Foreign Policy Blogs

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

Syrian refugees wait for mattresses, blankets and other supplies before being assigned to tents at the Zaatari Syrian refugees camp in Mafraq, near the Syrian border with Jordan. (AP)

Are Syrian refugees a threat to the security of the United States? In the wake of the deadly San Bernardino shootings, most Americans are on edge and many are reluctant to let in any more Muslims, especially Syrian refugees. Republican presidential candidates have picked up on this fear and the rhetoric is flying—Ben Carson compared them to “rabid dogs,” New Jersey Governor Chris Christie refuses to accept any “orphans under the age of 5,” and Presidential front-runner Donald Trump recently declared his plan to ban all Syrian refugees from entering the U.S. Both Carson and Trump even claim to have seen Muslims celebrating the fall of the World Trade Center on 9/11.

But the paranoia doesn’t stop there—more than half of state governors across the U.S. vowed not to take in any Syrian refugees. And last month, the U.S. House of Representatives voted to ban all Syrian (and Iraqi) refugees from entering the U.S. until more secure screening measures can be implemented.

Of course in the months leading up to the presidential elections, candidates are prone to making simplistic one-liners to cater to their constituency and advance their ratings in the polls. In reality, the problem of refugees for any country is quite complex—are the refugees fleeing political persecution or pursuing greater economic opportunity? How do we go about determining their motives and effectively screening claimants? Once refugees flee political persecution and land in a “safe” country, if they choose to forgo low-paying jobs in this safe country and immigrate to another country with better-paying jobs, are they then reclassified as economic immigrants? If we accept some from one religion, are we discriminating against other religions?

Since the November 12–13 attacks in Beirut and Paris, debate over immigration policy in many countries has intensified. In the U.S., the Obama administration revealed a plan to take in 10,000 Syrian refugees over the next year. Australia has agreed to take in 12,000 Syrian refugees after careful screening, a process authorities say could take up to a year. In Canada, authorities are busy screening around 100 people per day to reach an ambitious target of 25,000 by the end of year.

In Europe, Germany is struggling to deal with 180,000 refugees who have entered the country since the beginning of November. Each of these countries is toiling with the question of which refugees to accept—mothers and their children, the elderly, or young single males? Will Muslims, Christians, Jews, Yazidis, Druze, Bahá’ís, or Zoroastrians be accepted and in what numbers?

Since the brutal crackdown of a popular uprising in Syria by President Bashar al-Assad, the U.S. has accepted around 1,900 Syrians flown in by the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). Out of the 1,900 Syrian refugees living in the U.S., the vast majority are Sunni Muslim, with only 53 Syrian Christians, one Yazidi, and a handful of Druze, Bahá’ís and Zoroastrians.

This disparity is due in part to the way in which the refugees are selected, according to Nina Shea, director of Hudson Institute’s Center for Religious Freedom and a former commissioner of the U.S. Commission on International Religious Freedom. In a recent article for the National Review, Shea argues that the Syrian Christians in refugee camps face a wide range of discrimination and danger, including kidnapping and death. The U.S. relies upon the UNHCR for the vetting of refugees, and the UNHCR largely selects refugees for relocation and settlement from the rolls of the refugee camps. Most of the Syrian Christians have fled the refugee camps in fear, many traversing to Lebanon.

The process by which refugees are vetted by the U.S. needs to change to target those also outside of refugee camps, in order to allow the vetting of more persecuted religious minorities from Syria. U.S. presidential candidates, all of whom profess a strong belief in Christ and the teachings of Christianity, should have no hesitancy in accepting fellow Christians from Syria—those “rabid dogs” and orphans who have been persecuted halfway around the world.

American Christians should also welcome with open arms Syrian Christians and help them with the daunting task of resettling and adjusting to life in the U.S. Before the war, Christians in Syria numbered over 2 million and there were around 80,000 Yazidis, both groups having been subjected to abduction, sexual enslavement, forcible conversion to Islam, or beheading. Is it unrealistic to assume 10,000 acceptable refugees from these populations can be found and relocated?

Given the inflammatory rhetoric of American presidential candidates, the cautious posturing of U.S. lawmakers, and the paranoia of a fearful American population, the unfortunate truth is that choosing 10,000 Christians for immediate vetting may be the only way to quickly accept and settle any Syrian refugees in the coming months. Canada, citing security concerns, has chosen to accept only women, children and families, and refuse young, single men. Even under this conservative plan, more than half of Canadians oppose their resettlement.

Putting Christians on a fast-track vetting process would go some way toward reversing the discrimination already in place—to date, Syrian Christians have been allotted only 3% of the spaces for refugees in the U.S. despite comprising 10% of the Syrian population. While Syrian Muslims would continue to be subject to a more thorough and stringent security screening, Syrian Christians should be fast-tracked into the U.S. using appropriate screening methods to weed out imposters. Hopefully in the near future, these discriminatory screening policies can converge, and Americans can come to accept greater numbers of innocent refugees regardless of their faith. 

Via Richard Bistrong

Corruption is an affliction that blights much of the world. A perception study last year by Transparency International found that two-thirds of the world’s countries score below 50 on a scale from zero (highly corrupt) to 100 (very clean).

For many former communist countries still undergoing a period of cultural and institutional transition, corruption is a major barrier on the road to achieving its goals. It hinders competitiveness and makes investment decisions more difficult, while adding additional layers of cost and diminishing the ability for countries to provide adequate levels of welfare for their citizens.

Despite its shortcomings, one of the greatest single achievements of the European Union has been its success at mentoring and assisting former communist and Soviet states in their bid to transition to a functioning Western style democracy.

Romania is an interesting example of this process. Following the country’s accession to the European Union in January 2007, the country’s efforts to tackle corruption were modest at best. An investigation in 2012 into corruption levels in Romania by the  European Commission expressed serious concerns over the political situation and the ability to comply with fundamental principles of the Union.

Recently, however, evidence of progress has been more encouraging. Last year, the country’s National Anticorruption Directorate (NAD) successfully convicted 1,138 leading public figures, including top politicians, businessmen, judges and prosecutors. Furthermore convictions against high-level politicians and businessmen saw a significant increase compared to 2013; a shift in the anti-corruption drive that has continued into 2015 and has had a substantial social impact. A 2015 poll suggested that 60 per cent of Romanians trust the NAD, in contrast to only 11 per cent who express trust in parliament.

