Diplomacy & Crisis News

Une clameur de liberté s'élève depuis le début du mois d'avril dans nombre de villes de Syrie, avec des appels de plus en plus déterminés à la chute du pouvoir. L'intervention militaire contre les opposants, à Deraa et dans d'autres villes, indique que le régime a fait le choix de la violence. / (...) / Proche-Orient, Syrie, Conflit israélo-arabe, Islam, Minorité nationale, Mouvement de contestation, Violence, Répression, Réveil arabe 2011- - 2011/05

Russian IL-20 four engine aircraft

A Russian four engine IL-20 naval reconnaissance aircraft was shot down seemingly by accident over Syria by Syrian air defense. While initial reports lack significant details, early information seem to point out that due to a possible Israeli missile attack, Syrian air defense was targeting incoming missiles or planes and locked on the IL-20 by radar. Information suggests that an S-200 missile brought down the plane, known to NATO as a SA-5 Gammon, the S-200 while effective, is a system developed during the Cold War era and has limited capabilities due to its age. From the 14 or 15 member crew, there were no survivors.

While newer missile system like the Pantsir and TOR have more advanced equipment to correctly determine the origin and design of aircraft being targeted, systems like the S-200 may be linked with radar systems that could date as far back as the 80s or even 70s era systems. While more modern systems like the BUK-M1 have shot down planes that were misidentified as recently as the Malaysia Airline flight over Ukraine a few short years ago, the coordination and training of several forces operating over Syria along with Western allied and Russian and Syrian air arms was established in order to avoid incidents like those that took place with the downing of the IL-20. Why an old S-200 missile can accidentally down an older IL-20 airplane with modern radar and a coordinated air defense system is puzzling, a tragedy for all involved.

The origin of the IL-20 is an innocent one, being developed as a 1950s era Soviet airliner, the IL-18. The IL-20 likely was in the area working as an airborne radar and detection system or perhaps was the IL-22 or IL-38 version that track naval and submarine activity. With an aircraft such as the IL-20 operating as a known radar and early warning system asset, a coordinated air defense with Russia and Syrian forces and systems should have been keenly aware of the IL-20, as the IL-20 would have been in direct and constant contact with all air assets in the area.

The IL-20 having its origins as a 1950s airliner also possesses some characteristics that should have made it evident on radar that it was not a missile or even a fighter plane. The IL-20 has four propeller or turboprop driven engines, is somewhat large and would have been moving fairly slowly. The radar for the S-200 likely would have been able to determine that it was not a plane that offered significant threats to its target and should have been cautious as it looked more like an airliner or other civilian aircraft.

Using the S-200 to target missiles also deserves some analysis. While an S-200 was able to shoot down one Israeli aircraft this year, to use a rather large and heavy anti-aircraft missile like the S-200 to target incoming cruise missiles seems like it would be quite ineffective. With most of the strikes coming into Syria being cruise or other air-to-ground missiles, an S-200 would likely have not hit any of the main missile threats, despite claims about the performance of the S-200. With most of the actual aircraft being at a fair distance from the targets, an S-200 would be best used on targets that are lower risk than threats it needs to handle. So while a fighter jet might be shot down and an IL-20 certainly would have no protection, individual missiles would require a more effective system and missile than the S-200.

The loss of lives is certainly a tragedy, and almost certainly an error or a malfunction. It is only hoped that a peaceful resolution in Syria can remove the situation where errors like these can ever occur again.

The post Syrian Missile Downs Russian Plane in Error appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Washington must not ignore atrocities against the country’s Anglophones. It should use existing U.S. laws to force an end to the violence.

The country may seem a haven for clean energy, but that’s because it exports its pollution.

In one gubernatorial race, a scandal might be a sign of Putin’s decline.

Everything from food to oil depends on underpaid and overworked drivers.

Le respect des identités et de leurs cultures, la défiance envers les idéologies du progrès, la critique du rationalisme et de sa prétention à l'universel : autant de caractéristiques d'une sensibilité politique contemporaine qui s'oppose à la conception d'un individu autonome. / Citoyenneté, Culture, (...) / Citoyenneté, Culture, Histoire, Idéologie, Nationalisme, Politique, Religion, Société - 2010/12

Progress that destroys traditional culture, language, land and human heritage “is not development, but willful destruction”, the UN Deputy High Commissioner for Human Rights said on Wednesday, in defence of indigenous peoples everywhere.

