Diplomacy & Crisis News

Mécontent de ne pas avoir obtenu en juin une majorité à même de renforcer son pouvoir et ses attributions, M. Recep Tayyip Erdogan a convoqué de nouvelles élections législatives qui se tiendront le 1er novembre. Pour mettre toutes les chances de son côté, le chef de file des islamo-conservateurs durcit (...) / Europe, Iran, Proche-Orient, Syrie, Turquie, Élections, Guérilla, Islam, Kurdes, Minorité nationale, Parti politique, Politique, Kurdistan, Répression, Autoritarisme - 2015/09

« Je me sens proche de l'ordolibéralisme allemand d'après-guerre », a déclaré le président du Conseil européen, M. Donald Tusk, à propos du dossier grec. Née outre-Rhin il y a huit décennies, cette forme continentale de néolibéralisme étend son influence. / Allemagne, Europe, Économie, État, Finance, (...) / Allemagne, Europe, Économie, État, Finance, Histoire, Idées, Identité culturelle, Idéologie, Industrie, Monnaie, Politique, Protection sociale, Néolibéralisme - 2015/08

Conformément au théorème selon lequel toute crise européenne ne peut s'expliquer que par une insuffisance d'Europe, le drame grec a suscité une pluie de commentaires sur la nécessité d'accélérer l'intégration. Or, selon qui l'emploie, ce terme renvoie à deux idées diamétralement opposées. Pour les uns, (...) / Allemagne, France, Grèce, Idéologie, Politique - 2015/08

Vingt-cinq ans après, la vie quotidienne des Allemandes reste très marquée par les conceptions différentes de leur rôle qui régnaient des deux côtés du Mur. / Allemagne, Enfance, Femmes, Inégalités, Mutation, Protection sociale, Travail, RDA 1949-1990, RFA 1949-1990, Chômage, Droits des femmes - (...) / Allemagne, Enfance, Femmes, Inégalités, Mutation, Protection sociale, Travail, RDA 1949-1990, RFA 1949-1990, Chômage, Droits des femmes - 2015/05

(Own report) - With its own anti-Iranian policy, the West had prepared the basis for the aggressive stance Saudi Arabia is currently taking in relationship to Teheran. This becomes clear, when looking at the Middle East policy pursued by the West over the past 13 years. During that period, western countries, including Germany, have been systematically strengthening Saudi Arabia to make it a countervailing power in confrontation with an emerging Iran, a function previously held by Iraq. The West has not only been supporting Riyadh economically but also militarily, including with supplies of repression technology - also from the Federal Republic of Germany - to put down possible domestic unrest. In the meantime, however, Germany's interests have shifted and Berlin has assisted in reaching the nuclear agreement with Teheran. This will permit German enterprises to have close cooperation with Iran, promising high profits. This is why the German government now seeks to promote a settlement between Iran and Saudi Arabia and to induce Riyadh's acceptance of a "dialogue." Determined to continue its anti-Iranian course, Riyadh still rejects talking to Teheran.

Britain and China have been developing a closer relationship.

China and Great Britain have had a long but often fraught historical relationship with each other. The UK has been accused in recent years of sending the signal that it is willing to compromise its democratic values in its eagerness to deepen Chinese business ties with Britain.

Meanwhile, as a rising China has become the world’s second most powerful nation, the American-Chinese relationship has become more competitive recently, with pacts such as the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) seemingly designed to exclude China from membership. In turn China has launched its own charm offensive, the so-called ‘One Belt, One Road’ Eurasian development strategy, which it believes will see more Asian and Western countries follow in Britain’s footsteps and join Chinese-friendly institutions and trading blocs.

The UK wishes to participate in both China’s One Belt, One Road projects and remain close to America on matters such as European security or cross-Atlantic trade like the proposed Transatlantic Trade & Investment Pact (TTIP). While China’s rise is complicating the position of unbroken hegemonic authority the U.S. has enjoyed in East Asia for the last 70 years, Britain relinquished Hong Kong, its last significant position there, in 1997. It no longer possesses the strength to substantially alter the balance of power in the region and has more to gain from staying out of the numerous security disputes littering East Asia.

Above all the UK needs to avoid being dragged into controversies such as America’s hostility to China’s naval expansion in the South China Sea. Although Beijing’s position on the issue is in violation of the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), which it has ratified, such territorial disputes should remain confined to the regional states which sustain them.

America and China will continue to compete with each other over security arrangements in the East Asian region and for economic influence globally. Despite the renewal of conflict in the Middle East and the return of Russian adventurism there and in Europe, in the longer term China is the state actor that matters and Asia is the battlefield of 21st century superpower rivalry.

East Asian relations in particular are often seen through a U.S.-China lens, with Beijing’s foreign policy interest towards European nations such as the UK thought of as being limited. Therefore the UK’s recent moves have surprised Western observers: London shocked its U.S. ally when it unexpectedly joined the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB) in March 2015. The UK government has made improving Sino-British relations a priority ever since 2013, when Beijing put UK-Chinese ties into the deep freeze in response to the Dalai Lama’s visit to Downing Street.

While the UK government has correctly gauged that China is an indispensable global partner, it has miscalculated the relative strengths of the two sides’ bargaining positions. The willingness of the UK government to allow Chinese investment into the UK in sectors such as nuclear power, ease visa restrictions, and reduce criticism of human rights has been causing increasing unease at home and abroad. As a second-tier global power Britain will exercise significant political influence with Beijing only if it works through its partners in Europe to negotiate the terms of its engagement there. The present solo negotiation with China, whilst trying ineffectually not to annoy its main America security partner, is a fragile policy which will crumble at the first serious crisis it encounters.

Instead the UK would achieve more of what it wants, and give away less political capital in the process, if it managed Anglo-Sino relations through a European mechanism such as the EU-China summits at Brussels. Much as Europe has come together to deal with Russia’s use of gas as a strategic weapon, this slow but collective foreign policy method is a surer way of dealing with an economically indispensable but politically awkward nation like China.

The UK remains a key financial centre for Chinese businesses and its firms still have close ties to the Chinese overseas territory of Hong Kong. But it is the European Union as a whole which is China’s largest trading partner, and Beijing is the EU’s second largest partner after the US. After Asia, Europe was Chinese people’s biggest destination for overseas travel, receiving 3.43 million Chinese visitors, an increase of 10.4%.

