds the House of Saud to its citizens, in a sentence – bountiful financial benefit in exchange for continued support. Both of these legitimizing tenets have been jeopardized in the past year, through the Hajj disaster and the global collapse of the oil price.

Riyadh has been forced to dig into its (admittedly huge) foreign exchange reserves. It has also announced its first cut to benefits. Prince Mohammed Bin Salman has even announced that Aramco will be partly privatized. Saudi decision-making has always been of a politically realist nature. For the Al Saud family, survival is the goal. Thus its extraneous actions will always be predicated upon ensuring the regime and the state’s survival.

Currently, Riyadh is also facing the very real threat of the Islamic State, which looms large on its border, and even within the kingdom. Thus aside from its regional hegemonic battle with Iran, the House of Saud is being bedeviled by what it views as a number of existential threats.

Nimr’s execution can thus be understood as a Saudi ploy to illustrate its might and its determination to meet what it perceives as existential threats, with overwhelming force. Playing the anti-Shiite card is one small part of this strategy.

Saudi insecurity has also been irretrievably heightened by the Iranian nuclear deal, which Riyadh fears will draw Tehran closer to the United States. Since Iran’s 1979 Islamic Revolution, Riyadh has dominated America’s Middle Eastern relations. Thus with Iran slowly being accepted back into the international fold, a great Saudi fear is that in any future clashes between Riyadh and Tehran, Washington could conceivably side with Riyadh’s great enemy, a wholly unpalatable scenario for the Saudi rulers.

Today’s hostilities do not point towards a shift from cold to hot in what is already an extremely precarious situation.

The Saudis’ military capacity does not match up to the Iranians. Iran has around 500,000 ground troops, compared to less than 200,000 for the Saudis. From an economic perspective, oil sustains the Saudi regime. Oil revenue is used to buy support within the kingdom and friends outside of the kingdom.

The majority of this oil lies in Saudi Arabia’s Eastern Province, a demographic disaster, as the area is predominantly Shiite. Therefore it is vital for Saudi Arabia not to incite trouble (or too much trouble) with Iran so as to ensure its safeguarding of the fundamental Eastern province.

Moreover, Iran will not want to jeopardize its recent welcome back into the international fold and the ensuing lifting of sanctions on the Iranian economy. As a longstanding US ally, Saudi Arabia would expect to receive American support, making overt Iranian aggression against Riyadh unlikely.

What will happen is an intensification of proxy Saudi-Iranian conflicts across the MENA region. Saudi military largesse in Yemen – estimated to be costing the kingdom in Riyadh the princely sum of $1 billion a month – is unlikely to be discontinued. The war shows few signs of abating, with recent talk of a ceasefire failing to staunch the frighteningly large amount of civilian deaths (said to be at nearly 3,000 according to the UN). Nimr’s execution has put a stake through the heart of any Yemeni peace process.

Nimr’s death is also likely to reduce the likelihood of an agreement on the Syrian track in Vienna, as both the Saudis and Iran both reinforce their stances behind their respective Syrian clients. Iran will harden its resolve to see Assad remain in power, while the Saudis will continue to support anti-Assad rebels in Syria, ploughing money and arms into extremist hands.

A solely sectarian-based argument as the catalyst behind the Saudi-Iranian conflict is missing the wider point of international relations. Of the recent spate of Saudi executions, only 4 (out of 47) were Shiite. Contrary to noise emanating from the White House, Nimr was not all that he was cracked up to be. He had clear, public links to Hezbollah al-Hejaz, an armed, Khomeinist group, highly active in the Saudis’ Eastern Province. Nimr has called for an armed struggle against the ‘illegitimate’ Saudi regime. Hezbollah al-Hejaz was even behind the 1996 Khobar Towers bombing, which killed numerous Americans.

Instead, the death of Nimr will serve to intensify the Middle Eastern, geopolitical competition of the past decade, as both sides seeks to shore up their claims of regional (and religious) leadership.

This article was originally published by Global Risk Insights and written by GRI analyst Sam Julius.

The post Saudi-Iranian ‘Cold War’ Uses Sectarianism As Tool appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Written by Matthew Barbari

While Americans are focusing on the upcoming U.S. Presidential elections, the United Nations is beginning its own election season. With current Secretary-General Ban Ki-Moon term ending this year, the search for his replacement has begun. The UN has stated that it wants this current election to be the most transparent. The difficulty with the nomination revolves around the approval needed from the permanent members of the UN Security Council—The United States, The United Kingdom, France, Russia and China—which have veto power over who is selected for the position.

Qualifications

There is a push for the Secretary-General to be from a region of the world that has yet to be represented, which is the case of Eastern Europe. They must have support from their government, as well as the support from most countries in the region. Previous experience in foreign affairs as well as the ability to communicate fluently in the official UN languages (minimum of 2) is required for the candidate.

This is also the first time that the calls for a woman Secretary-General are being adequately met. Many groups such as the 1 for 7 Billion campaign have called for a woman in the highest office of the United Nations. Under Ban Ki-Moon and the Sustainable Development Goals initiative, the issues of gender equality and the rights of women have been targeted as areas of improvement throughout the world.

Many critics of the UN would point out that only 25% of top UN positions are occupied by women. A major step in the fight for gender equality would be to have a woman as the face of the UN. These are the four current nominees with the best credentials and most support:

Irina Bokova

Bulgaria’s candidate for the position is considered to be the front-runner. The current Director-General of UNESCO as well as former Deputy Minister of Foreign Affairs and Ambassador, Bokova has a long and respected track record within the United Nations. With the ability to speak several languages fluently, as well as being highly respected for her communication and passion towards peacekeeping and dialogue, she enjoys support from the five Security Council permanent members.

Vuk Jeremić

Serbia’s candidate is the former president of the 67th Session of the General Assembly Vuk Jeremić. Jeremić is another strong candidate considering his work within the UN as well as his support for women’s education, calling for a United Nations Youth Assembly to hear Women’s Rights advocate Malala Yousafzai speak on her struggle for equal education rights in Pakistan. Jeremić had been selected as a potential candidate back in 2012 but was held back by his poor reputation among other countries in the region due to his steadfast denouncement of the 2008 Kosovo declaration of independence from Serbia.

Danilo Türk

The former President of Slovenia, Danilo Türk brings decades of experience working in the United Nations to his potential appointment as Secretary-General. Türk has overwhelming support from his home country as well as the rest of Eastern Europe. Starting as the Representative of Slovenia, Türk has been within the UN system for nearly 30 years, spending time as Assistant Secretary-General under Kofi Annan, as well as a member of the Security Council and the Human Rights Council. His experience and respect make him a very popular candidate and his history of supporting human and gender rights has garnered a lot of support.

Vesna Pusić

One of the founding members of the Croatian People’s Party, Vesna Pusić is a popular candidate for the next Secretary-General due to her support for gender equality, LGBT rights and liberal democracy. Having spent five years as the Minister of Foreign and European Affairs for Croatia she has some experience in foreign affairs. Her lack of United Nations experience is a negative as well as her very vocal support for the LGBT community might not be well received in Moscow.

