Diplomacy & Crisis News

Piraeus Port, Greece. By Jeffrey @flickr

After what seemed like never ending negotiations between the Greek government and the Troika—the European Commission, the European Central Bank and the International Monetary Fund—to settle Greece’s financial lifeline, the ordeal finally came to an end last August, and the gaze of the world drifted away from Athens.

Instead, all media pundits were fixed on the beaches of Lesbos and the human tide washing up on its shore, and on Syria, the source of so much of the misery from which the boatloads of refugees had fled.

But those with a vested interest in the successful implementation of the €86 billion bailout package agreed between Athens and its creditors, not least of all the Greek people, couldn’t afford to take their eyes off Greece. And in December, as Alexis Tsipras’ Syriza-led government finally passed the budget for 2016 and signed the first privatization deals required to access the bailout funds, some of the attention slowly began shifting back to the fortunes of this debt-laden economic basket case. And unfortunately, not many are happy with what they see six months since the signing of the deal meant to bring Athens out of the worst political conundrum the European Union has ever seen.

To begin with, let’s look at the relatively successful (and relatively painless) privatization of Greece’s airports, a key condition for the nation’s international creditors. In mid December negotiations concluded between the Greek government and a consortium consisting of Fraport, a German transport company, and Copelouzos, a Greek energy company, to lease and manage 14 airports.

Negotiations to lease the airports began under the previous government, but the deal looked to be dead in the water following Syriza’s rise to power on an anti-austerity platform. But now, having been force-fed a strong dose of economic realism, the radical leftists finally signed off on an agreement which will bring in €23 million in annual rental payments and over €300 million in investment in the airports´ facilities.

All in all, the deal is worth €1.4 billion over the 40 year length of the lease. Its final signing also marks a welcome sign that the Syriza government has woken up to the realization that if Greece is ever to extricate itself from its economic woes, it needs to make friends rather than enemies of parties who are willing to invest in its future.

But the privatization of Greece’s airports is only one side of the coin, as the debate over the future of the nation’s seaports still remains unresolved. The Greek shipping industry is the largest in the world, a major provider of employment, and is considered to be the very identity of the country; one of the few remaining symbols of national pride. But if Greece is to maintain its preeminent position as a world leader in shipping, then its ports and associated infrastructure will need continued investment and support.

However, given the country’s finances, the Greek government is clearly in no position to meet those needs using its own resources. Even Syriza has already come to this conclusion, and has agreed as part of the latest bailout program to sell a 51% stake in the port of Piraeus, the country’s largest. At least that was what investors were led to believe would happen, and while reports have emerged that the privatization would indeed go through, the road thus far has been far from smooth, leaving investors jittery about the government’s next steps.

After being postponed three times, bids were finally accepted on December 22 for the majority stake in the port. Maersk Group’s APM Terminals, and Philippines-based International Container Terminal Services have expressed interest in the offer, but China’s Cosco is thought to be the lead contender to seal the deal. That Cosco has continued in its pursuit of the share purchase despite the obstacles thrown in its way by the Greek government is testament to the value of the proposition on offer.

As well as the postponements, the whole process has been stymied by the announcement of the intention to bring all of Greece’s shipyards under a central public body (in other words: nationalization) as well as plans to increase taxes on local shipping operators. All these factors taken together paint an unsettling picture of a government that seems hell bent on scaring away foreign investors ,while at the same time removing existing ones from the country.

Exactly what the government hopes to achieve by exasperating the operators in an industry that is so vital to Greece’s recovery is anyone’s guess, but potential foreign investors will likely remain on their feet until Athens sends a strong signal that it is serious about privatization to dig its economy out of a manmade hole.

But what could really be the undoing of this government and push Greece right back to the precipice is the slow pace of reform of the pension system. The terms of the bailout require a reduction in pension payments, but the government, fearing the political backlash this would cause, claims that there have already been 12 cuts to pension payments since the beginning of the crisis and the system is already streamlined to the bone.

Instead of cuts, the government wants to set higher contributions from existing workers and employers. However, the fact so many people already pay and receive wages under the table in order to avoid paying any contributions in the first place will render such an approach unfeasible until the government cracks down on tax avoidance.