The EU has become China’s biggest source of imports, now trading at well over €1 billion a day. In short it is Europe as a whole, rather than any individual member state, which is an influential partner in Chinese eyes. While China is trying to diversify its economy away from reliance on manufacturing, the size of the EU’s market makes it too important for Beijing to simply ignore.

Britain has already been a great beneficiary of China’s economic rise over the past three decades and it is in the UK’s national interest for this blossoming relationship to continue. Over ten years alone imports grew from £11.4 billion in 2004, to £37.6 billion in 2014. China has become the UK’s second largest import partner behind America, now accounting for 7.0% of all UK imports in 2014, compared with just 3.3% in 2004.

As Beijing opens up its service sector to foreign investors, analysts have predicted Britain’s foreign direct investment (FDI) assets in China could rise hugely in worth from £6.6 billion in 2014 to a possible £25.6 billion by 2020. Indeed the UK’s Chancellor George Osborne has set himself a target of making China Britain’s second biggest trading partner by 2025.

China and Britain therefore have a joint interest in developing greater Sino-EU integration, despite the history of trading rows between the trading bloc and the superpower. The UK has been supporting Chinese efforts to develop the yuan as global trading currency, anticipating British financial services will be one of the main beneficiaries of the appearance of off-shore yuan trading markets.

Reflecting this, the UK government has proposed schemes to study connecting the stock markets in Shanghai and London, and to reach a free-trade pact between Beijing and the EU. Analysts speculate that with the UK’s specialization in financial services, health care, clean technology and life sciences, Britain is well positioned to gain from Beijing’s shift towards a more services- and consumption-based economy if Britain can leverage its position within the EU to tie China and Europe closer together.

By choosing the European route instead of the bilateral one to negotiate its trading relationship with Beijing the UK maximizes its leverage with both its European partners and China, which is useful for a medium-sized ex-colonial power. By minimizing the concessions it needs to make to China on sensitive issues such as Tibet or Xinjiang, Britain can also avoid alienating other important partners like Washington.

Irritants such as the long-running dispute over the South China Sea have been inflaming the US-Sino discourse again and hostile attitudes are always easy to find in a period in which US politicians are running for the Presidency. Beijing has also complicated matters for itself by adopting a strident and an uncompromising tone over its territorial issues that has alarmed its neighbors and international opinion in recent years.

China remains a difficult nation for Western governments to deal with politically, but a vital one for their companies and economies. The greatest diplomatic challenge for the EU in the 21st century will be how to harmonize Chinese-European relations without alienating America. London can play a pivotal role in this as the channel through which China’s currency and businesses reach the global status that its leaders crave for reasons of national prestige.

But in order to have the political muscle to do so it will have to work with other European leaders on the continent instead of seeing them as competitors for Chinese investment. For this reason Britain’s leaders may find their China goals achievable only if they focus their flexible bargaining skills much closer to home and ignore the temptations to head straight to Beijing to cut deals ahead of their European partners and rivals.

 

Incumbents are in trouble these days. The opposition is winning, from Argentina’s Macri, Venezuela’s MUD to Nigeria’s Buhari. But the opposition who takes power rarely is able to maintain its grip on it for more than a few months; France’s Hollande and Egypt’s Morsi are examples. Politics is not what it used to be: power has become more elusive than ever before.

When oppositions win by significant margin, the  tendency is for sweeping changes. The previous regime’s symbols are torn down. Its leaders are investigated, arrested and prosecuted for corruption. Policies are thrown out the window. New constitutions are drafted and the previous regime is kept out of politics.

Instant action to prove that all of the previous regime’s wrongdoings will be wiped off and that the new government will turn a brand new chapter is the norm. This has happened in Sri Lanka since the Mahinda Rajapakse regime was toppled by Maithripala Sirisena on January 8th. Over the past year, Sirisena has realized that turning the page is never as easy as they promised on the political stage.

However in stark contrast to the situation in Sri Lanka, Myanmar has taken a different path thanks to Nobel Prize laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi. Her National League for Democracy (NLD) won 77% of the upper and lower house seats that were contested. In the end, the NLD won 124/224 in the House of Nationalities (Amyotha Hluttaw) and 255/440 in the House of Representatives (Pyithu Hluttaw).

This gives them the majority required to appoint the President and Vice-President and pass new legislature without compromise by overcoming the military plus USDP bloc. But surprisingly Suu Kyi has chosen to compromise with the incumbent military-led regime rather than using her newly found power to wipe the slate clean.

Some may find this surprising and even claim that she is not using the mandate provided to her with utmost confidence by the people of Myanmar for change; change that removes the military from the machine of governance. But she is following the strategy that will bring about the best for her country and people.

Promoting pragmatism and realism might stem from her genes and from the lessons learned in 15 years of house arrest. Her genes because her father, also fathered her nation—the Union of Burma—bringing together a country divided between various factions during the colonial era and World War II. He achieved it through sheer pragmatism, not through a democratic mandate. If Aung San had not been assassinated, maybe Myanmar’s fate would have been much different today.

Now, his daughter has the chance to right the wrongs. But it cannot be done overnight. It will take decades and she knows it. She also knows that her personal fame and charisma can be utilized to sustain the popular mandate required for political stability.

Suu Kyi’s realism has sometimes looked liked ignorance and cruelty. She remained steadfastly silent over the plight of the Muslim Rohingyas, fearful of harming the Buddhist majority vote. Maybe she knew that the only way to make things better for the Rohingyas in the long run was to ensure she won by a large margin and change the governance structure for the better.

She also refrained from giving any specific policy promises on how she will improve Myanmar’s situation. She did not promise to prosecute the military for its crimes or corruption. She only asked for a chance to change things. This is in stark contrast to Sri Lanka, where specific promises of prosecution against graft of the previous regime and more welfare to the people have put the new regime between a rock and a hard place. Suu Kyi is in a hard place but she does not have a rock rolling towards her. She has the liberty to chart a course without breaking any electoral promises.