The post Finding the next UN Secretary-General appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On Sunday, Pyongyang launched a long-range missile, despite the protests of the United States, South Korea and Japan that have immediately condemned the initiative as a further outrageous violation of the UN sanctions, preventing the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK) from using any ballistic missiles technology. The UN Security Council promptly summoned an emergency meeting to express its strong condemnation. While China still opposes expanding sanctions on the DPRK, Washington has recently stressed its determination to support South Korea and Japan against the threat represented by the DPRK nuclear ambitions.

During the last few weeks, Washington has coordinated an intense diplomatic offensive, urging for a Chinese intervention in response to the dangerous escalation characterizing the latest missile crisis. Few weeks ago, Secretary of State John Kerry arrived in Beijing to make the case for a more proactive Chinese role over the issue of the North Korea’s nuclear program, the main threat to the peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.

While both countries have agreed upon the denuclearization of the Korean peninsula, Beijing has strongly stressed the need of supporting diplomatic initiatives, aiming to strengthen the status quo in the Korean Peninsula. The DPRK’s nuclear program activities have intensified after the alleged announcement concerning the North Korea’s acquisition of thermonuclear weapons, causing the unanimous condemnation of Japan, the United States and South Korea while China and Russia have expressed serious concerns about consequences of the DPRK nuclear program.

Albeit, China and the DPRK have shared a certain level of ideological affinity, their strategic partnership has waned over the last two decades. Beijing remains the DPRK’s biggest trade partner, providing a vital food and oil supply lifeline. But after the leadership change in North Korea, relations have cooled down. Kim Jung-un took the power in 2011, and quickly set the North Korean nuclear program as one of the top priorities for the regime. However, despite the evident erosion of China’s ability to use its leverage on Pyongyang, Washington demands from Beijing a more steadfast role with regard to the evolution of the Korean crisis.

Chinese interest in the Korean Peninsula

Since the end of the Korean War, Chinese leaders have valued the preservation of the balance of the power in the Korean Peninsula as the most important precondition for regional stability. To preserve the status quo, China strongly opposes the rise of the DRPK’s as a nuclear power. The pragmatic Chinese leadership is not per se concerned with the acquisition of nuclear weapons by North Korea but rather, it is worried about the consequences of a growing level of insecurity among the neighboring countries such as Japan, South Korea and even Taiwan, inclined to acquire nuclear weapons of their own  as a source of deterrence.

Eventually, the North Korean nuclear program could push Seoul and Washington to pursue a military intervention, resulting in a reunited Korea under the control of the South and an increased American military presence in  China’s backyard. Since the partition of the peninsula, the DPRK has played an important role as a buffer state between China and the South Korea where more than 30.000 U.S. troops are currently stationed. Moreover, this scenario could increase tensions between China and Washington and its allies, given Beijing’s growing perception a strategic containment fostered by Washington as part of the “pivot to Asia” launched by the Obama Administration in 2011.

From an economic perspective, the event of the collapse and assimilation of the North Korea would trigger a severe humanitarian crisis. This would be a serious challenge to the Chinese leadership, undermining its role in a delicate phase of transition that is currently characterizing President Xi’s rule. Consequently, preventing any alterations in the current Korean peninsula architecture is the main priority for Beijing.

The harsh rule that has characterized Kim Jong Un’ leadership keeps irritating Beijing especially after the execution of Jan Sung-taek in 2013. Due to his close relations with Beijing and role as a supervisor of the Special Economic Zones (SEZs) located in the northeast provinces, close to the border, the execution of Jan Sung-taek was considered by many China watchers as a clear attempt to undermine Beijing’s influence while sending a warning to those opposing Kim Jong Un’s rule.

After the Jan Sung-taek incident, Beijing’s attempts to maintain a strong paternal influence over Kim Jong Un have produced limited results. Few days ago the special envoy for Korean affairs Wu Dawei returned to Beijing empty-handed. Additionally, recent remarks from the Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang have alimented the speculations about China’s tense relations with Pyongyang on the nuclear issue.

Washington’s view

The challenge represented by the DPRK’s nuclear program unveils Washington’s concern over the proliferation of nuclear weapons in the region. Besides threatening regional and global security, the advancement of Pyongyang’s acquisition of nuclear capabilities is eroding the international community’s perceived ability to compel nations to abide by rules and regulations expressed by the principles of the Non-Proliferation Treaty.

As mentioned earlier, China does not fear the DPRK as a nuclear power, yet the implications for the United States are different. Pyongyang’s ability to develop intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBMs) in the foreseeable future would enable the DPRK to strike targets within the continental U.S. in addition to the existing nuclear threat to neighboring countries.

(Source: International Maritime Organization, retrieved from Agence France Press)

Indeed, South Korea and Japan have increased the level of cooperation with Washington through the expansion of trilateral military exercises, improving the level of preparedness required for intercepting missile strikes. In the recent years, the impact of the nuclear threat has induced South Korea to take a more assertive stand against Pyongyang’s provocations. Japan, under Abe’s leadership, has launched a comprehensive package of security reforms to allow Japan’s Self-Defense Forces to fight alongside the U.S. troops after more than 70 years of self-imposed restrictions.

Many analysts in Washington have stressed the correlations between the advancement of the DPRK’s nuclear program and the growing instability of the young Kim Jong Un’s regime. Over the last three years, Kim Jong Un’s leadership has been characterized by a furious attempt to follow the steps of his grandfather Kim Il-Sung, the dynasty founder worshipped by millions of North Korean as a demigod.

However, the sudden appointment of Kim Jong Un as successor has surely left many influent members of the Kims close entourage skeptical about his real ability to rule. Beyond the propaganda façade, characterized by the blind adoration toward Kim Jong Un, his trembling power has mostly relied on purging powerful members of the party and granting privileges to his closest associates, following a pattern laid out elites selectorate model theory, common in authoritarian regimes.

Nowadays, Washington is calling Beijing for more significant and impactful sanctions to force the DPRK to abandon its nuclear ambitions. In order to achieve this goal, China is expected to use its leverage to bring Pyongyang back to the table of negotiations. Additionally, from Washington’s perspective, given its aspirations as a rising power, committed to contributing to the global peace and security, China should share  the responsibilities with the United States. It remains uncertain how President Xi will deal with the issue, but it is certain that the success or failure of Chinese diplomacy will strongly impact the region’s security environment.

The post Beijing and Washington: An Uneasy Balance in the Korean Peninsula appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Last week, Twitter announced that it suspended 125,000 accounts since the middle of 2015 that it suspected of “threatening or promoting terrorist acts, primarily related to ISIS.” This statement was the first of its kind from one of the world’s most popular social media platforms and a favorite among extremist groups.

Twitter’s actions against ISIS accounts are not unique. Internet companies, especially those that manage massive social media platforms, have been combating a flood of terrorist propaganda that is saturating the digital landscape.

However, Twitter’s very public statement amounts to a declaration of war against ISIS contrasts with its contemporaries; many of whom chose to take a far less transparent stand in publicizing suspension activities against ISIS and other extremist groups.

ISIS has become so popular so fast that governments are struggling to keep up with the parasitic spread of its appeal. Twitter, being the preferred medium for recruitment, is facing a formidable challenge in its attempt to stop or, at the very least, stymie the proliferation of social media based propaganda operations.

The apocalyptic narrative ISIS is preaching has been buoyed by a grasp on the importance of creating and harnessing a prolific social media campaign that is capable of broadcasting a compelling narrative interlaced with religious extremism: in essence creating a Jihadist highlight reel showcasing its accomplishments to adherents across the globe.