Perhaps the most high profile individual to be tainted by the clampdown on corruption is the country’s former Prime Minister, Victor Ponta, who stood down last month following mass protests triggered in part by charges of fraud, tax evasion and money laundering leveled against him. Other notable examples include Romanian media mogul, Adrian Sârbu, who was charged last year with tax evasion, money laundering and embezzlement and who is expected to stand trial in February 2016.

Ponta and Sârbu’s cases are particularly interesting as they indicate the endemic nature of corruption as well as its ability to traverse national borders with seeming impunity. One of Sârbu’s most notable business partners was Ronald Lauder, former US ambassador to Austria and son of the cosmetics tycoon Estée Lauder. Quick to identify the significant opportunities presented by the nascent media industry in Eastern Europe, in 1994 Lauder founded Central Media Enterprise (CME). By 1997, the news and entertainment company owned TV stations in Slovenia, Romania, Slovakia and Ukraine.

According to the New York Times, in Ukraine Lauder engaged with two local businessmen, Vadim Rabinovich and Boris Fuchsmann, whom the FBI and European law enforcement agencies suspect of having ties to Russian organized crime. In 2001 CME was investigated by US federal prosecutors over allegations it paid at least $1 million in bribes to Ukrainian officials for a valuable television license. These connections and allegations culminated in the magnate facing a lawsuit seeking $750 million in damages filed by rival broadcaster Perekhid Media Enterprises Ltd.

These examples demonstrate that while country’s like Romania have much work still to do in addressing rampant corruption, the fact that even serving Prime Ministers and leading international businessmen are no longer free from the spotlight of the justice system is enormously encouraging. The European Union deserves at least some credit for this transformation. It must not allow progress to slide.

The last 15 years has seen the creation of some of the most polarized media to ever exist in the last half century. The difference in perspective and truthiness from one media outlet to another is so divided that it has produced a narrative that can only exist in the solitudes of those who have a similar perspective. The common theme for all media and politically aligned parties is that their truth works against the elite.

Gaining a political foothold requires convincing  a polarized media and their supporters that the real stories are being hidden by some monolith of power, changing depending on who the elite of those opponents tend to be and their position of power in society. Both sides of the political spectrum have defined the battlefield of ideas that often do not exist as real societal issues.

If there is no single truth, lies can become powerful tools in an election. If lies can be legitimized, actions against opponents may go beyond simple media debates, shielding the application of justice and human rights if a criminal act can be silenced or validated.

The individual who wins the elections in the United States, France or Germany may be the one who can show not to associate with elites, even if they are some of the most wealthy and influential people to exist in those communities. A danger comes from over-reacting to someone who is the anti-elite as it turns simple media accounts into a mind numbing morass of phraseology and vitriol. The anti-elites put debaters in the position of being seen as defending an elite that works in the shadows against the interests of the general public.

This message might not resonate with the average citizen, but when their lives are directly affected or threatened, responses from either camp that tamp down discussions can promote grassroots support in the community against the ruling party at the time. Trends begin to play a more important role than policy as the latter fails to meet a certain standard of societal expectations. Those who last are those who are new to the game, and have been able to not use their power to corrupt or oppress. The left in Latin America, once considered a movement that would change North American dominance in the region, fell on their own sword for many of these reasons.

Brazil’s economic miracle was successful even before the rise in commodity prices wedded to a Chinese economic boom. Economic policy initially implemented under the former center right government before the electoral dynasty of the Worker’s Party (PT)  kept social policy in the forefront of the country’s agenda, while managing a balanced debt reduction strategy. Keeping the public debt under control and combining it with social programs placed Brazil to take full advantage of a commodities boom.

In recent years, the negative response to elitist international sporting events and the corruption that flowed between the PT and business elites has tarnished the party’s image and an confidence in President Rousseff’s government: her approval rates fluctuate around 10%. A citizen’s movement buoyed by an assertive judicial branch has gone beyond party politics in an effort to weed out corruption. Even former President Lula may be face criminal charges, and there is a strong popular movement to impeach President Rousseff.

Argentina was rocked by the death of a prosecutor investigating the former government’s tampering of information about an attack on the Jewish community. When he was found dead, documents revealed that he was on the verge of indicting President Cristina Kirchner herself, the populist leader of Argentina. In recent years, she had increasing difficulties to maintain her popular support and legitimize her socially-oriented, but fiscally irresponsible policy decrees. Her party recently lost an election to Macri, a pro-business candidate, with many in Argentina reorienting their distaste for an elite against the very government that routinely denounced the abuses of the high society.

Venezuela’s opposition gained a great deal of recent support as Chavismo and President Maduro lost the public’s trust. Despite an intensive media campaign in Venezuela promoting the populist government, the degrading state of Venezuela’s economy, standard of living and several violent actions taken against opposition politicians threatened to rob Chavismo of its political legitimacy. It is not possible to promote a narrative in Venezuela that no longer reflects the real issues in society, and while Maduro is still President, he could be the last supporter of Chavez’s revolution to hold power in the country.

2015 represents the beginning of the fall of those alleged elites, whether or not they are truly those in power. Often, political campaigning places those elites into power, but corruption scandals and the subsequent investigations and monitoring may put pressure on leaders to take actions to the benefit of society. Corruption tends to have deep roots, so while the mainstream media chooses sides, hopefully an intelligent community and assertive judicial community will push against elites from both political camps.

Cheap solar panels are transforming the energy sector in developing countries worldwide

A landmark collaboration between the UK’s Energy Africa initiative and America’s Power Africa campaign has been launched to bring clean electricity to millions of people across the African continent.

The UK’s Department for International Development (DFID) Minister Nick Hurd announced the new partnership in December in collaboration with his US counterpart, USAID Associate Administrator Eric Postel.

Hurd commented: “No one can tackle Africa’s energy challenge alone… The U.S. has led the way over the past few years with its Power Africa campaign. Together with our Energy Africa campaign we can boost access to reliable, clean and affordable household energy, helping millions of people to lift themselves out of poverty.”

The two organizations’ combined efforts will aim to leverage private investment to develop power sharing networks between African countries and tap their unused resources, such as geothermal power, to increase locals’ access to electricity.

It is estimated that around 600 million Africans still lack electrical power at home, holding back businesses and development.

A Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) was signed between the two countries at a special event arranged by the United Nations Economic Commission for Africa and New Climate Economy, at the recent UN climate change conference in Paris.

USAID Associate Administrator Eric Postel said: “In partnership with DFID… We can help accelerate Africa’s path toward economic and environmental sustainability.”

The MoU commits Energy Africa and Power Africa to work together in a number of key policy areas, including expanding off grid energy, boosting investment in clean energy through joint projects, and improving female participation rates in Africa’s energy sector.