Whereas Syriza once stood against austerity and attracted the support of the majority of Greek people who also opposed it, the fact of the matter now is that whether they like it or not the Syriza-led government is an austerity government. The Greek people are all out of alternatives.

Apart from the Golden Dawn,or from Syriza’s point of view, the best way forward would be to leave the foot dragging and recalcitrance behind, be upfront with the public, and convince them that despite the tough road that lies ahead they are the best party to lead them on the path of economic recovery. Syriza must take a hard and clear stance with its population about the necessary reforms. If Greece wants to remain a member of the Eurozone, this is the road that must be travelled, regardless of the party in government.

The top United Nations official in Iraq today appealed to all parties in the strife torn-country to avoid being drawn into a vicious cycle or reprisal attacks following the “outrageous” bombing of six mosques in Muqdadiya in Diyala Province.

Presenting the key findings of the latest United Nations survey on international migrant trends, the UN Deputy Secretary-General today stressed that the issue of migration is one of the most challenging and important that the Organization is taking on in the new global landscape.

United Nations human rights experts have called for a comprehensive review of the United Kingdom’s draft Investigatory Powers bill, warning that if adopted in its present form it could threaten the rights to freedoms of expression and association both inside and outside the country.

The African Union-United Nations Mission in Darfur (UNAMID) expressed concern over continued tension in El Geneina town and around Mouli village, 15 kilometres south of El Geneina, West Darfur, after an armed attack on Mouli village.

When looking into the political history of many of the world’s most complex issues, often there is a strong sense of injustice in communities on both sides of a conflict. Injustice comes from the belief that one group or individual has a disproportionate amount of power, and abuses that position to its benefit, its family’s needs, or the needs of its interest group or political party.

In societies with little corruption, once the creation of unjust mechanisms and institution becomes entrenched, it is almost impossible to return  to a system of balanced and equal justice. In some cases, revolutionary ideals can change a corrupt system, but more often than not it leads to extreme violence and a new system that takes on their own forms of corrupt practices.

Politicking in the modern era reflects many of the same tactics that could rightfully be seen as spurning on absurd religious ideals of the past. Civil discourse has taken generations to develop as a means to have civil conflicts with fellow citizens with a difference of opinion.

This tradition is increasingly being lost. Modern political dialogue seeks to label an adversary as inherently evil. If someone is “evil”, then all ideas must come from a place where the individual, their family or group are acting against the greater good of the society. If the corrupt can claim their adversaries are corrupt, then there is no perception of justice. When every conflict great and small is taken in terms of good vs. evil, no progress can be made and corruption becomes more of a nuance than a lack of accountability.

With such a system in place, corruption will never face justice as powerful groups in black and white societies benefit the most when there is no room for truth and civil discourse. With entrenched corruption, it is inevitable that a nation’s finances will wane and debt will grow. Those in power act according to their self-interest, and if challenged by others in society, they promptly label their challenger as evil, discrediting him or her.

For generations in Colombia, revolutionary groups have claimed that their narco-business was a form of resistance against a corrupt government. The revolutionaries killed many innocent people, and the response by the government also produced civilian causalities.

In Mexico, with the current government being seen by many as not only being inherently corrupt, but having knowledge and perhaps a role in the death of dozens of protestors, the view is that an evil government gives rise to a Robin Hood. Justice is therefore seen as the only alternative, often by any means necessary. Sean Penn and other journalists who engage with narco traffickers take the position that, if they operate in a system where the government itself is inherently corrupt and unjust, then the alternative must be in some sense a righteous one. Often this impression leads to the death of many innocents, at the same time converts the narrative into one of justice against evil.

While this narrative is not unique to one region of the world, it divides discussions into those of “us vs. them.” It promotes not only the status quo, but often hurts those who need justice the most. In the big discussion of El Chapo and the Mexican government, the citizens of Mexico are almost never mentioned.

In a debate between Republicans and Democrats, the distain each side feels towards the other will do more to give rise to added corruption by an elite that has little regard for the people they wish to govern.

In Brazil, corruption scandals have triggered historic debt levels and suffering for its people, leading two million people to take to the streets and demand justice. If there is a method to dispel the dominant narratives, justice can perhaps relinquish the ills of corruption. However, this may only occur when finances are in shambles and debt is affecting each citizen personally. This is happening in Brazil, and only after there were no other choices left.