The skills demonstrated on social media platforms are not that dissimilar to what the average millennial is capable of doing, but ISIS is the first terrorist organization to use it to such great effect. The ability of ISIS to spin the narrative to fit specific objectives makes offering up a counter-narrative very challenging—especially considering the lack of credibility Western nations have in regions where ISIS’ message is most popular. As long as ISIS is perceived to be winning the fight to establish a caliphate, whether based in fact or fiction, that message will continue to attract followers.

Twitter has dedicated a considerable amount of time and resources into identifying and suspending ISIS-related Twitter accounts. Unfortunately, given the nature of social media platforms and the anonymity of the internet in general, its efforts to curb ISIS participation is becoming a frustrating game of “whack-a-mole”; but that’s not to say that these efforts are without merit. The ramifications of not trimming the proverbial weeds, as it were, would be incredibly harmful, especially considering the alarming rate of metastasis in ISIS’s presence on social media.

It requires a tremendous amount of effort for ISIS to reconstitute social media networks that have been lost to account suspension—especially the type of massive crackdowns that Twitter announced. The rationale behind utilizing a comprehensive campaign of account suspensions to curb ISIS participation on Twitter is simple: if ISIS is spending its time recreating social media accounts lost to suspensions then it will spend less time spent actually operating those accounts to create and disseminate propaganda.

A study conducted by the Brookings Project on U.S. Relations with the Islamic World found that in September 2014, 8% of ISIS’s online activity was being dedicated to reconstituting its social media network as a result of increased suspensions. The Brookings’ study also states “the pace of account creations has lagged behind the pace of suspensions,” which is a positive sign that an increased suspension regime can have a significant impact.

Jared Cohen, Director of Google Ideas and Senior Fellow at The Council on Foreign Relations, while speaking at the Royal Institute of International Affairs discussed the idea of relegating ISIS to the outer fringes of the Internet, into the dark Web, the open-source network that lets you navigate the Internet anonymously—known as Tor.

These obscure and far-flung regions of the Internet, while difficult to track and monitor, are also difficult for the average person to access and require a higher degree of computer proficiency to operate—it’s not the prime digital advertising space that ISIS would prefer.

Traditionally, the process of radicalization has occurred directly, person to person. However, in the age of pervasive social media platforms and systemic access to the Internet, the gulf that previously separated a radical cleric in Raqqa and a potential adherent in Paris has been dramatically reduced. In the 21st century, it’s the indirect radicalization of an individual, or “self-radicalization,” that is proving the most difficult to combat.

The post Twitter, ISIS and Social Media Whack-a-Mole appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Sri Lanka has always been described as the Pearl of the Indian Ocean. It is never easy for a small island nation to remain a completely sovereign while being located just a few dozen miles off the coast of a behemoth-like country with 1 billion people. Thus, the power relations are distorted in all aspects. No wonder Sri Lankan scholars and journalists refer to India as “big brother.”

The cultural and religious affinities are present in a vibrant history of economic and social interactions. But concurrently Sri Lanka has also tried to remain independent from the politics and conflicts of India, ensuring that a unique identity was developed for the islanders. Sri Lankan Nationalism has been at the forefront of trying to protect that identity.

The long running relationship between the two countries has had quite a few hiccups. The latest has been over the furthering of the India-Sri Lanka Free Trade Agreement. It has been under negotiations since 2003 as the Comprehensive Economic Partnership Agreement (CEPA), now renamed the Economic and Technological Cooperation Agreement (ETCA).

From the very beginning the CEPA has been  controversial in Sri Lanka. There has massive civil society protests against any government’s attempt to finalize the agreement. The current national unity government has also faced the same issue with ETCA.

Trade between the two countries is obviously one sided. In 2014, while Sri Lanka exported $700 million worth to India while India exported $3.1 billion worth to Sri Lanka. It is a massive trade gap for Sri Lanka, but it can do little about it. Indian products have a huge price advantage over Sri Lankan’s.

Ingrained in the memory of many middle aged Sri Lankans are the 1987 India-Sri Lanka Accords. The accords involved altering Sri Lanka’s constitution by adding the 13th amendment and introducing a large Indian Peacekeeping Force. To them, their motherland was once again invaded by Indians just 40 years after the British marched away. So now when the government says a new agreement could allow Indians to enter the workforce in the shipbuilding and IT  industries, they see another invasion.

However it is worthwhile to take a brief look into the fledging Sri Lankan shipbuilding and IT industries. The shipbuilding is limited to basically two main operations. First is the Colombo Dockyard Company which is considered to be one of the leading dry-dock complexes in the South Asian region with a significant annual revenue. Second is the Sri Lankan Navy small  vessel construction for its use in littoral waters. Expanding these operations in the short term  will be tough due to the lack of skilled labor.

On the other hand the IT industry has been booming and expanding ever since the mid 2000s. Today,Sri Lanka has up to 80,000 IT professionals as a whole.  Firms like WSO2, Millenium and Leapset/CAKE Labs are entrepreneurial, earning  millions of dollars in revenues, with operations even in Silicon Valley.

However, entrepreneurs do confess that there is a dearth of skilled graduates for recruitment within Sri Lanka. The government wants to increase the IT export revenue five fold by 2020 requiring massive expansions.

Yet where the investments will come is an issue. The Sri Lankan IT industry resists opening up to foreign investors and labor, fearing that it could destroy budding local entrepreneurs. Nevertheless, Sri Lanka already has its own version of Uber, Pick me,  Uber’s biggest local competition.

Liberal minded intellectuals and government politicians are calling the ETCA agreement a step forward to making Sri Lankan industries more competitive. Nationalists are calling it a threat to Sri Lanka’s sovereignty and identity.

However, Sri Lanka’s identity is already defined by a number of communities who have migrated to the island over the centuries. The Moors, Malay, South Indian estate workers, Gujarati and Chinese traders just to name a few.

Sri Lanka’s current fiscal status quo is starving for Foreign Direct Investments (FDI). The island state risks to lose its fiscal autonomy if it has to default on its debt servicing and falls under the thumb of the IMF. If properly utilized by the government, ETCA can be used to present Sri Lanka as having a liberal attitude toward trade and foreign investment.

Nationalism has played a decisive role in Sri Lanka ever since it became Asia’s first democracy in 1933. Politicians know exactly how to use it to serve their own interests. Nationalism of the Sinhalese majority turned chauvinism sparked the civil war and massive nationalization of private enterprises and property.

It drowned the country’s dreams of becoming the “Gateway to Asia” despite its geographic location. Today, government action towards recreating that dream is being opposed by nationalism once again. Some politicians are manipulating nationalism, claiming to be defending the sovereignty that Sri Lanka is not losing, only to return to power.

The post Sri Lanka : Nationalism & Indian Free Trade appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

French President Hollande at the COP21 in Paris.

Written by Matthew Barbari

When delegates from nearly 200 countries convened in Paris in late November 2015, many were hopeful about the 21st yearly session of the Conference of the Parties or COP21. It could be a watershed moment when the world would unite and finally put forth a plan to combat climate change.

While similar sentiment was shared before the Copenhagen Summit in 2009 and the meeting in Kyoto in 1997, there was a feeling that now—with China, India and the United States on board—a universal climate policy could be agreed upon.