Currently she is holding ‘transition talks’ with the military (Tatmadev in Burmese) and the leaders of the incumbent regime. Officially the NLD will take over power in February. This prudent act is aided by both Suu Kyi’s pragmatism and, strangely, the military-drafted constitution. The constitution ensured that the new government cannot take over power immediately after an election, and that the military had a strong say in government despite a massive electoral loss. It was this guarantee of holding on to a piece of the pie after the transition that ensured a smooth transition.

Worldwide, we have seen bloody transitions of power from autocracy to democracy. Most were bloody because idealism wanted to chase away evil completely. The de-Baathification in Iraq post-2003 is a very good example. In the attempt to create a democratic Iraq, Baathists were completely removed from every level of governance in the country; from military to bureaucracy. The results has been a weak, unprofessional army and government agencies that are unable to provide public services. The Baathists ended up leading insurgent groups and collaborating with ISIS.

Democracy is yet to take root in Myanmar. One successful election that gives a landslide victory to one party thanks to the charisma of one individual is hardly democracy. Democracy needs to deepen. For that, stability must prevail and people need to feel secure. Only then will the NLD get its legitimacy and politicians will be seen in a more positive light. This is a vital issue if political entrepreneurship is to happen in the future.

The NLD is used to being in the opposition, rallying public rage against the Tatmadaw. Its not used to governing a country of 50 million people. Even Suu Kyi has not been in the role of an administrator for a long time. Her work at the UN was decades ago.

The Tatmadaw and USDP have individuals well-versed in the intricacies of governance. Their methods might have been flawed at times, but their experience and their connections are vital.

Suu Kyi will have to continue to employ a strict sense of pragmatism. Acting on emotions and passions is a nonviable option. Idealism is a flawed approach to apply in Myanmar. The Tatmadaw and the USDP have committed crimes and atrocities. They have looted the country’s wealth and resources. Over time investigations will have to be carried out on those matters.

But not everyone will be prosecuted. Not every war criminal who harmed minorities can be prosecuted. Some figures with a considerable grasp on power cannot be simply chased out of power. If Suu Kyi tries that, she might end up being the devil she is fighting. Surely Kissinger and Bismark would support this point of view. As a nation matures it needs pragmatic leadership and realist policies. Suu Kyi seems to have understood that.

(Own report) - Saudi Arabia can use German technology of repression and skills provided by the German police for the suppression of its opposition, which last weekend culminated in a mass execution. In recent years, the German government has authorized the supply of telecommunication surveillance products to Riyadh, worth more than 18 million Euros. The German Federal Office of Criminal Investigation organized, among other things, training courses in counter-terrorism for Saudi Arabia's GID intelligence service. Saudi Arabia even treats non-violent protests by its heavily discriminated Shia minority as "terrorism." The German Federal Police is training Saudi border police officers within the framework of an official project, formally approved in 2009 by Germany's Interior Minister at the time, Wolfgang Schäuble. According to reports, the training includes exercising the use of assault rifles and crackdowns on demonstrators. It has also been provided, at least temporarily, to members of the religious police force. This cooperation in repression is an element of a comprehensive economic cooperation guaranteeing German enterprises large sales and billions in contracts. Above all, it serves Berlin's strategic Middle East policy objectives.

Kurdish peshmerga stand guard on the outskirts of Kirkuk in June 2014. Photo credit: REUTERS/Ako Rasheed

Iraqi Kurdistan is protected by its fierce and respected military forces, the peshmerga. Yet, each of the two main political parties in the Kurdistan Regional Government—the Kurdistan Democratic Party (KDP) and Patriotic Union of Kurdistan (PUK)—controls its own peshmerga regiments.

The peshmerga only answers to the party they are tied to, with both the KDP and PUK using its control of the peshmerga to gain influence over other political agencies.

As examined by Mario Fumerton and Wladimir Van Wilgenburg for the Carnegie Endowment for Peace in December 2015, plans have existed for decades to merge and unify all peshmerga forces under one Kurdistan government agency that could effectively command all soldiers.

Calls for this were made in 1991 after the region separated from Saddam Hussein’s Iraq, and were renewed in 2014 as ISIS advanced towards Kurdistan’s capital Erbil. However, it hasn’t happened yet and significant roadblocks remain.

Fumerton and Van Wilgenburg delved into the complicated history of, and challenges to, successfully consolidating the peshmerga. Especially given ISIS advances in Iraq, a strong and united peshmerga is critically important to the stability of Kurdistan and the region at large.

What is more, without a unified peshmerga unplagued by political partisanship, “Iraqi Kurdistan cannot become a consolidated democracy, preventing it from eventually winning international recognition as an independent state.”

The authors also recommended that the U.S.-led military coalition in Iraq dissolve its current party-based peshmerga training academies and in their place initiate a single training facility for all peshmerga.

Dealing with peshmerga armies separately is just one indication of how Kurdistan “politics are dominated by militarized parties.” Kurdistan is unlikely to gain much support for recognition as an independent state if this political environment persists.

Given the ongoing reliance on peshmerga in the fight against ISIS, strengthening the peshmerga organizational structure and unifying their oversight would provide a much more stable basis of operations. Coalition forces would be wise to make this a priority.

Cette recension d’ouvrages est issue de Politique étrangère (4/2015). Yves Gounin propose une analyse de l’ouvrage de Sébastien Abis, Géopolitique du blé. Un produit vital pour la sécurité mondiale (Paris, Armand Colin/IRIS, 2015, 192 pages).

Moins médiatisé que le pétrole, le blé est lui aussi un produit stratégique. Cultivé depuis l’Antiquité, il est aujourd’hui consommé partout dans le monde. Cette consommation a crû exponentiellement depuis un siècle. Même les civilisations du riz consomment désormais du blé. La Chine en est même le premier producteur mondial ; mais les 115 Mt qu’elle produit chaque année ne suffisent plus à nourrir une population de plus en plus riche et de plus en plus urbanisée.

L’offre a réussi à s’adapter à la demande : la production du blé a été multipliée par sept en un siècle grâce à la « révolution verte », passant de 100 à 700 Mt/an. Les marges de progression semblent cependant désormais réduites : les tensions foncières compromettent l’augmentation des superficies emblavées, et les limites du progrès technique interdisent d’espérer une hausse continue des rendements. À l’horizon 2100, une population mondiale de 11 milliards d’habitants ne trouvera peut-être pas chaque année le milliard de tonnes de blé nécessaire à son alimentation.