The UK’s campaign has historically focused on boosting the household solar market throughout sub-Saharan Africa, with the ultimate goal of creating universal energy access across the region.

Energy Africa claims to have signed up six African countries to cooperate on reducing policy and regulatory barriers to cross-border market expansions in the household solar energy market. This includes regional superpower Nigeria. Discussions with eight more African governments are still ongoing.

Meanwhile America’s Power Africa has sought to create 60 million electrical connections in sub-Saharan states by unlocking local resources of wind, solar, geothermal and natural gas resources. The project also aims to add at least 30,000 megawatts of new, cleaner electrical power capacity to the area.

Together the two organizations believe the new joint initiative will help strengthen donor coordination and stimulate efforts by local governments, foreign donors and private businesses to meet the Global G7 in Africa target of delivering affordable, sustainable clean energy to the continent’s citizens.

It comes as a historic $100 billion package of measures were agreed between Western governments and the leaders of emerging and developing countries to combat climate change and keep global temperatures well below a 2 °C rise.

Green technology is rapidly emerging as a potential challenger to traditional fossil fuels as a cheaper, cleaner means of providing power to developing countries worldwide. With many newly emerging states like China now looking to cut down on pollution in at home, countries which have not yet created a traditional electrical infrastructure may be poised to avoid earlier pitfalls as they seek to join the ranks of economically developed countries.

Via New Middle East Blogspot

In quick succession, the set of ISIS attacks in Paris, Sharm el-Sheikh and Beirut suggest that the group has crossed a threshold for international terrorism. In the case of the Paris attacks, these were “spectacular acts,” planned well in advance, with terrorists waiting for the opportune time to strike.

Less obvious is why now. Kenneth Waltz’s neo-realist “three level analysis” and Robert Jervis’ notion of “perception and misperception” may provide a broader picture of connected issues (Waltz, Kenneth N. 1959, Man, the State and War, New York: Columbia University Press; Jervis, Robert. 1976. Perception and Misperception in International Politics Princeton, N.J.; Princeton University Press). First, at Waltz’s “third image” or systems level, there appears to be realignment of terrorist group interests and possibly terrorist groups across several North African countries. After years of estrangement from al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb (AQIM) leaders, particularly Abdelmalek Droukdel and Mohktar Belmokhtar’s “al-Mourabitoun” carried out the Radisson Blu terrorist assault in Bamako in conjunction with AQIM’s “Sultan Emirate” led by Yaha Abou-Hammam.

This is new. Consistent with North African terrorist group “fence mending” as al-Qaeda and ISIS compete, it bodes ill for security in northern Africa as groups now might achieve “economies of scale” in operations. This environment, where terrorist groups dictate events, echoes U.S. problems with foreign policy in the early 1950s, when the Soviets chose when and where to marshal American military resources in proxy wars. That realignment also puts the spotlight on Ansar Dine and its leader, Iyad Ag Ghali in Mali, because Ansar Dine’s actions (or inaction) influence French foreign policy both in Mali and Algeria.

Another “third image” factor that involves three or more states is Putin’s Syrian strategy. With Putin’s “first mover advantage,” ISIS and the West must probably accept Assad’s continued role in Syria for at least the next few months. The “perception or misperception” is probably that a weaker transitional authority after Assad is vulnerable to an ISIS onslaught. Thus, the Paris attacks might be an act of Thomas Schelling’s  “compellence” to force Assad from power even though as Schelling states, “compellence” is harder to accomplish than deterrence (Schelling, Thomas 1963. The Strategy of Conflict, New York: Oxford University Press). Still, 139 dead in the heart of Paris is very compelling.

At the “second image” level, focus is on Turkey, Iran, and France. Both are what Brian Jenkins and Martha Crenshaw would call “secondary audiences” to the Paris assaults. President Erdogan, fresh from his recent electoral victory, has new political capital to either increase his support for his Turkmen allies, reinforce his stance against the Kurdish YPG (People’s Protection Units) in Syria, or shift the burden of ISIS to other NATO members to work with Russia, if he believes, at least in the short-run, that it is inopportune to confront ISIS now. The Russian SU-24 shot down over Hatay province dovetails with that notion. Be that as it may, it is wise for Erdogan to support Russia’s backing of Assad at least tacitly, since Russia and Turkey are significant trade partners.

Another “second image” level is Iranian foreign policy. It seems possible ISIS leaders have “perceived or misperceived” the recent rapprochement between the U.S. and Iran as a gateway for future Iranian-American cooperation against ISIS in Yemen and Syria, and that the time is now for Iran’s President Rouhani to receive a strong message about the consequences of such a partnership. In addition, French policy toward North Africa is deeply flawed—at the domestic level, acculturation and political and economic assistance remain poorly developed. Internationally, French leaders cope with perception they do little or nothing to integrate former colonies into the French economy and the European Union (EU).

At the “first image” or individual level,  explanatory factors and their effects remain harder to decipher outside of broader strains between Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi and Ayman al-Zawahiri. The attack in Paris showcased ISIS’s own French nationals of North African background. That terrorist assault characteristic is consistent with recent terrorist group realignment of the type described against the backdrop of this worldwide competition against al-Qaeda. Much about the Paris attacks timing remains largely unknown, but all or some of those factor effects probably coalesced to produce the critical mass necessary to launch the Paris assaults.

Photo: Arc2020

As the 21st Conference of Parties begins this week in Paris, for the first time in years, the prospect for serious, substantive international progress on climate issues is not bleak.

China and the U.S., the world’s two biggest carbon emitters, are more or less on the same page, looking to reduce emissions, if for very divergent reasons.

In my latest video, I take a look at what’s going on at COP21.

When Putin started to increase Russian military presence in Syria, I was reading Kissinger’s Diplomacy and coincidently its chapter on the Suez Canal Crisis. I couldn’t resist comparing Putin’s move to that of Khrushchev’s, when he provided support and aid to Nasser’s Egypt. 1950s Soviet Union and today’s Russia suffer from the effects of containment imposed by the West. Containment brought on themselves through acts the West views as blatant aggression. The difference between the two contexts is that  Russia is no longer communist and the primary adversary of the West. Yet, in both circumstances the same underlying motivations and logic seem to have convinced Russia to play the Middle East card.