This, however, is not the end of the story. While an agreement was reached, many experts within the scientific community remain dissatisfied. The watershed moment for politicians arguing for their respective countries was not what environmentalists had envisioned, with many criticizing the agreement as nothing more than too little, too late.

Dr. James E. Hansen, a highly respected authority within the climate science community, sees the prospect of the Paris Agreement as “just worthless words,” and criticizing it as “no action, just promises.” Hansen makes a direct reference to the provision within the agreement that allows countries to set their own standards of emissions to keep the global temperature from rising by 2 degrees Celsius. Further arguments are also made about how much money developed countries should provide to developing ones in order to limit the latter’s carbon emissions, as well as any prevent any catastrophic events that climate change could trigger.

Dr. Hansen argues that the notion that renewable energy sources will magically replace countries’ dependence on fossil fuels is silly as long as those fuels remain the cheapest source of energy production. Dr. Hansen also argues for an increase in nuclear energy, which puts him at odds with some within the community.

He believes that nuclear power is necessary to combat climate change as it provides a massive source of energy that does not involve burning fossil fuels. Those against nuclear power point to the massive construction costs of nuclear facilities, events such as the disaster at Chernobyl and Fukushima power plants or the issue of getting rid of nuclear waste.

While the Paris Agreement aims high, it also limits itself to being nothing more than a promise: no penalties are imposed should nations not reach their own targets for limiting carbon emission and developing renewable energy sources. There are also several provisions within the agreement that are not binding, such as the fact that countries can withdraw from the agreement at any time without any penalties.

Further issues arise with the 2 degrees target. Environmentalists argue that this temperature rise would still cause a drastic change in the global climate and that the cuts need to be more severe. This is the biggest concern with the Paris Agreement: it does not attempt to stop climate change but only to mitigate the damages.

Besides these criticisms, there is much positive about the agreement. First, there is a formal agreement, as previous attempts have seen major powers such as the U.S. and China walk out of meetings. The biggest challenge of a universal agreement is the different level of economic development of each individual countries combined to the inherent asymmetry of climate change effects. This is why the agreement pushes for each country to develop a climate policy for themselves.

While the agreement might not have gone as far as some would have liked, it shows that nations around the globe are now finally getting serious about climate change. And that is something to be hopeful about.

The post Paris Climate Agreement: Mixed Reviews appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Source: Getty Images

Written by Lillian Marx

In a move that the South Korean government has dubbed “immature,” this week North Korea began sending propaganda balloons across the border filled with trash, including cigarette butts and even used toilet paper. The garbage is accompanied by leaflets, some of which refer to South Korean leader Park Geun-hye as a “filthy president.”

The timed detonations reached border cities, including the capital, Seoul. While leaflet-packed balloons have caused some incidental harm–damaged cars and rooftop water tanks, for instance–the North’s propaganda campaign faces little chance of inflicting psychological damage on the Republic of Korea.

Balloons are a classic component of the inter-Korean propaganda war that has raged, on and off, since the Cold War. The tactic was dispensed with after successful inter-Korean summit talks in 2000, as was the practice of blasting broadcasts over loudspeakers across the border.

Independent South Korean activists continued to send balloons carrying everything from dollar bills, to Western entertainment media, to leaflets condemning the Supreme Leader. It was only when a North Korean torpedo struck a South Korean warship in 2010 that Seoul broke the propaganda ceasefire officially instituted in 2004 and reintroduced loudspeaker broadcasts.

When South Korea accused North Korea of planting mines in the DMZ last August, injuring two South Korean soldiers, Seoul again responded with broadcasts. When North Korea tested out a purported H-bomb this January, the South began the blasts and balloons anew–a move the North reciprocated, until the back-and-forth culminated in an exchange of artillery fire.

Now, as the South Korean Ministry of Defense warns that North Korea is preparing to launch the long-range missile it promised to deploy sometime in February, the propaganda war reflects, and in fact increases, the pitch of the tension. The pressure that built up in August was diffused after North Korea gave in to diplomatic wrangling and expressed regret for the maimed soldiers. But it would be entirely anathema to Kim regime legitimacy to apologize for the country’s nuclear program.

The content of contemporary South Korean propaganda remains similar in spirit to that of the Cold War–the contrast between a free and wealthy South and an oppressive North being the central message. But with loudspeakers blasting at a volume that carries K-pop, weather reports and denunciations of Kim Jong Un 12 miles beyond the border, the overall effect is as much profoundly annoying as ideologically persuasive.

President Park entered office with her signature policy of trustpolitik, which sought Korean reconciliation through mutual trust-building. Yet, for instance, the aggressive back-and-forth propaganda that followed North Korea’s nuclear test in January contributed to the overall risk of what U.S.  Department of Defense spokesman Commander William Urban termed a “cycle of escalation.” The intensifying animosity was coarsely expressed by a North Korean leaflet at the time: “Let us beat to death Park Geun-hye’s gang of dogs for resuming propaganda broadcasts and deteriorating North-South relations!”

The arrival of North Korea’s trash balloons this week accompanies the country’s far more belligerent promise to launch an earth-observation satellite into orbit (understood as a flimsy decoy for developing ICBM technology) before February 25. The trash stunt may be “immature,” but it perpetuates a level of tension that was tellingly illustrated by initial concerns that the deployments of detritus might be biochemically hazardous. This trash was just trash; meanwhile, South Korea has resolved to intercept any debris from the North’s anticipated rocket launch.

The post The Inter-Korean Propaganda War appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, a one-hour documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, presents the story of an institution that, as former Secretary of State James Baker says, is not easy to understand.

Visually and narratively attractive, packed with little-known facts and eye-catching clips, the film paints a faithful portrait of the U.S. Foreign Service while fair-mindedly probing a range of issues.

The documentary also poses the crucial question of how the Foreign Service can meet the challenges of the 21st century. By not giving facile answers, the producers portray a difficult situation honestly.

The documentary opens with an account of dangers and hardships so frequently faced by Foreign Service Officers, with many first hand accounts of traumatic events. This review in itself is a valuable reminder.

The program then imposes a certain context, raising the under-examined problem of balancing our diplomats’ security against their need to be out and about in countries where they serve. Our increasingly fortress-like embassies isolate our representatives, while mingling can incur deadly risks.

A lively historical review of early American diplomacy recounts Benjamin Franklin’s securing of French support for the Revolution, and the diplomatic coup of the Louisiana Purchase.

It proceeds to describe deleterious effects of the growing use of diplomatic postings for patronage. This led to the establishment of today’s professional U.S. Foreign Service, in the 1924 Rogers Act.

The first of several descriptions of core Foreign Service duties follows. Ambassador Frank Wisner cites the “maintenance of stability … the preservation of the peace, the protection of American interests …” in a segue to the story of George Kennan and the Containment strategy.

Kennan, a Russia expert, gave an analysis of Soviet and Russian behavior in his 1946 Long Telegram from the U.S. embassy in Moscow. His recommendation was not to attempt to roll back the Soviets’ influence, but to contain their efforts to expand it, which by his view of Russian history would either lead the Soviets to moderate their exploits, or cause their collapse.