Childhood is a time for growth, a time for school. But conflict or disaster are depriving 104 million young people between the ages of five and 17 of that foundation, according to a new study by the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF).

It’s expensive to destroy a people without killing them, but Beijing is willing to pay the price.

Le 13 novembre dernier, sa peine d'emprisonnement effectuée, Mme Aung San Suu Kyi était libérée par les généraux au pouvoir. Par ce geste, la junte espère engager des négociations pour lever l'embargo occidental. / Birmanie, Armée, Élections, État, Parti politique, Politique, Dictature - (...) / Birmanie, Armée, Élections, État, Parti politique, Politique, Dictature - 2010/12

With options limited for fighting terrorists, negotiations may be the best remaining alternative.

Due to the intense religious persecution that they face, increasingly minorities are forced to flee the Muslim world.

As time progresses, the Islamic world is becoming more and more homogenous. Fewer and fewer non-Muslims who have lived amongst Muslims since antiquity are choosing to remain in their ancestral homeland. The trend began with the establishment of the State of Israel. After Israel became a country, around one million Jews were compelled to leave the Arab world. Following the Iranian Revolution, many Persian Jews followed in their footsteps. Now, numerous non-Muslim minority groups including Christians, Hindus, Mandeans, and Bahais among others are following in the footsteps of the Mizrahi Jews. The question remains, why?

In Bangladesh, both Christians and Hindus are systematically persecuted. Not too long ago, there was a report that 8 Christian women were assaulted and beaten after a militant group attacked their home. Furthermore, sources within Bangladesh claim that a Hindu temple was vandalized and the Hindu gods were desecrated recently. In another instance, it was reported that a Hindu girl was raped and the girl’s father’s life was threatened. When the mother went to report the incident to the police, she was sexually assaulted, stripped naked and threatened into dropping the case. And according to the World Hindu Struggle Committee, a minority was recently beaten up for refusing to participate in a political rally and the Awami League has proven themselves hostile towards Hindus who seek to run for political office. Given this situation, the World Hindu Struggle Committee claims that an increasing number of Christians and Hindus are fleeing Bangladesh, moving either to India or the Western countries.

For members of the Bahai faith in Yemen, the situation is quite dire. According to the US State Department, the Houthis in Yemen have been persecuting members of the Bahai faith. Amnesty International reported that a member of the Bahai faith was given the death sentence at the beginning of this year for allegedly communicating with Israel. They claimed that six other Bahais were also detained merely for practicing their faith. According to social media reports, there are still Bahais in Houthi prisons merely for being Bahais and no other reason.

Due to experiencing such persecution in Yemen, Iran and other Middle Eastern countries, most members of the Bahai faith today live in India, Kenya and the US. Even though the Bahai faith was founded in Iran, the Bahai faith’s international headquarters is located in the State of Israel, as the Iranians destroyed many of the historic Bahai shrines within the country in a manner that is reminiscent of the destruction of the Buddhist statues by the Taliban in Afghanistan. To this day, Bahais are not recognized as a legitimate faith in Iran and are denied the right to study in university, to work and to enjoy any semblance of basic human rights.

The Bahais are not the only faith persecuted by the Iranian regime. The Mandeans, just like the Bahai, are denied the status of a protected faith in Iran. According to the Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, Mandeans are systematically murdered and raped within the country due to the fact that the Iranian government considers them to be infidels. They claim that the Iranian courts have ruled that raping Mandean women and girls is part of their purification process and therefore, violators receive impunity. Furthermore, the report claimed that Mandeans are also not allowed to touch food in the markets due to the belief that they are unclean. Due to experiencing such persecution, many Mandeans have immigrated to Canada, the US, Australia and the European Union. In fact, Mandeans were among the group of Iranian political refugees that Trump denied entry into the US.

Given such persecution, minority Hindus, Christians, Bahais, Mandeans and members of numerous other minority faiths originating in the Muslim world have found that if they want the freedom to continue practicing their faith and to live dignified lives, they have no other choice but to leave their ancestral homelands and to immigrate to democratic countries. For this reason, it is of pivotal importance that the Trump administration admits not only Christians but all other religious minorities from the Islamic world into the United States because these religious groups have no other way of surviving and thriving as a people since the radical Islamists have deprived them of any other opportunity to live a good and free life in their native lands.

The post Why are the non-Muslim minorities leaving the Islamic world in droves? appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

Ill-advised land swaps and population transfers won’t bring peace. They’re more likely to revive the bloodshed that plagued the Balkans during the 1990s.