Jurassic World 2 will be brought to you by China: Wanda Group acquires Legendary Entertainment.

The tenge has devalued nearly 5 percent in 2016 so far, not a good start to the year.

In China's most sweeping military reshuffle since the 1950s, Xi Jinping is creating an army that is loyal only to him.

India and Russia recently failed to agree on moving forward on a joint air transport project.

The United Nations health agency today announced that the South-East Asia Region has completed five years without any case of wild poliovirus, a highly infectious disease that invades the nervous system and for which there is still no cure.

Coup d'Etat, garde présidentielle contre armée loyaliste, manifestations civiques et barricades faisant reculer les putschistes, interruption puis relance de la transition politique ouverte par le départ sous la pression populaire du président Blaise Compaoré en octobre 2014... Les événements de (...) / Afrique, Afrique australe, France, Capitalisme, Conflit, Démocratie, Démographie, Développement, Économie, Élections, Géopolitique, Inégalités, Relations Nord-Sud, Pauvreté, Politique, Sahel, Afrique de l'Ouest, Néolibéralisme, Coup d'État - 2015/10

Etre ou ne pas être « Charlie » ? Dans la semaine qui suit le massacre, la question serpente comme une traînée de poudre de salles de cours en salles de rédaction. / France, Audiovisuel, Censure, Identité culturelle, Idéologie, Information, Libéralisme, Médias, Presse, Racisme - (...) / France, Audiovisuel, Censure, Identité culturelle, Idéologie, Information, Libéralisme, Médias, Presse, Racisme - 2015/02

Krieg ist auf dem Vormarsch. Das zeigt der Blick zurück, denn seit rund fünf Jahren steigt weltweit die Zahl der Konflikte und damit der Opfer und der Flüchtlinge. Dies wird sich wohl auch in diesem Jahr fortsetzen, mit alten und neuen Kriegen. Nur Kolumbien bietet Anlass zur Hoffnung.

Nearly 24 million children living in crisis zones in 22 strife-torn countries are being deprived of a school education, threatening their own future and that of their societies, the United Nations Children’s Fund (UNICEF) reported today.

(Own report) - Whereas Berlin is attacking the Polish government because of its media law; massive criticism is being raised against the German public broadcasting. While German politicians are calling for sanctions to be imposed on Poland, because it is placing its public media under government supervision, a right-wing conservative former CDU minister has become Chair of an influential panel of Germany's ARD public television channel. Observers note that, even after the Federal Constitutional Court's intervention, state officials or individuals with close government ties exercise significant influence on the public broadcasting steering committees. Due to their structural relationship to the state, on the one hand, and the programs' political orientation toward government policy, on the other, one could speak of "embedded journalism" in Germany, a former correspondent of the ZDF public television concluded a few years ago. The journalist went to work for the Swiss Television, because it does not have "a NATO state's obligatory alignment." The German public television's foreign news reporting is even increasingly being accused of using falsifications.

Despite considerable progress in Mali, the United Nations peacekeeping chief today warned that the peace process in the country remains fragile, and stressed the need to urgently defeat political, security and humanitarian challenges.

Trump’s “Making America Great Again” echoes Reagan’s “Let’s Make America Great Again” (Photo credits below)

Part 1 of 2: Can Trump win?

The United States is preparing to introduce a critically important new variable to its foreign policy: a new President. Despite continuing predictions of his campaign fading, Donald Trump remains a viable candidate and therefore important to the global community. President Ronald Reagan’s path to victory in 1980 might serve as a model for Trump’s eventual election. But if elected, will Trump’s foreign policy also echo Reagan’s?

Reagan was elected by reaching voters outside the Republican Party—”Reagan Democrats.” Like Trump, Reagan was already widely known before he ran in 1980. He was a film actor beginning in the late 1930s into the 1950s. He served as the president of the Screen Actors Guild during the Congressional inquiries in Communists in Hollywood. A former radio sportscaster, he bolstered his all-American image as a spokesman for General Electric in the 1950s. In the 1960s, he became a Republican, and gave a popular speech for presidential candidate Barry Goldwater. Reagan himself ran successfully for California governor in 1966 and 1970, and unsuccessfully for president in 1968 and 1976.