La répartition géographique des producteurs et des consommateurs de blé soulève des questions tout aussi stratégiques. Sa culture est en effet très localisée dans des pays qui bénéficient d’avantages pédologiques, hydrauliques et climatiques. La France compte parmi ces pays-là. Elle est le 5e producteur au monde et le 3e exportateur (derrière les États-Unis et le Canada, ex aequo avec l’Australie). Les pays riverains de la mer Noire (Russie, Ukraine, Kazakhstan) ont fait un retour marqué sur cette scène internationale depuis la chute du mur. Ce heartland céréalier pourrait peser lourd dans les échanges internationaux ; mais le conflit entre Russie et Ukraine depuis 2014 obère la constitution d’un pool céréalier autour de la mer Noire.

D’autres pays, en revanche, sont des importateurs structurels. C’est le cas des pays du Maghreb qui concentrent le tiers des achats mondiaux de blé : la production y est faible (alors même que l’Algérie fut jadis le grenier à blé de la France métropolitaine), et la demande élevée (la consommation per capita y est trois fois supérieure à la moyenne mondiale et deux fois à la moyenne européenne). La question du pain y est hautement sensible. Toute tension sur le marché pouvant entraîner une rupture d’approvisionnement ou une flambée des prix y a des conséquences politiques explosives. Les émeutes de la faim du printemps 2008 le rappellent.

Le commerce international est donc nécessaire pour rapprocher l’offre et la demande. Il y est d’autant plus fait recours que le blé se transporte aisément. Entre 20 et 25 % de la production mondiale de blé s’exporte – les chiffres correspondant sont 10 % pour le riz et 5 % pour les fruits et légumes. Ce commerce est, pour l’essentiel, organisé par quelques sociétés de négoce. Archer Daniel Midland, Bunge, Cargill et Louis-Dreyfus, réunis sous l’acronyme « ABCD », sont des compagnies familiales qui fuient la publicité. Ces sociétés privées doivent composer avec des offices publics qui, dans certains pays à économie centralisée, conservent le monopole du commerce du blé, et avec des nouveaux acteurs dans les pays émergents.

Le commerce des matières premières façonne la planète. Les ouvrages consacrés à celui du pétrole abondent. On parle moins souvent de celui des céréales et du blé. Sébastien Abis répare heureusement cet oubli.

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

The month saw an intensification of deadly violence in Burundi’s capital, Bujumbura, with over 80 people killed following clashes with security forces. The African Union Peace and Security Council (AU PSC) made a welcome statement of intent to deploy forces to halt the slide toward civil war and mass atrocities. In Afghanistan, fighting raged between government and Taliban forces, particularly in Helmand province, while in Djibouti, Ethiopia and Niger, political tensions heightened. In a positive step forward, a peace deal was signed in Libya but uncertainties remain over the viability of the agreement. As stressed by Jean-Marie Guéhenno, President and CEO of the International Crisis Group, in today’s Ten Conflicts to Watch in 2016, it “should be seen as a beginning, not an end, to the peace process”.

Pulling together a list of the wars most in need of international attention and support in 2016 is challenging for all the wrong reasons. For 20 years after the end of the Cold War, deadly conflict was in decline. Fewer wars were killing fewer people the world over. Five years ago, however, that positive trend went into reverse, and each year since has seen more conflict, more victims, and more people displaced. 2016 is unlikely to bring an improvement from the woes of 2015: It is war — not peace — that has momentum.

In these extraordinary times of fear, anger and sense of helplessness, hate and cruelty are common human reactions. These are the times that bring out the worst, and sometimes the best in individuals, groups and states.

No wonder militarism and terrorism are on dangerously accelerated course. Both are driven by men with myopic vision, who galvanize the uninformed masses with half-truths and propaganda that are seldom exposed as such.

Left uncontested, this phenomenon is likely to set many states on fire and rip them apart in ways far beyond most of us could imagine. Already, it has wrecked many developing countries, and counterintuitively poisoned foreign policies and the rule of law in a number of Western nations.

In that context, the question of the century ought to be: “How can we stop this trend and backtrack our way to normalcy?” Meanwhile, the pendulum of radicalism swings between toxic pandering and political pandemonium.

Disinfecting the discourse

Almost a decade ago, in an article entitled Islamophobia and the Specter of Neo-McCarthyism, I wrote “…winning hearts and minds will remain a tall order so long as the neo-McCarthy windmills continue to operate in full force and generate the negative energy of fear and hate that sustain political polarization.” However, I have never in my wildest dreams fathomed that a hyper-panderer, the front-runner of the Republican Party, would be campaigning on what could only be described as a hate platform.

In order to thoroughly understand radicalism, we must not succumb to fear. We must scrutinize narratives and never give the leading actors on all sides the absolute authority to think for us and subjectively frame our perceptions. In that spirit of objectivity, in order to effectively deal with radicalism, the calculus must include U.S. foreign policy and the ever invasive Western hegemony.

Michael Scheuer, a former CIA officer who led the operation to hunt Osama bin Laden has presented this argument in his books and various interviews: “None of these [terrorists] were attacking the United States because we have liberties, or elections; or because we have women in the work place.” Instead, they were outraged by “the conduct of our [interventionist] foreign policy.”

Meanwhile, the definition of terrorism still remains a political riddle of serious consequence. Therefore, the prevalent perception that often goes without any scrutiny is that terrorists are people who simply hate us for who we are and for our values. They are individuals or groups that officials in government label as such extrajudicially.

Field day for islamophobes

Exploiting the rising tide of hysteria in the U.S. and Europe, Donald Trump started to run on an anti-immigrant and islamophobic platform that advocates banning Muslims from coming to the U.S. and squeezing them out by denying them re-entry when they travel abroad.

While the tragic and indeed terrorist events in Paris and San Bernardino may have exacerbated it, the anti-Muslim hysteria of ‘they are here and we’re all going to die’ is the byproduct of strategic hate-mongering that goes back two decades.