Cette recension a été publiée dans le numéro de printemps de Politique étrangère (n°3/2018). Jalel Harchaoui propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Frederic Wehrey, The Burning Shores: Inside the Battle for New Libya (Farrar, Straus & Giroux, 2018, 352 pages).

Remarquable par son accessibilité et sa clarté, le nouvel ouvrage de Frederic Wehrey traite de la Libye depuis 2011. L’Américain ne s’attarde pas sur l’intervention militaire de l’Organisation du traité de l’Atlantique nord (OTAN) et de ses alliés arabes, qui prit fin en octobre 2011. Allant au-delà de la mort de Mouammar Kadhafi ce mois-là, Wehrey se concentre surtout sur les six années qui ont suivi le départ des forces aériennes de l’Occident. D’une plume vivante et humaine, il esquisse l’itinéraire accidenté, parfois vertigineux, d’un pays nord-africain aux grandes richesses et à la petite population.

L’auteur livre ici un témoignage à la première personne. Sa démarche permet au lecteur de franchir le tournant, souvent idéalisé, des printemps arabes. Si les diplomaties française, britannique et américaine se sont désintéressées de la Libye durant la période 2012-2014, le livre, lui, va dans le sens inverse. Il s’attelle à faire un lien, tant bien que mal, entre la fausse paix de novembre 2011 et le démarrage, en mai 2014, de l’actuelle guerre civile libyenne.

On découvre ainsi que le pays n’a guère été détruit en 2011. À maints égards, la Libye était debout et fonctionnait pendant les premiers mois de 2012. Durant cette période clé, plusieurs opportunités furent manquées. Depuis le choc frontal de 2014 – entre les deux principales factions libyennes – jusqu’à aujourd’hui, le livre continue à suivre l’anarchie toujours changeante du pays, dont la complexité est chroniquement sous-estimée par les non-experts. Cette continuité temporelle, mariée à une description souvent sensorielle des atmosphères si variées d’un territoire vaste comme trois fois la France, est la contribution majeure de Wehrey.

La plupart des chapitres ont été rédigés en temps réel, au fil des séjours de terrain de l’ancien officier des forces aériennes, aussi bien à l’est qu’à l’ouest du pays depuis 2011.

The Burning Shores n’est pas un ouvrage académique ; il évite le jargon abstrait des politologues et le paternalisme des sociologues : quelques universitaires refuseront sans doute de le saluer. Il est pourtant extrêmement utile. Sans sur-simplifier ni dramatiser son propos, il constitue une intelligente introduction pour tous ceux (y compris universitaires…) qui souhaitent se pencher pour la première fois sur la Libye post-Kadhafi.

Quelques reproches peuvent toutefois être faits à Wehrey. Par exemple, on détecte chez lui un certain biais en faveur de l’OTAN. En septembre-octobre 2011, les bombes françaises, britanniques et américaines avaient joué un rôle dans la dévastation de la ville de Syrte, qui deviendra en 2015 le bastion de Daech aux portes de l’Union européenne. Cette réalité n’apparaît guère.

Dans les mois à venir, d’autres ouvrages consacrés à la Libye post-2011 seront publiés, dont notamment celui du journaliste de l’agence Reuters, Ulf Laessing, et celui du professeur de Paris 8 Ali Bensaâd. En attendant, celui de Wehrey saura mériter l’attention de toute personne s’intéressant au grand Moyen-Orient actuel.

Jalel Harchaoui

 > > S’abonner à Politique étrangère < <

The Kremlin is filling the vacuum created by the U.S. retreat from the Middle East—now, with a buffer zone in Idlib.

An open letter to Donald Trump's new North Korea envoy on how to avoid Armageddon.

Americans have forgotten that their long history of intervention in the Middle East started in Damascus. Now it might end there.

FILE PHOTO – A group of disputed islands, Uotsuri island (top), Minamikojima (bottom) and Kitakojima, known as Senkaku in Japan and Diaoyu in China is seen in the East China Sea, in this photo taken by Kyodo September 2012. Mandatory credit. REUTERS/Kyodo/File Photo 

Beijing’s expanding military presence in the South China Sea (SCS) continues to attract the world’s attention. Tensions over the ownership of islands and the legitimacy for building artificial ones escalate, with some outsiders also joining the battlefield, including the U.S. and Japan. However, the dispute over SCS pales in comparison to the crises that happened in the East China Sea (ECS) around a decade ago, when a hot war between China and Japan seemed imminent. Today, the tension on the ECS has cooled down, but the dispute remains unsolved.