When Khrushchev came to power following Stalin’s death in 1953, the transition was not smooth. It took him until 1957 to cement his strangle hold on the Kremlin. This insecurity in Moscow led him to take a few cocky decisions, even when the West took him to be the best chance for peace. One of these decisions was to throw his support behind the Nasser regime in Egypt and its Pan-Arabic aspirations. The West was stunned by this Soviet diplomatic victory. Containment was intended to keep the Russian maneuvers within its communist sphere. The traditional sphere of influence of the diminishing British and French powers in Middle East now involved a new player. U.S. diplomatic bargaining with Nasser had gone no where. The end result was British and French humiliation and withdrawal from the region after the 1956 Suez Crisis, the creation of the short lived United Arab Republic involving Egypt, Syria and North Yemen and the 1967 Six-Day war.

The important point to note here is that Khrushchev did not squeeze into the Middle East power struggle at a moment of strength for the Soviet Union. It was at a point of great weakness; Stalin’s death led to power struggles and purges, the Korean war had been a stalemate and the U.S. still maintained an edge in the nuclear race. The incursion into Egypt was meant to showcase to his opponents and critics that he was a capable leader, who could take the ailing Soviet Union to heights even Stalin could not.

Putin, in contrast, definitely does not have the issue of being overshadowed by the legacy of his predecessor. He has been in power since 2000. Instead of proving to be an adversary to the West, Putin started as a surprising collaborator, supporting Bush’s War on Terror (obviously to garner support for his own war on terror in Chechnya). Over the last 15 years, he has slowly positioned himself as an adversary. The 2008 war with Georgia was the turning point. The annexation of Crimea and the insurgency in eastern Ukraine has cemented that view. He  supported the Assad regime in rhetoric, vetoes and limited material support, but providing Assad with a Russian air force seemed a bit far off.

Since Soviet times, the naval base at Tartus was Russia’s only permanent naval installation in the Mediterranean Sea. It has managed to hold on to this one last bastion, even when Hafez Assad decided to bomb a Soviet vessel at the base. Thus, it is doubtful that any Russian leader would want to lose the naval base, especially one with an ailing economy and a nationalistic fervor keeping him in power.

Putin had promised much to the Russian people during the commodity boom.  The military modernization project was planned on a $100 oil barrel. But that all went south when the prices plummeted in 2014. The Ukrainian crisis only made things worse as the U.S. and EU slapped on sanctions. Trade with China seems to be the lifeline of the economy. Yet the military continues to be modernized, while  Soviet strategic bombers are seen from the English Channel to Guam. Putin has used displays of military prowess as a means of sustaining the nationalistic fervor at home and distracting the people from the economic woes.

Assad has been losing ground since July and many expected him to start withdrawing to his Alawite homeland in the coastal region. That was until Putin emulated Khrushchev. He announced that Russian fighter jets, stationed in Latakia would be bombing ISIS targets in support of Assad’s troops. NATO forces until then dominating the region’s air space had to suddenly share it . There was suddenly a chance of U.S. and Russian planes facing each other off over enemy territory. The only previous event of similar magnitude was when in 1970. 15,000 Soviet troops were stationed in Egypt to man a comprehensive air defense system against Israeli incursions.

The question is can Russia afford this new active role in the region, something it has not performed since the 1970s ? Khrushchev did not enter Middle Eastern affairs with a clear cut strategic end game in mind. He didn’t achieve anything of much significance other than to commit Soviet resources, when its own people and satellites in Eastern Europe needed them the most. In 1972, Egypt’s Sadat simply evicted the Soviet personnel and its Syrian foothold was what was left.

Today in trying to protect the last Russian chip left in the region, Putin might be pitting the very survival of the Russian Federation. Russia is overextended today, as it once was under the Soviet Union. The A321 flight crash over Sinai and Turkey shooting down the Su-24 jet continuously put Russia on the headlines. Initially, Russia refused to accept the Sinai crash was a terror attack, but as soon as the French attacks occurred and it was obvious that fighting ISIS would allow an “alliance’ with France, Putin declared the truth of the matter. The Turkish action has been labelled a “stab in the back” by Putin. His reaction has been sanctions against Turkey, but obviously the economic impact won’t be merely one way.

The Russian Orthodox church’s declaration that it is a holy war to defend christianity might buoy the impact of those killed to protect the Assad regime. But just like Americans, Russians would also start decrying war when the body bags count begins to increase. It helps that Russian media is under strict state control. RT and massive military parades against Fascism can only sway public opinion for so long. In 1991, Russia survived by shedding away its Soviet empire. If Russia collapses again, the Federation is what is at stake. A nuclear power in chaos is a bad proposition for world peace. So all one can hope is that unlike Khrushchev, Putin has a clear end game in sight and knows when to pull back before over extension passes the point of no return.

Protesters displaying placards during a rally in front of the Chinese consulate in Manila on Aug 31, 2015.  PHOTO: AFP

The unanimous ruling on October 29 by an international arbitral tribunal over its jurisdiction to arbitrate territorial claims claimed by the Philippines in the South China Sea comes as a slap in the face to Beijing, and may lead to further filings by Southeast Asian nations.  Under its notorious nine-dash line, or “cow’s tongue”, Chinese leaders claim over 90 percent of the South China Sea and have argued against any international jurisdiction over sovereignty issues.

The current ruling, the first of its kind, concerns a case filed by the Philippine government at the Permanent Court of Arbitration in the Hague in 2013, under the United Nations 1982 Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). According to the ruling, the case will now be handled by the Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS, and is expected to determine maritime zone entitlements of ten reefs and shoal in the South China Sea: Scarborough Shoal, Mischief Reef, Second Thomas Shoal, Fiery Cross Reef, Subi Reef, Gaven Reef, Hughes Reef, Johnson Reef, Cuarteron Reef, and McKennan Reef.  Some of these reefs are currently being converted into islands.

Beijing bases its claims on the disputed waters and features as “traditional fishing grounds,” despite the presence of fisherman from around the region for centuries. For example, the Scarborough Shoal was referenced in a May 2012 article in the PLA Daily, claiming a Chinese astronomer, Guo Shoujing, first visited the shoal in 1279 as part of a survey of the Chinese empire. China’s formal claim to the shoal was made in 1935, while Manila says its initial claim was in 1937-1938, although it was unable to publicize its claim due to Japanese incursions and invasion. The shoal did not feature on Philippine maps until 1997, when Manila began to press its claim by taking ownership of the shoal as terra nullius, or “no man’s land.”

Beijing has reiterated it will not accept the Tribunal’s resolution, arguing that the only way forward is through bilateral negotiations.  China had previously argued in a position paper that the “2002 China–ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea constitutes an agreement to resolve disputes relating to the South China Sea exclusively through negotiation.”