The documentary does not spell out, perhaps because many Foreign Service Officers only sensed implicitly, how the Containment doctrine shaped basic expectations for the whole Service. This reviewer saw this in 1988 in Trinidad and Tobago, when the DCM asked an Embassy staff meeting to “take a step back and talk about what we are really trying to do here.”

As often happens in staff meetings, a hodge-podge of facts and concerns was bandied about. Then one officer piped up: “all the Caribbean islands could sink and no one in Washington would care, but there are Russians and Cubans competing with us for influence, and we have to win that competition.” No one had actually been told that officially, hence the prior hemming and hawing. But discussion ended, because everyone knew that Containment defined our overriding mission.

Kennan’s influence marked a high point in Foreign Service history. Former Under Secretary Thomas Pickering calls the story the “best known example” of a Foreign Service Officer “setting the course” for foreign policy. In fact Containment was the last systemic guidance U.S. foreign policy has had. Its comprehensive purpose disappeared with the U.S.S.R., and nothing has replaced it.

The documentary goes on to review the Foreign Service’s ongoing duties, with many fascinating vignettes. Regarding diplomacy in foreign policy, it describes Richard Holbrooke’s signal achievement, shaping the Dayton Accords that ended fighting in the former Yugoslavia.

An overview of the consular function features Fiorello LaGuardia—who knew he was a consular officer?—and Hiram Bingham, who flouted regulations in issuing visas to refugees fleeing the Nazis.

Accounts of diplomats’ business promotion efforts are punctuated by James Baker’s assertion that U.S. power is based on our economy, implying another core function for the Service. Baker then names one more “main responsibility” of our embassies: public diplomacy, the media, cultural, and other direct presentation of America to host country populations.

Those activities are described, along with the story of Edward Perkins, an African-American officer appointed as Ambassador to apartheid South Africa. A section on global issues includes discussion of terrorist and environmental issues.

The question of political appointees, a longstanding complaint of career officers, gets pointed attention. Two differing perspectives come out. Former Under Secretary Nicholas Burns says there are too many political appointees, citing career officers’ lifelong efforts. Secretary Baker points out that political Ambassadors’ familiarity with political leaders can make them particularly effective representatives.

This backdrop supports the documentary’s assertion that the Service’s challenges deserve better attention. Retired senior diplomat Linda Thomas-Greenfield says that the Service has to “do a better job … letting Americans know what we do …” But the problem may not lie in the telling. Since the Cold War, it is hard to say what the nation actually asks of its diplomats.

The review of Foreign Service duties shows officers handling consequential matters, but, in its straightforward portrait, it captures the sense that the various functions each have their own internal logic, and relatively little to do with each other. The role of the Foreign Service seems as diffuse as foreign policy itself.

The future promises to make the difficulties harder. Secretary John Kerry describes today’s volatility and new challenges, and Ambassador Prudence Bushnell observes that the Service must adapt to a global 21st century. Issues of diversity and training are discussed. Viewers certainly know how overwhelming the post-modern era’s complexities can be. The documentary itself portrays experts naming at least three undifferentiated ‘core’ duties of the Service.

Fittingly, the program does not present any comprehensive answers: none have been proposed. The Foreign Policy Association producers offer something unusual in public discourse: informing the viewer well, and leaving them facing an uncomfortable reality.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review by George F. Paik appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Written by Jim Quirk

“America’s Diplomats”, a 2016 documentary produced by the Foreign Policy Association, may come at just the right time with just the right message.

In some ways, the hour-long film blends the literature of American diplomacy, such as Shuster’s The Strangling of Persia, Kennan’s Memoirs, and Holbrooke’s To End a War, with more recent insiders’ views, like Kopp and Gillespie’s Career Diplomacy, Morgan and Kennedy’s American Diplomats, and AFSA’s Inside a U.S. Embassy.

The film introduces the history of American diplomacy, well-known and less familiar personal stories, and challenges to the Foreign Service and its work. While much of the media attention on U.S. foreign policy and the Department of State today focuses on failures, scandals, or intra-agency turf battles, this film reminds us that the career personnel are talented, dedicated people whose commitment to public service and American interests includes considerable sacrifice.

“America’s Diplomats” begins with this focus on danger and sacrifice. The famous attacks on U.S. diplomats in Iran, Lebanon, Kenya and Tanzania, Benghazi and elsewhere are dramatic and tragic. But many diplomats and their relatives have also been lost to crime, disease, ship wrecks and other events in the course of their duties. The danger to diplomats has resulted in many changes to U.S. embassies and consulates, such as turning many into “fortresses” in the world’s capitals.

From here,”America’s Diplomats” begins its chronological and thematic sections. Benjamin Franklin went to France to help secure American independence. A quest for safety and prosperity, often through isolationism, characterized much of the diplomacy of the next hundred years.

Global changes in politics, technology, and economics in the last part of the 19th century and especially after World War I required changes to American diplomacy and to the American diplomatic corps. A key was the 1924 Rogers Act, which sought to introduce more professionalism and meritocracy to the State Department.

Kennan’s Long Telegram and Holbrooke’s shuttle diplomacy will be familiar to many viewers. But the consular side, which often touches Americans and others more directly than treaties or doctrines, is also highlighted.

The work of Hiram “Harry” Bingham, consular officer in Marseilles during World War II, alludes perhaps unintentionally to current issues. Bingham is credited with saving thousands of Jewish and non-Jewish refugees, issuing visas more generously than official policy allowed. It cost him his career.

Seven decades later, his story was revealed when hidden documents were found in his home. He was honored posthumously by organizations as diverse as the United Nations, Yad Vashem Museum in Jerusalem, the U.S. Episcopal Church, and Secretary of State Colin Powell. Bingham was even put on a U.S. postage stamp, as a Distinguished American Diplomat.

“America’s Diplomats” then transitions to contemporary challenges, reflecting recent changes in global politics, technology, and economics. The expansion of global trade and finance since the 1980s called for an increase in economic diplomacy. The 1987 Montreal Protocol on ozone-damaging CFCs serves as a model, the film argues, for multilateralism and environmental diplomacy.

The IT revolution of the past 30 years, in particular the growth of the internet has called for new kinds of public diplomacy. The film concludes with concern over the increase in the number of political appointees to ambassador posts, but the benefits of attracting more diverse and mature Foreign Service Officers to meet the new challenges.

These new challenges are one area in which the film might have gone into more depth. The State Department tweets in 11 languages, and many embassies use Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube in their local languages. How effective is this? How do we know?

More broadly, how is the Foreign Service dealing with the huge range of non-state actors that have become so important in recent decades? And how does it balance its promotion of democracy, religious freedom, and human development (economic, education, health, etc.) with more “realist” state-vs.-state views of national interest.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Review By Jim Quirk appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, the Foreign Policy Association latest production is a must-see documentary for anyone interested in the history of American diplomacy or considering a career in the Foreign Service. Indeed, it chronicles the evolution of American diplomacy over the decades, the motivation behind America’s Foreign Service Officers, and both the successes and failures of U.S. foreign policy.

The documentary is narrated by the rich, gravelly voice of the actress Kathleen Turner, an American film and stage actress and director (whose father was a consular officer, her mother serving alongside him), and draws on extensive interviews from such notable past and present diplomats as current Secretary of State John Kerry, the former Under Secretary of State for Political Affairs Nicholas Burns, former Secretary of State James Baker, and former ambassador to Kenya, Prudence Bushnell.