History of the Dispute on the ECS

The center of the dispute is the contested ownership of a group of islands – called Senkaku by the Japanese, Diaoyu Dao by the Chinese, and Diaoyutai by the Taiwanese (SDD) – extending to the water surrounding the islands, because the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea gives countries the right to claim Exclusive Economic Zone 200 nautical miles beyond the coastline.

The dispute occurred after the Second World War.  Under unconditional surrender, Japan needed to return all occupied territories taken from other countries. However, the Japanese government contended that it did not take SDD from the Chinese since it is unmanned. On the Chinese side, both Beijing (People’s Republic of China) and Taipei (Republic of China) claim that SDD should be returned to China after Japan was defeated. Both governments regard themselves as the legitimate government of China, although Beijing is internationally recognized.

The peak of the dispute was reached around a decade ago and started with a purposed breakthrough. In 2008, both China and Japan signed an agreement on joint development of the ECS’s natural resources. However, the cooperation ended following critiques of the Chinese government for betraying national sovereignty.[i] The atmosphere over the ECS then became increasingly dangerous. The first crisis occurred in September 2010 when Japanese coast guards detained the crew of a Chinese fishing boat near SDD.[ii] Beijing fiercely protested this action and arrested four Japanese in Hebei Province, accusing them of trespassing in a military installation.  In late September, though Japan released all detained Chinese prisoners, neither side became softer on the dispute. The crisis reached a second peak in 2012 when the governor of Tokyo, Shintaro Ishihara, decided to nationalize SDD from the private owner. Beijing and Taipei protested fiercely against the proposal.  In July, Japan recalled its ambassador in China.  On August 15, the victory over Japan day, people from mainland China, Hongkong, and Macao boarded a Hongkong boat to land SDD and were detained by the Japanese coasts guard. 2 days later, Japan deported those who boarded SDD.  Following these events, both China and Japan (with the U.S.) launched military exercises on the ECS, further worsening the situation.[iii]

Since then, the tensions over the ECS have gradually cooled down but some conflicts continue to occur. In 2013, Beijing declared the East China Sea (ADIZ) where all planes need to report to the Chinese authority, overlapping with the ADIZ claimed by Japan. In mid-2014, a Japan Self-Defense Force surveillance plane entered the overlapped ADIZ and Chinese fighter jets intercepted it. While military conflicts have virtually disappeared, some other small friction remains. For example, in this March, Chinese Foreign Ministry complained about some controversial clauses regarding SDD in a proposed Japanese history textbook.

Incentives Behind Assertiveness

A common reason for all involving governments to be assertive to varying degrees is the rise of nationalism. For example, in China, the Communist Party shifted its focus from the communist ideology to the economy and nationalism after crashing demonstrating students in 1989. The government launched the Patriotic Education Campaign, which aims at raising public awareness of “the century of humiliation” when China was bullied and invaded by foreign countries. The primary target is Japan, which invaded China in 1931 and occupied a huge portion of the nation until 1945. As expected, the campaign greatly raised anti-Japanese sentiment in China. For instance, in 2005, Japan’s petition for a permanent membership in United Nations Security Council joined with the controversial clauses in history textbooks triggered protests across China. Also, from 2008 -2012, anti-Japanese demonstrations spread throughout the country.

In Japan, public attitudes toward the disputes with China are mixed, but nationalism is more active with government backs those movements. Defeated in WW2, many Japanese views the punishment on Japan as “victor’s justice” and the current Abe administration is trying to make Japan a normal country again. (Under the Peace Constitution, Japan now can only engage in defensive wars.) The most controversial events are the visits to Yasukuni Shrine by Japanese prime ministers. The Yasukuni Shrine became a disputed place since it enshrines some war criminals during WW2 who were accused and executed by the international court. Every time when Japanese politicians visit the shrine, Beijing and Seoul protest intensively. Japanese nationalists view critiques made by the Chinese and Koreans as insults to their national heroes, so they also protest against the Chinese and Koreans.