International leaders, however, welcomed the decision over the Court’s jurisdiction.  German chancellor Angela Merkel recently addressed the issue while on a visit to Beijing, “The territorial dispute in the South China Sea is a serious conflict. I am always a bit surprised why in this case multinational courts should not be an option for a solution.”

Merkel’s statement clearly reflects Beijing’s two faces over the rule of law, for despite China ratifying UNCLOS in 1996, Beijing now says it will not accept procedures referring to “binding decisions” and compulsory processes under the law.  While Beijing considers certain UNCLOS rules to be inconsistent with its national policy, it has similarly chosen to invoke UNCLOS law to seek a binding decision for its claim against Japan on the Senkaku/Diaoyu Islands in the East China Sea. China is also party to the Declaration on the Conduct for Parties in the South China Sea, which it signed in 2002. Through its dredging efforts to create artificial islands, Beijing has blatantly ignored Article 5 of the DOC, which calls for “self-restraint in the conduct of activities that would complicate or escalate disputes in uninhabited islands and reefs.”

So while it is high time for an international referee like the Arbitral Tribunal under UNCLOS to step in, separate the fighters, and issue a ruling concerning the sovereignty of the disputed waters, it is highly unlikely the Court will be able to enforce a ruling against China, which Beijing is likely to ignore.  Any court rulings issued by the tribunal are binding on its member countries, including China, but the tribunal has no powers of enforcement, so some of its rulings have been ignored before.  

The Tribunal’s eventual ruling, expected in 2016, will also be limited in scope to asserting whether or not specific features (rocks and low-tide elevations) can claim EEZs. Some of the reefs being converted into islands by China will fail to be recognized as islands–thereby losing any expanded territorial claims. Under UNCLOS, artificial islands are entitled to the rights enjoyed by the original feature–a 12 nautical mile territorial sea for rocks above water at low tide, and a 500-meter safety zone for elevations below water at low tide.  

Should Beijing refuse to honor a potential ruling against their claims of sovereignty, we can expect China to again attempt to assert its economic muscle to persuade other regional nations to settle the disputes bilaterally.  China’s Vice Foreign Minister Liu Zhenmin announced earlier this month Beijing’s offer to Southeast Asian countries of around US$10 billion in infrastructure loans.    

Yet China’s weakening muscularity and an economic pivot by Washington could lead other Southeast Asian nations toward pursuing similar rulings.  This month, some voters in Vietnam put forth a proposal to their National Assembly, calling for the initiation of legal proceedings against China at an international tribunal over its violation of the Southeast Asian country’s sovereignty in the East Vietnam Sea (South China Sea).  How far this request will go is disputed–Hanoi will need to balance the concerns of its nationalistic citizenry while maintaining close ties to its communist brother.  Indonesia has also hinted it may also go to court to assert its sovereignty over disputed territory.

Beijing can still effectively lobby its other neighbors–as it did when it scuttled efforts by Association of Southeast Asian Nations defense ministers to mention the South China Sea in a joint declaration after meetings in Malaysia earlier this month. On the international stage, a negative outcome for Beijing will surely lead to a loss of face for Chinese leaders, and they will face increasing isolation for failing to respect international law–a precondition for their regaining great nation status.

A Russian S-400 air defense missile system makes its way through Red Square during a military parade in Moscow. File photo AP.

The Turkish F-16 that shot down a Russian SU-24 attack plane last week near the Turkish-Syrian border has created an international incident that rivals with the first few chapters of any Tom Clancy novel. Air operations against ISIS and Syrian rebels in Syria has created a situation where Turkey, other NATO countries and Russia are all operating aircrafts in close proximity.

The greatest fear of NATO commanders was realized when Turkish authorities gave the green light for the F-16 to shoot down the SU-24, resulting in one pilot killed and other Russian soldiers possibly killed or injured while rescuing the second member of the two-man crew. Turkey, a NATO member state, would have the right to claim that an attack by Russia on Turkey is an attack on all NATO members, but considering the order to shoot down the SU-24 was ill conceived and the SU-24 was not a real threat to Turkey, NATO members would do well to tamp down the rhetoric against the grieved party who has lost a pilot and soldiers and never threatened Turkish security to any great measure.

The predictable response to the incident by Russian President Putin was to shun Turkish officials in international forums and openly claim that Turkey took aggressive actions against its aircraft in order to protect oil flows from ISIS-controlled territory into Turkey itself. Russia has recently been targeting ISIS oil resources in order to financially starve the terrorist organization that uses this resource to supply its military and resulting in human rights abuses and genocide against minority groups in the region. The lack of attention given to ISIS oil resources by NATO has given way to assumptions by Russia that Turkey took aggressive actions against Russia to protect the oil reserves.

Another theory is that Russia wants to take the lead in the region by targeting resources that keep ISIS afloat. Russia’s aggressive strikes appeal to those communities that want to stop mass murder of ethnic minorities in the region, disregarding the notion that attacking energy resources in Syria and Iraq may cause significant environmental damage. Whatever the reason, the actions by the Turkish F-16 against the Russian aircraft were not morally legitimate, even if legally it can be argued that Turkey may have had the right to take an aggressive stand against a Russian aircraft flying over its territory.

Years of discussions and sanctions blocking the sale of the S-300 anti-aircraft missile system to Iran ended a few months ago when Russia decided to finally sell the advanced missile system to Iran. Despite U.S. officials believing that the nuclear deal would block the sale for many years, Russian officials moved ahead swiftly after the agreement was signed to fulfill the S-300s order. In the aftermath of the incident with Turkey, the next generation of Russian surface-to-air missile that concerned U.S. officials for so many years is now being deployed in Syria. The effectiveness, range and crew of the newer S-400 “Triumph” missile will operate as a Russian air defense network in northern Syria, covering much of Syria and reaching into Turkey, Israel and even as far as Cyprus.

While NATO officials do not believe Russia will target NATO aircrafts, a recent decline in NATO sorties has taken place upon the announcement of the S-400 deployment. Anti-aircraft missile systems have become a major strategic asset ever since the Vietnam War, and allow the party that has control of the system to pick and choose how an air strategy can be applied, or halted in a given territory. With the S-400 radars able to view all air activity in Syria and Turkey, missiles could target and hit Turkish and NATO planes in Turkey itself.

Putin has decided to create an Iron Dome of his own, enveloping Turkish air squadrons and bases within the range of the S-400. Retaliation against Turkey and NATO has not taken place, but with the S-400 Triumph as part of the increased air defense over Russian and Syria aircrafts in the region, NATO will be motivated to ease tensions and perhaps re-consider NATO’s future obligations towards Turkey itself.