Trump’s large personality, eponymous hotels, 1987 New York Times bestselling book, and popular television program, The Apprentice, have made him widely known. But in 2011, he also had the highest rates of unfavorability of any potential candidates. Trump lacks political experience, compared to Reagan and to most of his current rivals. But the other Republican frontrunners in the race so far have been a neurosurgeon with no political experience and a first-term Senator, while nine sitting or former governors from states like New York, Florida, Texas, and Ohio have been essentially non-factors.

The context in which Reagan ran in 1980 was also central to the election, though. The United States was at the end of two decades of upheaval: the assassinations of President Kennedy and Martin Luther King, Jr., the civil rights and anti-Vietnam War movements, President Nixon’s resignation, and economic “stagflation.” The taking of American hostages by Iranian revolutionaries, two oil-price crises, and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan made the Middle East a complicated and controversial political, economic, and security issue.

In 2016, the United States enters its 16th year of fighting in Afghanistan, and nearly as long in Iraq, while Taliban, ISIS, and other difficulties persist. The long, slow recovery from the 2008 financial crisis is threatened by the global stock market plunges of early January 2016. Police shootings, immigration, and health insurance are politically divisive social issues. The rise of China, Russia, and Iran increasingly erodes the hegemony the United States held for the decade after the Cold War ended.

Will the personality of Trump and the context of American and global politics create a dynamic like the one that elected Reagan?

The first step is within his own Republican Party. (Candidates of each party compete during this winter and spring for their party’s nomination, beginning in the rural state of Iowa on February 1. Parties could essentially make their choices by March 1, “Super Tuesday,” when 12 states hold their contests, or continue as late as June.) Trump leads a party that is older, whiter, more Christian, more Southern, and more male than the Democratic Party. His nationalism and brashness—he has made insulting comments recently about women, immigrants, Muslims, his own national party organization, and even American prisoners of war—appeal at least in tone to a plurality of Republicans. Each insult generates punditry on his imminent decline. But unlike the 2012 campaign where several Republicans cycled through the top spot and out of the race, Trump has so far held his lead over several months.

The next step would be in the general election, presumably against Hillary Clinton. She has a strong resume: active First Lady, U.S. Senator from New York, and Secretary of State, in the national spotlight for more than 20 years. She is potentially the first female president, following the first African-American president. Her husband, former President Bill Clinton, was and remains very popular among Democrats, but the effect of his history with women is a wild card. Like Trump, though, she has high unfavorables, along with an open investigation into her handling of State Department email, and lingering questions about what happened during the attacks on the U.S. consulate in Benghazi.

What does Trump needs to defeat her? Reagan received 26% of the Democratic vote in 1980, compared to 10 and 7% for the Republican candidates in 2008 and 2012. Reagan got 54% of independents, 48% of moderates, and 36% of Hispanics—all much higher than the Republicans in 2008 and 2012. Trump doesn’t just need Republican turnout; Trump needs Democrats.

Turnout numbers are always difficult to predict. Presidential elections get higher relative turnouts among Democrats than during off-years: President Obama’s elections were followed by historic Republican Congressional gains in 2010 and 2014. Will Hillary Clinton be able to get Obama’s supporters to come out a third time?

It is the race to 270 electoral votes, not a popular majority, that ultimately matters. Democrats are seen as holding a big advantage in “safe states” months before any votes are cast. A December 2015 poll by CNN put Trump ahead of Hillary Clinton in the South and the Midwest, and behind in the Northeast and West. It put him ahead in rural areas, behind in urban areas, and tied in suburbia. The key “swing states” of Florida, Virginia, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and Colorado are divided among these categories, not persuasively favoring either candidate. Can Trump win enough of these swing states with the help of Democratic voters? One recent poll offers that Trump could get 20% of the Democratic vote.

U.S. elections are typically close: The last seven presidential elections have been won by an average of 5% of the vote (49-44); the last three by 3.5% (50.6-47.1). Only once since World War II have Americans elected the same political party three times consecutively: Reagan-Reagan-George H.W. Bush, 1980-1988.