As we learn, the history of American diplomacy stretches as far back as the founding of the nation, when Benjamin Franklin became recognized as “America’s first diplomat”, and carried on over the years as diplomacy secured peace after World War II and met the challenge of Communism.

Yet these successes are quickly put aside at the beginning of the narrative to reveal the grave dangers faced by American diplomats today. Featured in full details are the 1983 bombing of the U.S. Embassy in Beirut, the 1998 bombings at the American embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, and the 2012 attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi, Libya, which resulted in the death of the ambassador Christopher Stevens and three embassy staffers.

The 1979 Iran hostage crisis also figures prominently, and helps belie any criticism that this is merely a rose-colored recruiting video. The harsh reality viewers will take from the film is that the Foreign Service is not for the faint-hearted. Those afraid of succumbing to diseases like yellow fever and cholera, being shot at by snipers, bombed, or held hostage while overseas need not apply.

Indeed, the documentary not only covers the physical threats but the intellectual challenges in diplomacy —for example the primary challenge of trying to convince a foreign population that you are not occupiers seeking to overturn their government, but rather a helpful presence intended to bring positive American values to the citizenry.

Oftentimes, the population is not convinced, and tragedy sets in, as portrayed during the aforementioned Iran hostage crisis, when 52 American diplomats and citizens were held hostage by a mob, who claimed that the embassy was a “den of espionage….plotting against the Iranian people.” The hostages were released only after a long captivity of 444 days.  Other times diplomacy succeeds, as shown in the film’s portrayal of the extensive efforts of Richard Holbrooke in bringing an end to Bosnia’s bloody civil war.

The documentary also covers the history of the foreign service, and the influence of the Rogers Act of 1924, which instituted series of competitive entrance exams bringing meritocracy to the corps.

Unfortunately, as the film dutifully points out, the influence of money, privilege and political influence “depreciates the process”, particularly with the appointment of prominent political donors to ambassadorships in some of the better postings like London and Paris. Roughly 30% of ambassadors since the Kennedy administration have been political appointees and not career foreign service officers, which can undermine morale.

Foreign Service Officers have also increasingly played an important role in the support of American commerce, largely since the Reagan years. The film features diplomats supporting such U.S. companies as McDonald’s and Starbucks, although it fails to mention that, in some countries, both U.S. companies have become negative symbols of American influence, despite their products being hungrily consumed by the local population

The role of the consular officers in approving visa requests for those wishing to come to the U.S. is also featured prominently, and raises important questions as to how this “nation of immigrants” should treat those refugees currently fleeing Syria and Iraq.

The film includes an interesting portrayal of such diplomats as Fiorello La Guardia, a consular officer who eventually became the mayor or New York. La Guardia was instrumental in getting shipping lines to implement health checks on immigrant families before they got on a boat, to help ensure families stay together.

Hiram Bingham, another consular officer in Marseilles, France, helped 2,500 Jews in ten months reach the U.S. during the Hitler years, defying orders from Washington and eventually costing him his career in the foreign service.

America’s role in public diplomacy has also grown since the 1960s, and is sometimes referred to as the “soft power” of American principles and values. One such highlighted example documents the role of Ed Perkins, U.S. ambassador to apartheid South Africa, and the challenges he faced as a black American in attempting to promote American values in a hostile environment.

What motivates an Ed Perkins or anyone to serve in the foreign service?  Certainly not the pay, which is far below what many of these highly talented Americans can earn in the private sector. Indeed they are driven by other motivations.  John Kerry believes “it’s done because people love the concept of serving their country, and they love the idea of taking American ideals abroad.”

Which raises the question, why does America get involved in the convoluted conflicts of foreign nations, far from home?  Why is the United States “the undisputed leader on the world stage”?

A foreign policy of isolationism has long been debated in American foreign policy—despite the American Revolution having almost been lost without diplomacy and despite the fact that “the United States would not have existed, without the French support.” In the early years of the nation, Americans really didn’t like the “European ideas” of diplomacy and having ambassadors in foreign countries.

Yet today, following the failures of the war in Vietnam, and limited success in Iraq and Afghanistan, debates over isolationism and America’s leading role in diplomacy are again back in the spotlight, especially among this year’s presidential candidates.

Some diplomats argue for intervention only when we have “a dog in this fight,” or when American interests are threatened at home. As the documentary illuminates, these are difficult decisions to make, with constantly changing parameters, often resulting in devastating consequences, including the death of diplomats.  

If there is one shortcoming of “America’s Diplomats,” it is the failure to examine the question of when and under what conditions America should go to war, and to address the argument in favor of isolationism.  Instead, the film takes it for granted that American involvement is necessary, and has been necessary, given that other nations “look to the United States for leadership.”

Where the documentary shines is in its history of American diplomacy and its well-deserved tribute to those courageous American heroes who are on the front lines of American diplomacy everyday, including the 12 whom Bill Clinton posthumously honored after the 1998 bombing by Al-Qaeda in Nairobi, Kenya, “Far from home, they endure hardships, often at great risk”.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gary Sands appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

“America’s Diplomats”, a new television special produced by the Foreign Policy Association, seeks to explain the world of professional diplomats to average citizens, people who, through no fault of their own, have little occasion to interact with Foreign Service Officers or to discuss the inner workings of the Department of State.

As is fitting of the Foreign Policy Association—and in keeping with reality—it offers a positive and hopeful message. A number of themes are woven in and out of the narrative. Among these are the tasks that diplomats actually undertake, popular American attitudes toward diplomacy, the evolution and professionalization of the field in the United States, and the need to balance our diplomats’ need for personal security with their need to accomplish their mission. Allow me to touch upon a few of these themes without repeating the details of the program.

Americans have long had a disdainful attitude toward diplomacy and diplomats, seeing the whole endeavor as something elitist, foreign, expensive, and possibly deceitful.

Ambrose Bierce, the author of The Devil’s Dictionary (1906), defined diplomacy at “the patriotic art of lying for one’s country” and a consul as “a person who having failed to secure an office from the people is given one by the Administration on the condition that he leave the country.”

Yet diplomacy was essential to the birth of the United States. Washington’s forces would never have prevailed without the alliance with France. France not only provided finances, troops, and a fleet, but it also distracted Britain’s attention by threatening its holdings in far-flung corners of the world. (Remember, the British army abandoned the occupation of Philadelphia because they suddenly needed the troops to defend the West Indies.)

From the beginning, the young American republic cut corners when it came to diplomacy. Unwilling to pay the salary of “ambassadors,” the United States sent “ministers,” diplomats of a lower rank, to represent it in foreign capitals.

This not only reduced the status and influence of American diplomats, it also created a dilemma for other countries. Based on the rules of reciprocity, European powers would not send ambassadors to a country that sent them ministers, but they were hard-pressed to find qualified diplomats who would willingly cross the ocean and live in “the American wilderness” for a minister’s salary.

Relative isolation made it easy for the United States to neglect diplomacy for a while. After all, the U.S. was hidden behind large oceans. The oceans were controlled by the British fleet, and the British—after the War of 1812, at least—found that they already had enough enemies and that life would be easier if they could just keep the Americans on their side.