The Great Wall of China. Source: Severin, stalder via Wikipedia.

The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has led one revolution away from capitalism and back again in its sixty-six year rule. Now it might be about to lead another. With the planned Paris conference on climate change due to start on November 30 Beijing has been releasing some significant-sounding statements on moving China’s huge economy towards a greener phase. Xi Jinping has shown himself to be China’s most powerful and energetic leader since Deng Xiaoping, who first brought market reforms to the giant and impoverished communist nation. The move to a green-based economy would require massive restructuring and the tackling of vested interests that profit from the current set up. But it is no more radical than the break-neck development China pursued over the last two decades.

Critics of the CCP have noted that it continues to play statistical games with inconvenient facts, most recently admitting that it has under-reported its coal consumption for many years. The new figures suggest that Chinese emissions have been a significantly larger driver of global warming than previously admitted. This feeds into perceptions of China’s government as an entity that talks the talk but struggles to walk the walk when it comes to facing up to the issues of climate change and public health disasters caused by its environmental policies.

Nonetheless regular public scandals over pollution and the mass protests they spawn show that there is public demand at home for China’s one-party system to take some responsibility in setting and enforcing standards to tackle the issue. The protests unite China’s growing middle classes with its poor migrant laborers, and its more privileged city dwellers with the hard-scrabble rural peasants out in the countryside. Despite China’s extensive censorship and pervasive security forces, protests about social conditions break out across the country with monotonous regularity. The government’s response is often to clamp down on the organizers but also to offer local concessions to appease the demonstrators.

China’s huge internal security budget reveals that the Party is uneasy about the ferment of social changes it has unleashed with its modernization of the country. Protests in China are no longer illegal so long as they do not call for the downfall of the CCP but attending them can be risky. Despite this tens of thousands of single issue protests break out across the country every year according to human rights groups, the vast majority concerned with corruption, development concerns or environmental problems. For all China is a one-party state, the regime of Xi Jinping is keen to stay ahead of the issues that matter to the Chinese public, as shown by his draconian anti-corruption campaign since coming to power. The idea of a nation-wide green movement taking off in the country that could not be assuaged by closing an unpopular chemical plant or sacking a hated local government official is anathema to Beijing.

President Xi Jinping has therefore shown himself to be more inclined to take green issues into account than his predecessors, who focused more closely on economic development. He has committed to capping carbon emissions by 2030 and turning to renewable sources for 20 percent of the country’s energy. By 2013 China had even become the world’s largest producer of wind and solar power. Increasingly the CCP must balancing its mission to lift the many more millions of Chinese who remain in grinding poverty against the costs of climate change and pollution that creating this wealth often entails. With a growing middle class increasingly outspoken about living in smog-ridden cities reminiscent of the early industrial revolution, Beijing is looking at radical changes in how its economy operates.

Some observers think that China has realized it must go green for its own survival, but just as likely is that the CCP has calculated that, as with corruption, the limits of public tolerance for pollution, public health scandals and massive industrial accidents has been tested to dangerous limits. Since 1989 Chinese politics has worked on the operating principle that popular discontent must never be allowed to build up unchecked. The Arab Spring protests of 2010-11 which swept away a clutch of fossilized and underperforming authoritarian regimes in the Middle East with a wave of street protests were seen as a warning in Beijing. As a result it stepped up repression of civil society activists including environmental activists, anticorruption campaigners or defense lawyers, but scrutinized many of their concerns more intently.

Beijing’s monopoly on political power still rests on showing that it can deliver economic growth and rising living standards. But the costs of a rapid industrial development, and the attendant explosion of consumerism among 1.5 billion people have taken their toll. Under Xi Jinping it has become a mature middle-sized economy that is now pondering what kind of society it would like to be by 2050. Affluence is creating more interest in social issues. People power movements are already a well-established phenomenon in local politics in China going back many years, but there has been no national movement since the suppression of pro-democracy protestors in 1989. The CCP fears that allowing any widespread organization on social issues will quickly turn political and lead to the overthrow of the communist system. It cites examples such as the Polish Solidarity trade union movement which led to the eventual democratization of Poland over of the course of the 1980s or the more recent Color Revolutions.

Unlike various secular Arab regimes however, the CCP has long proved adept at anticipating and diffusing popular concerns before they become a mortal threat to the Party’s political survival. The suppression of pro-democracy protests stalled but did not stop a pre-existing economic program to develop the Chinese economy. Once rising living standards had been achieved and official corruption was becoming a pressing issue the Party moved to clean up these Augean stables itself, without subjecting CCP cadres to an independent judiciary. It had already begun to soften its rhetoric on global warming under the previous leadership team around Hu Jintao. There is no reason to suppose that as green issues becomes more important globally and locally that the leadership of the CCP will not move to co-opt and ingratiate itself with the movements that emerge to tackle it. Whether this will help or harm the cause of green politics in China itself will be determined by the CCP’s ability to deliver on its promises. If Beijing cannot, it may find itself facing the very public protests it is currently trying to head off.

(Photo Credit: AP Photo/Getty Images)

With respect to the broader issue of my critics…I think that when you listen to what they actually have to say, what they’re proposing, most of the time, when pressed, they describe things that we’re already doing. Maybe they’re not aware that we’re already doing them. Some of them seem to think that if I were just more bellicose in expressing what we’re doing, that that would make a difference—because that seems to be the only thing that they’re doing, is talking as if they’re tough. But I haven’t seen particular strategies that they would suggest that would make a real difference.

President Obama speaking at a Press Conference in Turkey on November 16, 2015

Last week both Hillary Clinton and Jeb Bush gave major talks outlining their respective plans for defeating terrorists. Those two presidential candidates’ views will be my focus for this blog. In a recent article in the Washington Post, the author noted that with the exception of both candidates calling for no fly zones, “overall the candidates and the president are talking about doing basically the same three things to fight the Islamic State: airstrikes, bolstering local forces, getting the world on the same page.”

I think that’s too broad a generalization and does not get at the heart of all the issues. As a Veteran and retired intelligence professional, when I sit down and listen to what each candidate has to say on national security issues, I’m looking for the answer to two questions. First, does the candidate really understand the depth of the problem and related issues? Second, what are their proposed solutions and third are they feasible?

Do the candidates understand the scope of the problem?