There are various think-tanks, hate-specialist pundits and media groups such as Fox News and I Heart Media—the rebranded infamous Clear Channel. With virtually around the clock rants and raves against Islam and Muslims, the latter media group is the undisputed command center of paranoia and Islamophobia. It now owns more than 800 radio stations in over 150 markets that target certain demographics that consider jingoism a patriotic litmus test and foreign policy a road-map of who we should attack next.

In order to deny Muslims their constitutionally guaranteed civil liberties and civil and religious rights, radio personalities such as Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck repeat ad nauseam that “Islam is not a religion. Islam is a political ideology that wants to rule the world.” Presidential candidates such as Ted Cruz use that line of argument to blur the line between Muslims and violent extremists.

Most of the polls—some apparently being notoriously biased—confirm broad-based negative perception toward Islam. However, unlike their older counterparts, younger Americans regardless of party affiliation, espouse favorable perception about Islam and Muslims—especially college-aged ones. This latter trend certainly gives a sense of reassurance that the future is not as grim as many perceive it.

Turning the tide

Countering this anti-Muslim campaign, the White House has wasted no time in condemning Trump’s Muslim ban proposal. It was “totally contrary to our values as Americans” said Ben Rhodes, the Deputy National Security Adviser.

The Congress swiftly joined the executive branch to condemn Trump’s toxic polarization. House Speaker Paul Ryan who is also Republican delivered perhaps the harshest criticism and exposed the absurdity of Trump’s anti-Muslim campaign. “Not only are there many Muslims serving in our armed forces dying for this country, there are Muslims serving right here in the House working everyday to uphold the Constitution,” said Ryan.

At the state level, speaking at the Islamic Society of Boston Cultural Center, the largest mosque in New England, Chief Justice Ralph Gants (who happens to be Jewish) told the Muslim community “you do not stand alone…You have a Constitution and laws to protect your right to practice your religion, to protect you from discrimination and the denial of your equal rights, and to protect you from acts of violence that might be committed against you because of your religion or your nation of origin.”

In the entertainment business, many Americans like Oscar-winning Michael Moore, have expressed unequivocal outrage over Trump’s proposal. Moore went the extra mile. He crossed the picket line of hate by launching a “We Are All Muslim” campaign.

In academia, many have expressed their solidarity. Larycia Hawkins, a tenured professor of political science, has been suspended and her tenure has been jeopardized for saying Christians and Muslims worship the same God and for wearing a hijab.

At a personal level, a Christian friend of mine, Dr. Robert Reber, former dean of Auburn Seminary, wrote me this: “I have felt almost sick over the anti-Muslim reactions in this country which are often spurred by political figures and uninformed, if not racist, individuals in our society and Christian communities. It makes me so sad and wanting deeply to reach out to Muslims.”

Silver lining in the sky

Routinely our collective conscience gets traumatized by terrorist attacks carried by non-state actors and wars carried by mighty states. In a knee-jerk response to such traumatic experiences, narratives of hate and extreme reactions of one kind or another develop, and they, in due course, become the accepted norm.

Though Muslims have never been under greater threat within the U.S. than today, I believe that America is already in the process of calibrating its understanding of Islam and Muslims and ostracizing merchants of hate.

Contrary to the perception promoted by extremists on both ends that we are in an existential religious war, Muslims are not out there to hunt down Christians. These two faith communities, as well as the Jewish community, have lived together and prospered for centuries. And, despite the relentless campaign to demonize mosques as breeding grounds for terrorists, these spiritual sanctuaries are morally bound to promote all that is good and to forbid all that is evil.

Recently, in Mandera, Kenya, a group of Muslim passengers that media appropriately dubbed as the Mandera Heroes put their lives on the line in order to shield their fellow Christian passengers from being executed by al-Shabaab members who raided their bus.

These acts of solidarity against evil could ultimately diminish stereotypes and break the political walls that divide us. But we need the media, especially in the West, to not exclusively focus on the negatives and to celebrate this kind of heroism.

Collective Fate

With the current trajectory of deceptions and denials, we are collectively set to pay an enormous price in lives, security, displacement, and economic loss. Hate crimes and vandalism of mosques are at an all-time high. And the more  provocations continue, the more terrorist outfits such as ISIS will effectively radicalize and gain recruits.

Radicalism justifies terrorism in the same way that demonization justifies militarism. And, as it is apparent throughout the Middle East and many other parts of the world, terrorism and militarism fuel each other.

Let us be honest with ourselves—after all, our lives and the future of humanity depend on it. Militarism and terrorism are the two sides of the same coin and anti-Western and Islamophobia are simply their reflections. Now, how can we work together for our mutual interest?

 

 

 

 

Cette recension d’ouvrages est issue de Politique étrangère (4/2015). Carole Mathieu, chercheure au centre Énergie de l’Ifri, propose une analyse croisée des ouvrages de Jacques Mistral, Le climat va-t-il changer le capitalisme ? La grande mutation du XXIe siècle (Paris, Eyrolles, 2015, 270 pages) et de Christian de Perthuis et Raphaël Trotignon, Le climat, à quel prix ? La négociation climatique (Paris, Odile Jacob, 2015, 152 pages).

Engagées voici plus de 25 ans, les négociations internationales sur le changement climatique poursuivent inlassablement un même objectif : coordonner les efforts de réduction des émissions de gaz à effet de serre (GES) de 196 pays et empêcher ainsi toute perturbation anthropique dangereuse du système climatique. En dépit de la clarté de ce mandat et d’un large consensus sur la nécessité d’agir au plus vite, c’est sur la question des modalités d’action que les négociateurs restent divisés. La problématique est pourtant bien connue. Archétype du bien public mondial, le climat est en péril car chacun a intérêt à jouer au passager clandestin, retardant ses propres efforts dans l’espoir de percevoir les bénéfices des actions initiées par les plus allants. Pour corriger cette défaillance du marché, les économistes formulent un appel quasi unanime à donner un prix aux dommages causés par les émissions.