Most U.S. contact with the outside world consisted of trade. American businessmen resident in foreign ports were asked by the government to act as consuls, looking after U.S. interests, in their spare time. Still, the Consular Service, being business-oriented, was held in somewhat higher esteem by the public than the Diplomatic Service.

The two services interacted little with each other, and both suffered from low salaries, nonexistent benefits, and the consequences of a spoils system of appointments, a system that Teddy Roosevelt denounced as “wholly and unmixedly evil,” “emphatically un-American and undemocratic,” and something that no “intelligent man or ordinary decency” could endorse.

As the U.S. grew—and its contacts with the outside world multiplied in number and evolved in kind—a greater sense of professionalism had to be forced upon its diplomacy. The Consular Service forged a merit-based system in the early 1900s.

Leaders of the Diplomatic Service, on the other hand, preferred to rely on men of independent means and saw low salaries as a way to weed out undesirables. With the onset of World War I, the pressures to modernize came in accelerated form.

A key turning point finally came with the Foreign Service Act of 1924, also known as the Rogers Act. The Rogers Act merged the Diplomatic Service and the Consular Service into the new Foreign Service of the United States; established a meritocratic personnel system, including standardized entrance exams; and created or extended allowances and benefits. The Foreign Service School was also established in 1924, which was replaced by the Foreign Service Institute in 1947.

Still, even today, the system is not fully professionalized. “America’s Diplomats” suggests that perhaps 30% of ambassadors are political appointees (albeit supported by professional diplomats). Some of these, even if not professional Foreign Service Officers, are highly qualified. Others, such as some campaign donors, are potential embarrassments.

The question of diplomats’ personal security is a key theme in “America’s Diplomats,” both early in the show and toward the end. The focus is clearly influenced by the Benghazi controversy.

Yet it is not presented as a straight-forward question of protecting personnel, as it is often depicted in Washington. Rather it is a trade-off. The Foreign Service does not want to leave its people exposed to dangers unnecessarily, but it also views excessive security measures as obstacles that get in the way of doing its mission.

It resists measures that separate its diplomats from the government and society that they are supposed to be reporting on. Finding the balance is an endless task, and one that does not always end happily.

Although, as many politicians have said in the past few years, no U.S. ambassador had been killed in the line of duty in over 20 years, they picked that number consciously. American ambassadors have been killed in the line of duty in 1988, 1979, 1976, 1974, 1973, and 1968.

Other, lower-ranking diplomats have been killed since then. (The American Foreign Service Association lists 247 State Department personnel who have died in the line of duty since 1780, although most of the earlier cases were lost at sea or died in epidemics.)

None of this is to dismiss the tragedy of Benghazi but rather to question the politicization of the event when the previous cases were not politicized, and the consequences for the future of diplomacy.

“America’s Diplomats” is an interesting and informative introduction to the things that diplomats do. It strives to use information to overcome the lingering disdain that people may carry toward diplomats and diplomacy. I suspect the producers would also like to see the process of professionalization completed and the politicization of foreign policy overcome, but those are even taller orders.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Monje appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

On January 11, Iran announced that it had removed the core of its nuclear reactor at Arak, a major part of the terms it agreed to under an international agreement reached in July. A few days later, representatives of the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) submitted a report stating that Agency inspectors on the ground had verified that Iran had carried out all measures required by the agreement.

In an official statement UN Secretary Ban Ki-moon remarked: “This achievement demonstrates that international proliferation concerns are best addressed through dialogue and patient diplomacy.”

Although these events were reported in the media, they were top news stories. This is due to the lack of understanding of the importance and value of diplomacy.

An engrossing and informative new PBS documentary, American Diplomats, produced by the Foreign Policy Association, addresses these and other issues head on. As elaborated on during the program, diplomats have three primary responsibilities: to maintain stability, preserve peace and protect U.S. interests.

The documentary weaves these themes together by showing the impact diplomats have had on our nation’s history, foreign policy, and economic interests. Of note, the documentary does not down play the challenges and shortcomings of the profession and the need to keep improving and stay relevant.

Benjamin Franklin was our first diplomat and without his success in securing an alliance with France, the U.S. might not have won the revolutionary war.

In 1801, President Thomas Jefferson, sent Robert Livingston to New Orleans, then part of territory owned by the French, to see if the U.S. could buy the city. Jefferson wanted to ensure U.S. farmers had access to that port city to export their goods.

To Livingston’s surprise the French asked if the U.S. would be interested in buying not just New Orleans but the entire territory. For a cost of $15 million, the U.S. territory overnight expanded as far west as the Rockies and as far north as Canada.

The nature of their jobs has also allowed diplomats to play an important role in the formulation of foreign policy. If you asked me what single book on foreign affairs and national security has had the most impact on me, George F. Kennan’s Memoirs 1925 – 1950 would be at the top of the list.

As World War II ended, the U.S. expected to maintain a successful working relationship with the Soviet Union. Kennan had been stationed in the Soviet Union during the war and had observed up close the aggressive nature and intentions of Stalin’s foreign policy.

Concerned that Washington seemed to be in the dark, he sent a now famous 8,000 work telegram in which he concluded: “the main element of any United States policy toward the Soviet Union must be that of a long-term patient but firm and vigilant containment of Russian expansive tendencies.”

Kennan’s advice was heeded and he is considered the architect of the Cold War strategy. Today’s diplomats are still expected to provide the kind of expert advice on the social, political, religious, and economic issues that helps set the policy course for the nation.

This leads to one of the challenges discussed during the program: patronage or the practice of appointing someone to top jobs because of contributions made to political campaigns.

Although, there have been some talented and successful political appointees’ many didn’t perform well because they could not speak the local language and were not knowledgeable about the history, political, social, religious, and economics of the countries they’re serving in.

Currently about 70% of the top positions in the Foreign Service are held by Foreign Service Officers and 30% by political appointees.

Another challenge discussed during the program is that the profession is misunderstood. It is not easy to understand the implications of battles won in the field of diplomacy as the earlier example of Iran’s nuclear program shows.

During the program several former State Department officials discussed the need to better advocate and let Americans know what they do. Americans must learn about the risks and sacrifices Foreign Service Officers endure while on the job.

Public attention is currently focused on the unfortunate events in Benghazi, but there has been many other instances. In 1998 al-Qaeda blew up our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania, killing over 200 people. In 1983, terrorists crashed a truck bomb into our embassy in Beirut. The blast killed 63 and many others were wounded.

Foreign Service Officers do not just have to deal with the risks of being killed by terrorists but also the challenges of living in remote areas where needed medical emergency care for family members might not be available.

They also have to deal with frequent moves and family separation. In spite of the sometimes difficult challenges, the majority of Foreign Service Officers remain motivated and dedicated to serving their country.

In sum, I found “America’s Diplomats” to be an inspiring story and well worth the time.          

 To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Gail Harris appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

As someone who sat across the table from American diplomats, I must confess, I was reluctant to accept the invitation to write a review on the latest Foreign Policy Association, Great Decisions series documentary “America’s Diplomats.” It felt like one of those gifts that make one feel awkward.

After some consideration, and out of a general sense of curiosity, I watched the film. It was profoundly captivating, to say the least. Not because of my interest in  international relations, not because of the universally accepted collegiality that bonds diplomats and sometimes obliges certain courtesies, but because of the timeliness of the topic and its relevance to the challenges that diplomacy and international relations are facing today.