History suggests much stands between today and the November 2016 election. In January 2008, an NBC/Wall Street Journal poll gave Hillary Clinton a 15-point lead (47–32) over Senator Obama. Throughout 2007 New York City mayor Rudy Giuliani led the Republicans, until Mike Huckabee and then John McCain took leads in early 2008. For the moment, it looks like Clinton vs. Trump—very different candidates, each with high negative ratings, and in a pattern in American presidential elections where the final popular vote is close. If Trump were to win the nomination, he has a chance at the presidency.

Part 2 will consider what a Trump foreign policy might look like.

Photo credits: Reagan poster , 1980 Republican Convention, Trump in cap.

Still photo from ISIS Indonesian recruitment video (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

The start of 2016 has been a foreboding one for countries facing the threat of terrorism, following attacks last Thursday in Paris and Cairo, and again last Friday on the coast of Egypt’s Red Sea and in Philadelphia, all claimed by followers of the Islamic State (IS). Whether these attacks were coordinated or the acts of lone wolves is uncertain at this time, as is the extent of the IS networks operating in these countries.

While much of the media attention is focused on the threat of IS to Americans, Europeans and North Africans, less attention is being paid to the citizens of Southeast Asian nations. Southeast Asia is home to about 15% of the world’s 1.6 billion Muslims, many of whom have gone to fight in Iraq and Syria under the banner of IS, or have been radicalized while at home.  One such Southeast Asian country on the forefront of the battle against IS is Indonesia, home to the world’s largest Muslim population, which has over the past year successfully crushed militant cells.

In December, Indonesian authorities announced a string of raids had led to the capture of nine IS sympathizers suspected of planning bomb attacks and the seizure of bomb-making equipment found across the island of Java. Authorities suspect the bombs were to be used in attacks against President Joko Widodo, government offices, and public landmarks.

Borobodur, the world’s largest Buddhist temple and a UNESCO World Heritage Site, had seen increased security after an apparent bomb threat by IS-affiliated Islamists last year.  There are an estimated 1,000 Islamic State sympathizers across a population of 250 million in Indonesia, many of whom are returning from fighting with IS in Syria, radicalized and battle-hardened.  The IS representative leadership is thought to be based in Solo, a city in the center of Java, known as a hotbed for Islamic unrest.

Indonesia has banned support for Islamic State and warned its citizens against joining IS, although most of its Muslim population practices a moderate form of Islam. Indonesian nationalism is founded on the doctrine of Pancasila, which stresses pluralism and diversity and strongly opposes the establishment of an Islamic state.  The leader of the country’s al-Qaeda-linked Jemaah Islamiyah (JI), Abu Bakar Bashir, pledged his allegiance to the Islamic State from his jail cell in August (JI was behind the Bali bombings in 2002 that killed 202 people).

While Indonesia is not publicly declaring their support for airstrikes against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, they are not dismissive of the threat which IS poses across the Indonesian archipelago. Some of their citizens have homegrown grievances and are likely to be emboldened by the success of IS and declare ties to the terrorist organization, potentially traveling to Iraq and Syria or carrying out terrorist actions at home.

More worryingly, battle-hardened militants returning from Iraq and Syria may bring both skills and networks with which to join forces with locals (or foreigners)—Malaysian authorities are already expressing concern over networks forming between Malay-speaking militants from Malaysia and Indonesia, who have formed a combined fighting unit in Syria, and whom may join forces once home.

Greater efforts at intelligence-sharing, such as that which took place in December among Indonesian authorities, the U.S. Federal Bureau of Investigation and the Australian Federal Police, should be encouraged throughout Southeast Asia. The potential of IS to threaten Indonesia and the rest of Southeast Asia is real and should not be minimized—after all, returning militants from the Afghan war against the Soviet Union from 1979–1989 were responsible for the founding of both Abu Sayyaf in the Philippines and JI in Indonesia, both of which are still active today.

Il y a 50 ans, Mehdi Ben Barka était enlevé à Paris par deux policiers français. Idéologue prolifique, travailleur acharné, rassembleur charismatique, l'opposant marocain ne pouvait pas disparaître si facilement. En tout cas pas dans les consciences de générations de militants. / Algérie, Amérique (...) / Algérie, Amérique latine, France, Maroc, Colonialisme, Histoire, Idées, Idéologie, Mouvement de contestation, Personnalités, Services secrets, Cuba, Socialisme, Maghreb - 2015/10