La science économique joue ici pleinement son rôle en orientant les décideurs vers l’option qui minimiserait le coût total pour la collectivité. Pourtant, la tarification universelle du carbone est encore une réalité lointaine, les gouvernements privilégiant jusqu’ici des initiatives fragmentées et globalement insuffisantes pour infléchir la trajectoire des émissions de GES. À l’heure de la COP21, il faut donc que l’économie pure laisse place à l’économie politique. Le rôle des économistes n’est alors plus seulement de dessiner les contours d’un modèle optimal de coopération internationale mais de trouver enfin les arguments pratiques qui permettront de vaincre toutes les réticences. Dans cette quête de réalisme, l’ouvrage dirigé par Jacques Mistral, Le climat va-t-il changer le capitalisme ?, ainsi que celui de Christian de Perthuis et Raphaël Trotignon, Le climat, à quel prix ?, nous offrent des pistes de réflexion particulièrement bienvenues. Alors que le premier explore les mutations économiques, politiques et géopolitiques que la protection du climat est susceptible d’enclencher, le second aborde la question climatique sous un angle plus resserré, se focalisant sur la COP21 et donnant à son lecteur les clés de compréhension de la négociation en cours.

[…]

Lire l’article en intégralité sur Cairn en cliquant ici.

S’abonner à Politique étrangère.

Via Otrams

By Artur Kluz and Mikolaj Firlej

A currently debated topic is the impact of unprecedented advancements in breakthrough technologies on various areas of public policy. Optimists praise how technology changes our lives through enhanced communication, empowering individuals, raising awareness and spreading democracy throughout the world. Pessimists stress the repercussions of technological advancements: tottering digital security, and the rise of inequality—especially in countries exposed to progressive technologies.

In the areas of foreign policy and diplomacy, technology has brought about a tremendous amount of change. As Hillary Clinton once said during her tenure as Secretary of State: “Just as the internet has changed virtually every aspect of how people worldwide live, learn, consume and communicate, connection technologies are changing the strategic context for diplomacy in the 21st century.”

This article aims at presenting the most pressing challenges that stem from the relationship between advancing technologies and foreign affairs. In our point of view, the impact of breakthrough technologies on foreign affairs can be seen through accelerating transformation in five significant areas: security, institutions, participation, dialogue and leadership.

Security: Geopolitics online

The widely proclaimed shift from state-centric politics to non-governmental identities described as “shadowy networks of individuals” was first addressed openly by U.S. President George Bush in his 2002 National Security Strategy. It is true to some extent, that traditional underlying influences of state power are no longer the dominant catalysts at play. Indeed, the evolution of technology has empowered individuals and created new commanding media capable of challenging existing national supremacy, while directing a new world order. Although powerful-by-technology individuals play an important role, international relations are still mostly dependent on geographical variables and interests.

In the Information Age it is certain that the ever-increasing amount of global data and online storage of valuable information will bring incommensurable and occasionally conflicting value systems into ever closer contact. The proximity of country and entity online systems is increasingly hazardous.

In this era of fast information transfer, along with the rapid development of new-generation technologies, international relations among states are conflicting more so than a decade ago. However, states are much weaker and less capable of mitigating arising challenges in controlling security, popular discontent and cultural fragmentation.

The recent U.S.-China Summit on cybersecurity exposed all of the aforementioned problems. Tensions between these two countries have concerned recent cyberattacks, mainly against U.S. government computers. Presidents Barack Obama and Xi Jinping have agreed that their governments refrain from online theft of intellectual property for commercial gain, but Obama emphasized that he might still impose sanctions if the Chinese continue to sponsor cyber-intrusions.

The Summit showed, however, that technology can bring concurring values or interests into constant confrontation without clear and sufficient evidence of particular guilt and responsibility. It also presented how individuals like Edward Snowden—empowered by technology—can bring another dimension to state relations. The notorious whistleblower overshadowed evidence of the last U.S. cyber-espionage attack against China before the Summit and thus changed the negotiating position of the U.S. government.

Institutions: Redefining actions by institutions and alliances

International organizations (IOs) and alliances such as North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) benefit hugely from data-driven technologies enabling them to deliver better service and exchange large volumes of information in real time. One may ask though, whether current IOs and alliances are prepared to tackle complex threats such as financial, development, online security and climate change challenges?

There is a growing concern that IOs founded after WWII, such as the United Nations (UN), International Monetary Fund, and NATO are out-of-date, stagnant and with ineffective decision-making processes to handle arising challenges. One cannot deal with today’s war-mongering neurotics with passive and verbose institutions, only “considering sanctions” as a means of mitigation.

Many IOs are increasingly losing their ability to govern and implement necessary measures to oversee the unregulated realms that technology has created. As recently as 2 October 2015, Sushma Swaraj, External Affairs Minister of India, criticized the UN for failing effectively to address new challenges to international peace and security.

In her view, the UN needs reform, stressing the importance of new, more transparent working methods and claiming the need for permanent membership by African and Latin American countries: “How can we have a Security Council in 2015 which still reflects the geo-political architecture of 1945?” reflected Swaraj. This recent call for action is only one example of growing concern over the condition of the UN in expecting that real change will come sooner or later. 

Participation : Social media and online platforms drive profound change in foreign policies

Although many observers note how the social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter change global connectivity, the reality is that new technologies do not necessarily create democratic evolution online. Three major obstacles are identified.

First of all, new technologies empower individuals but can breed clusters of extremism, abuse, xenophobia and violence expressed on a number of online media and channels. One recent example is the enormous number of fake and distorted images of refugees with mocking memes that have circulated online as a kind of response to the widely proclaimed action of welcoming refugees (#welcomerefugees).

Secondly, authoritarians including countries and separate individualist entities benefit from technology. For instance, in Syria the internet is another weapon of war. The control of connections and website content gives the government great power during the ongoing conflict. Authoritarian governments are able to control technologies and use them to undermine social activism, thus gaining new forms of control and power.

Thirdly, the ineffective implementation of technology can be both a harmful and costly endeavor. It was the case of Healthcare.gov in the U.S., where even supporters of so-called “Obamacare” described the platform as a faulty and extremely overpriced governmental tech launch. Indeed, governments and institutions often grapple with poorly developed and protected platforms that cause more challenges than benefits.

The risks of both adapting and managing new technologies are as profound as not evolving to technological advancements. A number of countries have experienced major repercussions from either not adapting or not adequately managing technological evolution in recent times. With five billion more people set to join the digital world, these challenges shall remain on political and global agendas for years to come.