In 2012, at the request of the then Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, General Martin Dempsey, the Department of Defense published Decade of War Volume I Enduring Lessons from the Past Decade of Operations. The purpose was to ensure we learned the lessons from the previous decade of war. The first lesson learned discussed was “a failure to recognize, acknowledge, and accurately define the operational environment led to a mismatch between forces, capabilities, missions, and goals. The operational environment encompasses not only the threat but also the physical, informational, social, cultural, religious, and economic elements of the environment.” Bottom line is: if you don’t get that right, then the strategy you develop won’t work.

Jeb Bush says “Despite elaborate efforts by the administration to avoid even calling it by name, one of the very gravest threats we face today comes from radical Islamic terrorists.” I don’t dispute that but how do you explain the fact that there have been many reports that former members of Saddam Hussein’s Army now make up a lot of the military leadership and intelligence positions within ISIS? Why is that?

Clinton seems to have a better understanding of the complexity of the issues, pointing out that under former Iraqi Prime Minister Maliki’s regime the Sunnis tribes were betrayed and forgotten. She feels that if we are going to win on the ground, we need to bring the Sunnis back on board. Bush also stresses the need to bring the Sunnis on board, but says the problem was caused by the premature withdrawal of U.S. Forces leaving a void that ISIS filled. I agree with Bush that the U.S. withdrawal was a mistake but wonder: if Maliki’s regime had been more inclusive, would the end result have been the same?

I participated in a Department of Defense media program that gave me the opportunity to receive briefings and ask questions to many of the senior Generals involved in the training of Iraqi military forces. One question I asked concerned the Iraqi sectarian issues. Using our own history as an example, I said as long as northern military forces occupied the south after the Civil War, African Americans were able to integrate into southern society, holding government offices and positions. As soon as the troops left, white southerners enacted Jim Crow laws which restricted the freedom of the former slaves. It was not till 100 years later that a lot of the problems caused by these laws were addressed and reversed. What were the chances that the sectarian issues in Iraq between different ethnic and religious groups would prevent them from having an effective and inclusive government? I would pose the same question today to the Presidential candidates.

As the recent attack against an hotel in Mali by a group associated with al-Qaeda reminds us, it is not just ISIS nor is the conflict confined to just Iraq and Syria. Addressing the topic in their annual posture statement, United States Africa Command reported:

The network of al-Qaeda and its affiliates and adherents continues to exploit Africa’s under-governed regions and porous borders to train and conduct attacks. The Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant is expanding its presence in North Africa. Terrorists with allegiances to multiple groups are expanding their collaboration in recruitment, financing, training, and operations, both within Africa and transregionally.

In its recently released 2015 Global Terrorism Index, the Institute for Economics and Peace stated that the Nigerian based group Boko Haram, which declared allegiance to ISIS in March of this year, was the most deadly terrorist group. “The country witnessed the largest increase in terrorist deaths ever recorded by any country, increasing by over 300 per cent to 7,512 fatalities.”

The “so what” factor for me is that over two million Nigerians have been displaced internally because of the actions of Boko Harum. Another 175,000 have sought refuge in neighboring Chad, Niger, and Cameron. The UN says they’re critically short of funding needed to provide assistance. Are we witnessing the development of another major refugee crisis? Is it not better to destroy and/or neutralize terrorist groups rather than have another large number of people feel the only solution is to seek refugee status and to move to another country?

In her talk, Hillary Clinton stressed that this was a worldwide fight and required a worldwide solution. Two statements stood out for me:

Now, let’s be clear about what we’re facing. Beyond Paris in recent days, we’ve seen deadly terrorist attacks in Nigeria, Lebanon, Iraq and Turkey, and a Russian civilian airline destroyed over the Sinai. At the heart of today’s new landscape of terror is ISIS. They persecute religious and ethnic minorities; kidnap and behead civilians; murder children. They systematically enslave, torture and rape women and girls…

But we have learned that we can score victories over terrorist leaders and networks, only to face metastasizing threats down the road, so we also have to play and win the long game. We should pursue a comprehensive counterterrorism strategy, one that embeds our mission against ISIS within a broader struggle against radical jihadism that is bigger than any one group, whether it’s Al Qaida or ISIS or some other network.

Looking at Jeb Bush’s views expressed in his talk last week at The Citadel and his recent remarks at the Reagan Presidential Library, he says it’s a worldwide problem yet his proposed solutions only address two problem areas: “My strategy meets the unique circumstances in each of the two countries, Iraq and Syria, in which ISIS now has territory.”

He speaks of the importance of allies but again with the exception of Egypt and Tunisia, he only mentions countries in the Middle East:

In all of this, the United States must engage with friends and allies, and lead again in that vital region. Egypt and Saudi Arabia, the most populous Arab country and the wealthiest, are important partners of the United States. Those relationships have been badly mishandled by this administration. Both countries are key to a better-coordinated regional effort against terrorism. We need to restore trust, and work more closely with them against common threats. We have very capable partners, likewise, in the United Arab Emirates, who are willing and able to take the fight to the extremists. We have a moderate and quite formidable leader in King Abdullah of Jordan. We have an ally in the new democratic government in Tunisia, and a fragile democracy in Lebanon—nations that are both under assault by radicals and terrorists. Across the region, responsible governments need no persuading of what the moment requires.

In contrast, Hillary Clinton remarked:

We’ve had a lot of conversation about ISIS in the last week, let’s not forget al-Qaeda. They still have the most sophisticated bombmakers, ambitious plotters and active affiliates in places like Yemen and North Africa, so we can’t just focus on Iraq and Syria, we need to intensify our counter—our counterterrorism efforts on a wider scope.

What are their proposed solutions and are they feasible?

Again Jeb Bush’s strategy solutions focus on Iraq and Syria. For Iraq he is proposing the following actions:
– Support the Iraqi forces
– Consistent air power to support local ground forces
– Give current forces greater range of action
– Provide more support to the Kurds
– Diplomatic strategy for enduring political stability in Iraq

For Syria he proposes:
– A coordinated international effort is required to give Syria’s moderate forces the upper hand
– Expand and improve the recruitment and training of Syrian opposition fighters
– Establish multiple safe zones in Syria
– Along with partners create an expanding no fly zone to prevent more crimes by the regime

For me, he left unanswered how he would fight terrorism in other regions of the world.

Hillary Clinton’s strategy has three main elements:
– Defeat ISIS in Syria, Iraq, and across the Middle East.
– Disrupt and dismantle the growing terrorist infrastructure that facilitates the flow of fighters, financing, arms, and propaganda around the world.
– Harden our defenses and those of our allies against external and homegrown threats.