For Taiwan, the nationalist movement does exist but seems to be less active than in the other two countries. Taiwan, officially called The Republic of China, also claimed SDD and its surrounding waters. However, the government and people are less interested in such dispute as Taiwan has enjoyed a good relationship with Japan since WW2. Although Japan colonized Taiwan for more than half a decade and its brutal colonial rule still has some negative effects, many people prefer to the colonial period as they hate Kuomintang’s autocracy more. Additionally, both Japan and Taiwan were supported by the U.S. to counter the expansion of Communism. Still, nationalist movements have gained certain support from the government and the public. For example, in September 2012, Taiwan deployed 8 Coastal Guard ships near SDD, which were later dispelled by the Japanese.[iv]

The Road to Cooling Down

In August 2012, President of ROC, Ma Ying-jeou announced the East China Sea Peace Initiative, calling for a peace settlement of the ECS dispute and more cooperation. Beijing has not responded to this initiative so far. However, Japan eagerly responded to it and signed an agreement with Taipei about fishing in the ECS in 2013.

Also, the overheating of nationalism triggered deep concerns by Beijing. Although Beijing uses nationalism as a pillar of its legitimacy, it fears to be criticized as not nationalistic enough. During the crises in 2010 and 2012, protests across China were accompanied by numerous reports of riots, including attacks on Japanese companies, factories, Japanese brand cars, and their owners. Such violence challenged the government as it faced the dilemma of whether or not to support these so-called “patriotic” troublemakers. The government chose to crack down them because it not only wanted to continue the negotiation with Japan but also to try to protect its international image and keep foreigners and their investments in China.

Another essential factor that contributed to peace would be the limitation of natural resources under the ECS. In the very beginning of the dispute, Japan claimed that China (both mainland and Taiwan) raised the dispute over SDD only after the discovery of natural gas and some other resources under it. However, it turned out that the gas field is not so promising. For Beijing, the quantity of gas reserves there is not that big, only about 24 billion cubic meters. (Annual consumption of natural gas in China is around 200 billion cubic meters.) Japan also does not count on the gas field under the ECS. In addition to the concern over limited reserve volumes, the far distance between the field and Japan’s mainland made the cost to transport gas incredibly high.

Security is another concern for all three participants, as all parties prefer stability in the region. Japan, since WWII, has been the de facto controller of SDD, which is under the coverage of the U.S-Japan defense treaty. (Although the U.S. claims that it does not support any particular country over the dispute, it will protect every territory under Japan’s administration (including SDD).)[vi] If China attacks SDD, the U.S. will need to defend Japan and a new World War may become reality. Besides, the ECS dispute is only one of several flashpoints: the others include the Taiwan Strait, North Korea, and the South China Sea. All three issues involve China and the U.S. and are related to each other. The escalation of any tensions regarding these issues may trigger chain effects, bringing East Asia and even the world into dangers.

To maintain the stability in East Asia, disputing countries use diplomacy to ease the tensions. One remarkable achievement is the resuming of High-level Consultations on Maritime Affairs between China and Japan in September 2014. (The latest one was hosted this April.) Although they did not solve the territorial dispute, the two sides decided to cooperate on other issues such as fighting against smuggling, human trafficking, piracy, and protecting the environment.

The Way Out

So far, the tension of the ECS has cooled down. Also, cooperation and negotiations continue to make progress. However, the cooperation is mostly bilateral: either between Taipei and Tokyo or Beijing and Tokyo. Besides, another event like detaining Chinese citizens by Japanese authorities near SDD may again obstruct the cooperation on the ECS and even escalate to a diplomatic or even military crisis. Thus, all sides should try to have a trilateral conference at least about some innocuous topics and establish a well-functioning communication mechanism to prevent the escalation of any potential crisis. In addition, all parties, especially China and Japan, should closely monitor the nationalistic movement, which will definitely hinder future cooperation. The international community should also help to maintain the current status quo and do not stir troubles in the region. A stable East Asia would be the basis for solving the dispute on SDD in the future.

[i] Mark J. Valencia, The East China Sea Disputes: History, Status, and Ways Forward, Asian Perspective 38(2014), pp.191

[ii] Valencia, pp.194

[iii] Valencia, pp.195

[iv] Dennis V. Hickey, Taiwan and the Rising Tensions in the East China Sea, Asian Survey, Vol.54, Number 3, pp.504

[v] Paul O’ Shea, How Economic, Strategic, and Domestic Factors Shape Patterns of Conflict and Cooperation in the East China Sea Dispute, Asian Survey, Vol.55, Number 3, pp.555-556

[vi] Sheila A. Smith, Japan and the East China Sea Dispute, pp.4

The post Forgotten Flash Point: East China Sea appeared first on Foreign Policy Blogs.

More pressure on Tehran won’t work. Here’s what Trump should really do.