Dialogue: The art of diplomacy and international policy is not vanishing but being reinvented

Breakthrough technologies enable instant contact and thus create ease in managing diplomacy and organizing political dialogue. Referring back to traditional 18th or 19th century diplomacy, formal representatives had to wait for weeks or even months to receive relevant instructions and courses of action. As such, the points on agendas covered only the most important items needing to be addressed.

Nowadays, new technological channels have replaced outdated forms of communication. Officials have continuous access to instantaneous and live networks empowering not only organizational dialogue, but providing international communications enhancing responsiveness, action and regulation. That being said, currently most ambassadors and politicians use Twitter to interact with officials, policymakers and citizens.

So called “Twitplomacy” has been seen as a form of public diplomacy as it has been used not only by officials but also millions of citizens across the globe. “Twitter has two big positive effects on foreign policy: It fosters a beneficial exchange of ideas between policymakers and civil society and enhances diplomats’ ability to gather information and to anticipate, analyze, manage, and react to events,” writes former Italian Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi in his preface to the book entitled Twitter for Diplomacy. Indeed, 140 characters have changed drastically the way officials communicate with each other.

Another profound example is the Virtual Embassy of the United States to Tehran in Iran. The Virtual Embassy was developed by the U.S. State Department after the closure of the U.S. Embassy in Tehran. This Embassy has the same status as other traditional U.S. Embassies apart from one significant detail: diplomacy operates on a virtual level.

These are only two examples, whereas in different parts of the world, so-called ‘digital diplomacy’ has grown enormously in popularity, and this trend is likely to continue. However, as significant and impactful new progressive communication channels may be, a need still exists for fostering and strengthening official communication between countries and international entities.

There is an absence of effective digital platforms that could be used to assist in critical decision-making processes between different governments. Authorities often struggle to cooperate on the most essential issues during regular summits, formal gatherings and multilateral forums. Critical information exchanged is rarely archived and translated into actionable communication. A prime opportunity presents itself here for creating sustainable and prominent platforms for dialogue and decision making to enhance global governance and responsiveness.

Leaders: The human factor is still important but more complex

Although technologies serve leaders across the world as new sources of both power and governance, they require an increasingly complex formulation of regulations and rules of conduct, which can be difficult to structure, and enforce. Political leaders constantly are critiqued and assessed by analysts and pundits on their responsiveness to new technologies. In particular, the prominence of public opinion in political domains is a significant point for discussion. New technologies add another dimension to the classical dilemma faced by politicians—how to propose and implement effective policies while mitigating public popularity.

Henry Kissinger was right when he pointed out that “the mindset for walking lonely political paths may not be self-evident to those who seek confirmation by hundreds, sometimes thousands of friends on Facebook.” In this age of new breakthrough technologies, politicians and leaders do not require simply the authoritative support of policies by respective experts. Such support also very often is advocated by prominent online influencers having little or no direct linkage to political realms: celebrities, online commentators and corporations.

In today’s world, being a politician is more than just “taking a stand and being passionate” with a sense of devotion and responsibility for personal actions as Max Weber wrote long time ago. Politicians need to be pop-stars, too. New technologies bring another dimension into classical political dilemma—how to mitigate popularity and at the same time make tough decisions. In a world that is disseminating public opinion to the masses at an increasing rate and prominence, understanding the role of technology and its importance in political popularity has never been so complex.

Technology may be seen as a driver for both power and legitimacy in the areas of foreign affairs and diplomacy. What we need today are leaders who not only understand the complexities of technology, but who also use this technology to promote a global culture of human encounter that meets the legitimate needs of all peoples.

Artur Kluz, lawyer, foreign policy advisor and venture capital investor. He is a General Partner/Founder of Kluz Ventures, the investment firm focused on breakthrough technologies and global growth strategies.

Mikolaj Firlej, Master of Public Policy student at Blavatnik School of Government, Oxford University. Former Advisor and Assistant to the Secretary of State at the Chancellery of the Prime Minister of Poland.

 

 An anti-Chinese protest in Vietnam last year. Photo: AP

The visit last month of Xi Jinping to Vietnam—the first visit of a Chinese president in 10 years—came at a crucial point in deteriorating relations, resulting from China’s construction of artificial islands and assertion of sovereignty in the disputed South China Sea (referred to as the East Sea in Vietnam). Xi’s visit was also significant coming shortly before Vietnam’s five-yearly congress in January, amid some uncertainty over whether the new leadership will lean toward Beijing or Washington.

Hanoi’s ties to Washington have grown since the Chinese parked an offshore oil rig off Vietnam’s coast in May 2014, and Xi’s visit last month was seen by many, including Carlyle Thayer, a Vietnamese expert and emeritus professor at the University of New South Wales, as an attempt to counter America’s influence. Thayer believes Xi used the visit to request a toning down by the Vietnamese side of a number of recent public comments asserting Hanoi’s sovereignty over the South China Sea.

Yet Hanoi has long been adept at playing Beijing off of Washington, as part of its “three nos” foreign policy—no military alliances, not allowing any country to set up military bases on Vietnamese territory, and not relying on any country for combating others (although an interesting juxtaposition occurred as Xi addressed the Vietnamese National Assembly while Japan’s defense minister was meeting his counterparts in Hanoi).

Despite the heated rhetoric over sovereignty issues, and the talks with Tokyo, Hanoi will be reluctant to hamper significant bilateral economic relations with Beijing.  China is Vietnam’s largest trade partner—trade and investment between Vietnam and China grew a robust 16% in the first nine months of 2015, reaching some US$60 billion. During this same period, Vietnam exported some $12.4 billion in goods to China.

During the meeting between Xi and Vietnamese party chief, Nguyen Phu Trong, the latter proposed that the two Communist nations lead the way forward in implementing the 2002 Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and agree on a Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (COC). For his part, President Xi emphasized China’s economic muscle, pledging $300 million in concessional loans toward the construction of the Mong Cai-Van Don highway project in the northern province of Quang Ninh and another $250 million in preferential loans toward the Cat Linh-Ha Dong urban overhead railway project in Hanoi. Xi also promised $129 million in social welfare aid over the next five years toward construction of schools and hospitals.