The film presents the viewer with portraits of men and women in the American Foreign Service who have helped shape history, yet in spite of that, whose services and achievements were seldom recognized and celebrated. It is a tour de force that captures defining moments immortalized in history—the jubilation of triumph and the agony of failure.

In dealing with the latter, one must bounce back and learn from past experiences: this resilience depends almost entirely on effectiveness of individual diplomats. The more informed the individual is on his or her diplomatic mission, the more effective he or she would be.

More importantly, the diplomat must be a strategic thinker who understands the difference between winning battles and winning wars; and that sometimes, what seems like losing could prove to be a winning outcome. In addition to genuine interest in serving one’s country and its national interest, diplomats must possess unwavering commitment to sustainable engagement.

Contrary to the ideological predisposition and rigidity that often restrain bureaucrats, effective diplomats prudently chart new territories and pave new ways.

The film highlights that in recent decades no diplomat has embodied these qualities better than Ambassador Richard Holbrooke who succeeded in the negotiation of the Dayton Peace Accord that ended Europe’s bloodiest conflict since the WWII and the Bosnian genocide.

Diplomacy is often associated with political interests, peace negotiation, commerce or economic advantage. “Diplomats today play a bigger role in advancing America’s economic interest overseas than it used to be” says former Secretary of State James Baker. “America’s power is based primarily…on our economy. As long as our economy has been in good shape…., (we’ve been) strong diplomatically, militarily and politically,” adds Secretary Baker. In the U.S., over ten million jobs are supported by international trade.

The discourse on challenges facing diplomacy in a world that is becoming increasingly volatile has been raging. In the U.S., due to the Benghazi tragedy that left an Ambassador and three other Americans dead, opinions came in the form of partisan rants and raves that have continuously deteriorated during the country’s current election cycle.

All in all, the film offers an insightful tour lead by seasoned diplomats and experts to whom diplomacy is “the first line of defense” and a powerful tool to learn about the dynamics that impact political relationships in a rapidly changing world.

The diplomat is a portrait of his or her nation. He or she is the image projected out to the world, often accepted as the values and aspirations of the country that one represents. There are many ways to enhance that image, and one of the most effective ways is what is known as digital diplomacy, or to employ social media to interact, to clarify misconceptions, and cultivate new relationships.

Ever since 9/11, counterterrorism has permeated U.S. foreign policy and often undermines diplomacy and opportunities to build a long-term relationship between states. Throughout the world, American embassies have turned into fortresses, though diplomacy does not function in seclusion.

Nevertheless, American diplomats remain at risk, especially in the Middle East and Africa where the U.S. foreign policy is in a downward spiral. Diplomats have no better protection than a sound foreign policy.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Abukar Arman appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

The latest documentary in the Foreign Policy Association’s Great Decisions series is “America’s Diplomats.” It aims at shedding light on the vitally important but little understood role of diplomacy—representing the ideals and policies of the United States abroad.

While not easily definable, the actions and efforts of the US’ diplomatic corps—today, the State Department’s Foreign Service Officers—maintain U.S. relations with virtually every country on the planet.

As the documentary rightly points out, the dangerous situations in which diplomats are often placed only come to the forefront when something terrible happens. The storming of the U.S. embassy in Iran and the attack on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi made national headlines.

Yet, every day diplomats put themselves in harms way and work tirelessly to advance American interests and strengthen ties between the U.S. and other governments as well as the local population—which is just as, if not more, important.

“America’s Diplomats” presents a brief history of American diplomacy, starting when the Continental Congress sent Benjamin Franklin to France in order to secure their support of the revolution. Major milestones of American diplomatic successes are presented, from negotiating the acquisition of the Louisiana Purchase from Napoleon, to U.S. Ambassador Richard Holbrooke’s efforts to establish peace in the Balkans, culminating in the 1995 Dayton Accords.

The film also discusses how U.S. diplomats have also taken on a larger role in developing American economic and trade presence abroad, as well as fostering cooperation on transnational issues such as protecting the environment.

Of particular interest is the coverage of how diplomacy today is changing, especially with regard to technology and the availability of instant communication. Imagine how the Cuban Missile Crisis might have unfolded differently in the era of constant and immediate communication. While diplomats are trying to adapt and utilize technology to provide better support, there seems to be more questions in this area than answers.

Hopefully “America’s Diplomats” will make more people aware of vital role diplomats play in “delivering” America to the rest of the world.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Scott Bleiweis appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

America’s Diplomats is a one hour documentary film from the Foreign Policy Association (FPA), part of its Great Decision series on PBS. The FPA’s flagship educational series is meant to bring to its viewers discussions, analyses and debates on issues of concern to U.S. policy-makers, and America’s Diplomats is no exception.

The documentary spends much of its time exploring the historical roles diplomats have played in shaping America, weaving in and out of past and present as it discusses the achievements of past generations and the challenging job of U.S. diplomats today, who confront challenges such as climate change, terrorism and the promotion of US economic interests abroad in a rocky global market.

This story is engagingly told by Kathleen Turner, who huskily narrates her way through a series of American officials from the 18th century onwards who have served their country. The stellar cast of interviewees who appear in the film ranges from former and serving U.S. diplomats and ambassadors, to top level officials.

Politicians making an appearance include Secretary of State John Kerry, UN Ambassador Samantha Powers, and James Baker, who served under Presidents Reagan and Bush Senior. The interviewees talk candidly about their work, the struggles and dramas they have faced, and how the service has evolved in the 21st century.

Particularly poignant are the moments when the documentary touches on the losses suffered by Foreign Service Officers and their families. The topic of terrorism features heavily in these, but we also hear of the less high profile risks faced by diplomats as part of their work. One man talks about the death of his son from illness, because top-quality medical care, which could have saved the boy in America, was unavailable in the host country in which he was serving.

Even diplomats cited in the documentary are not immune. Richard Holbrooke, who brought peace to war-torn Bosnia by crafting the 1995 Dayton Agreement, suffered the loss of three close members of his team.

Parts of the documentary touch on the gradual professionalization of American diplomacy until the creation of the Foreign Service under the 1924 Rogers Act, its diversification more recently, and how it remains misunderstood. Many of the diplomats interviewed seem to feel they do a better job of representing America abroad than they do of representing the diplomatic profession to their fellow Americans back home.

A great deal of time is spent covering the various aspects of the work undertaken by American Foreign Service members, such as their support of American companies and brands abroad, screening of visa applicants for terrorists and criminals, and their work with local communities wherever American diplomats are posted.

Some interviewees also touch on the hardships of being separated from spouses or families for years at a time, often in difficult or dangerous countries. As one dryly observes to the camera, not every overseas posting is “Rome, Paris or London”.

Overall I found America’s Diplomats to be a gentle, earnest and intelligent look at the work of the US Foreign Service and the concerns many of its members have, such as the reappearance of patronage in the appointment of US ambassadors.

This is not a hard hitting piece of documentary journalism, but rather a segment produced by insiders who are proud of their service and wish to explain it further to the American public. It highlights the importance of their work, its often hidden nature, and the dangers and drawbacks that a career in the Foreign Service involves.

To watch the trailer and get more information, please visit the America’s Diplomats website.

The post America’s Diplomats: Film Review by Neil Thompson appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.