Yet amongst all the announcements of Chinese economic assistance, Japan and Vietnam agreed to hold their first ever joint naval exercise, with a Japanese warship expected to visit Cam Ranh Bay, a strategic naval base in Vietnam’s East Sea.

Before Xi left Hanoi, he addressed a crowd of young Vietnamese, declaring, “China rejects that a country should seek hegemony once it grows strong,” adding, “China will deepen mutually beneficial cooperation, interconnection and interworking with neighboring countries including Vietnam, [and] will always be a close comrade with socialist countries, a reliable friend with developed countries.”

Indeed, in the face of perceived threats from Beijing, Vietnam has embarked on its greatest military build-up in decades, albeit starting from a low base following economic problems after the Vietnam War and a dwindling level of support from its weakened Cold War patron, the Soviet Union. Yet Russia is now back, providing meaningful levels of support, according to Reuters, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute, the International Institute of Strategic Studies and Vietnamese state media:

   NAVY

Vietnamese crews, supported by Russian advisors, operate four Russian-made, Kilo-class submarines from a purpose-built base in Cam Ranh Bay in south-central Vietnam.

Another two submarines are expected to arrive in 2016 and the entire fleet is expected to be fully operational by 2017. The Vietnamese 636.3MV Kilos are equipped with both anti-ship and land attack variants of the Klub cruise missile, heavy torpedoes and mines.

Vietnam is also acquiring Russian-designed ships equipped with anti-ship missiles and other weapons. The fleet currently includes 2 Gepard frigates, 6 corvettes and 18 fast-attack missile boats. New vessels will have enhanced anti-submarine weapons.

Less visibly, Vietnam has strengthened its coastal defenses with anti-ship artillery batteries and the mobile Bastion K-300P system, equipped with Orynx cruise missiles. The Orynx can also be fired from ships, planes and submarines.

Foreign security experts say Vietnam has made it potentially costly for China’s navy to operate within 200-300 nautical miles of its coast—an ability it did not have a decade ago.

This may be further boosted by a future deal to buy the Indian-Russian produced BrahMos missile, a supersonic anti-ship weapon that is the world’s fastest cruise missile. Chinese analysts say Beijing’s reclaimed islands in the South China Sea will give it extra protection against Vietnam’s strength from its southern coast.

    AIR FORCE

Vietnam operates an expanding fleet of 30 Russian-supplied Su-30 MK2 fighter-bombers, which patrols its military bases over the Spratlys. Hanoi also has older squadrons of Su-27s and even older Russian craft.

Though far outnumbered by China’s air force, which includes similar planes, Hanoi’s military chiefs have upgraded and expanded air defenses. It has obtained Israeli AD-STAR 2888 early warning radars and Russian-built S-300 surface-to-air missile batteries.

Vietnam had extensive experience in using earlier Russian-built systems to shoot down U.S. jet fighters and B-52 bombers over northern Vietnam during the Vietnam War.

Hanoi is also in talks with European and U.S. arms manufacturers to buy additional fighter jets, maritime patrol planes and unarmed surveillance drones.

    ARMY

Vietnam maintains a conscript-based force of an estimated 450,000 troops.

It has recently started manufacturing Israeli rifles under license, and also used Israeli and European technological help to refit up to 850 Russian T-59 and T-55 tanks.

Parliament this year passed laws lengthening compulsory military service from 18 months to two years, as well as extending deferments to allow more university students to serve after completing their studies.

During Chinese President Xi’s visit to Vietnam last month, he invoked the Golden Rule during his parting speech, saying, “Chinese people advocate such belief, do not do to others what you would not have them do to you.” While Vietnamese may have appreciated the fine rhetoric emanating from the Chinese leader, paraphrasing a quote from Confucius, Hanoi’s leadership appears not to be so taken in, given the extensive military buildup as outlined above.

Politique étrangère est présente sur Cairn, le portail des revues francophones, depuis plusieurs années maintenant. Un nouveau record a été établi grâce à vous, chers Lecteurs, avec plus de 375 000 articles en accès libre consultés en 2015 ! Découvrez en exclusivité la liste des 10 articles de la revue les plus lus sur Cairn cette année !

* * *

10e  place : Jean-Louis Triaud, « La Tidjaniya, une confrérie musulmane transnationale »

9e place : David M. Faris, « La révolte en réseau : le « printemps arabe » et les médias sociaux »

8e place : Cheikh Ibrahima Niang , « Ebola : une épidémie postcoloniale »

7e place : Abdou Diouf, « Afrique : l’intégration régionale face à la mondialisation »

6e place : Boris Eisenbaum, « Négociation, coopération régionale et jeu d’influences en Asie centrale : l’Organisation de coopération de Shanghai »

5e place : Pierre de Senarclens, « Théories et pratiques des relations internationales depuis la fin de la guerre froide »

4e place : Alice Ekman, « Asie-Pacifique : la priorité de la politique étrangère chinoise »

3e place : Thierry Kellner, « La Chine et la Grande Asie centrale »

2e place : Stanley Hoffmann, « Raymond Aaron et la théorie des relations internationales »

1ère place : Pierre Jacquet, « Les enjeux de l’aide publique au développement »

Tous ces articles sont accessibles gratuitement sur Cairn. N’hésitez pas à les lire ou à les relire en cliquant directement sur les liens !

* * *

Merci à tous nos abonnés et lecteurs pour leur fidélité et bienvenue à tous les futurs abonnés et lecteurs de Politique étrangère !

Pour vous abonner à Politique étrangère, cliquez ici et découvrez nos nouvelles offres d’abonnement pour 2016 !

/ Allemagne, Développement, Inégalités - Europe / Allemagne, Développement, Inégalités - Europe

/ Proche-Orient, Défense, Géopolitique, Sécurité, Pétrole, Religion, Relations internationales - Proche-Orient / Proche-Orient, Défense, Géopolitique, Sécurité, Pétrole, Religion, Relations internationales - Proche-Orient

Welcoming the Security Council&#39s unanimous adoption of a blueprint for peace in Syria, a senior United Nations official has called on all sides to immediately stop using sexual violence as a tactic in the fighting tearing the country apart.