For each of these points, she provides a great deal of detail. At least for now her more thorough and detailed views seem to be winning over support. A Washington Post/ABC news poll indicated voters find her more trusted on handling the terrorism issue than her Republican rivals.

Clinton also stressed the importance of both political parties working together to defeat terrorism:

When New York was attacked on 9/11, we had a Republican president, a Republican governor and a Republican mayor, and I worked with all of them. We pulled together and put partisanship aside to rebuild our city and protect our country.

In his Reagan Library talk Bush stated:

Who can seriously argue that America and our friends are safer today than in 2009, when the President and Secretary Clinton—the storied ‘team of rivals’—took office? So eager to be the history-makers, they failed to be the peacemakers. It was a case of blind haste to get out, and to call the tragic consequences somebody else’s problem. Rushing away from danger can be every bit as unwise as rushing into danger, and the costs have been grievous.

I’m a firm believer in lessons learned but there is a lot of blame to go around. I think many would argue that Congressional gridlock and its bad relationship with the President has had a major negative impact on national security policy. I’ve blogged before about the toll sequestration has taken on our military forces.

Have Presidential Candidates Proposed Anything New In The Fight Against Terrorism?

President Obama has been steadfast in his refusal to put large numbers of U.S. ground forces in the fight. Both Bush and Clinton advocate using ground forces in coordination with Iraqi and moderate Syrian Forces; but Clinton also stresses the need “to move simultaneously toward a political solution to the civil war that paves the way for a new government with new leadership, and to encourage more Syrians to take on ISIS as well”. Both candidates also advocate establishing no fly zones something President Obama has also resisted.

I’m an avid football fan. One of the mantras the experts always say is defense wins championships. During my time in the military, the mantra was: you can’t win a war with out putting troops on the ground. I agree. As to the feasibility of Clinton and Bush’s proposals, I’m not sold on an approach that relies heavily on local forces to fight terrorism. I still believe the best approach is establishment of an organization like NATO but focused on fighting terrorism. It would also have a standing rapid deployment force made up of coalition members that could be called upon when needed. If I were Queen for a day, I would add that concept to both of their strategies.

Again my views are my own. I think I’ll end here.

Safin Hamed/AFP/Getty Images

In the wake of the Paris attacks, American politicians of all stripes are rushing to burnish their security credentials. In their proposals they are undermining the one measure that might exhibit America’s basic motives in Syria, while adding nothing to U.S. security. House bill 4038, imposing extra screenings on Syrian refugees, and calls by governors, including at least one Democrat, to deny them entry, ignore what refugees are.

Of course we must be vigilant against terrorism. Many measures aimed at border security, some very uncomfortable, may well prove necessary. But the politicians are aiming at exactly the wrong target. They need to recall certain facts.

First, a widely overlooked point: “refugee” has a very specific meaning in law and administrative practice, distinct from other types of migrant. The UN formally defines refugees as persons fleeing persecution, which is the necessary condition even to consider anyone for U..S refugee status. The Paris attackers were not refugees; they already lived in Europe. Several travelled to and from the Middle East, but only one attacker seems even to have moved along current refugee routes.

Second, fear that terrorists could infiltrate the refugee system is understandable for anyone unfamiliar with the U.S. process. But our existing system has multiple layers of monitoring and support, in effective, long-established practices. As noted by Ambassador Ryan Crocker in the Wall Street Journal, multiple agencies, including Homeland Security and the FBI, vet all refugee candidates under consideration. A U.S. diplomat, with experience processing Middle Eastern refugees, corroborates to me that every case undergoes a multi-phased examination before gaining refugee status.

Third, even before embarking for the U.S., refugees are connected to a resettlement organization, from one of several, long-established networks. These organizations, including my friends at the International Institute of Connecticut, work closely with incoming families and individuals. Agency staff implements the rigorous State Department-funded refugee resettlement program. Volunteers mentor each family, visiting regularly to aid in their settlement. It is a service rather than security monitoring, but the relationship keeps citizens of the local community in touch with resettling refugees.

Fourth, America does not have the communities of disaffected Middle Eastern immigrants that a terrorist needs, to build networks to plan, equip, stage, and launch attacks. Europe’s large populations of alienated Muslims are not present here, and our resettlement agencies do not dump new arrivals in any shadow-lands.

The terrorism risk posed by refugees, even specifically from Syria and Iraq, is effectively zero. Yes, rapid expansion could strain a network geared to earlier levels of activity; this would explain in part the small number of Syrian refugees—10,000—that the administration proposed to accept this fall. Large increases should be carefully planned and rigorously monitored. But to worry about radicals posing as Syrian refugees is to ignore the meaning of “refugee.”

Beyond the question of domestic security, Syria itself gives us very few pieces on which to build a palatable U.S. policy. The only real forces are ISIS and the Assad regime —which started a civil war in response to the Arab Spring. Two approaches are raised in our public discourse. The first is to establish a safe haven in Syria for Assad’s non-ISIS opponents. This keeps our hands unsullied, but requires collaboration with countries of many different stripes, and will have little direct effect on either ISIS or Assad. The second is to join pro-Assad Russia in an anti-ISIS coalition; aside from the difficulties highlighted by Turkey’s shoot-down of a Russian plane, the moral compromise here is clear.

If we must choose among such options, we will need somehow to assert a basic moral context around what will be a pragmatic choice. Islamist terrorists voice an anti-Liberal, anti-Western narrative calling us amoral and imperialistic. Choosing an evil that we calculate to be the lesser, without somehow exhibiting our overarching moral values, will help our enemies, “proving” their narrative for them.

Taking in refugees is a long standing sign of America’s best nature. The system is one of the functions in the U.S. government that has been managed, quietly and collaboratively between Congress and State, for years. Through long practice it meets the standard of responsible handling in all respects, including security.

Everyone is entitled to their concerns—fear is a response to danger. Some will still worry about refugees, even if they understand that our process already eliminates the risks. Exactly to the extent that we still carry this fear, taking in Syrians who cannot abide either ISIS or Assad becomes an act of courage, undertaken out of conviction in our values.

The headquarters of the DGSE, one of France’s numerous intelligence agencies, is known as “the swimming pool.” Intelligence will play a central role in efforts to combat terrorism. (Photo: franceculture.fr)

Whenever something unexpected happens, the airwaves immediately fill with the sound of pundits calling for the President to scrap whatever it is the government has been doing that is tangentially related, and start over again with something else. Thus, the recent terrorist attacks in Paris were met with assertions that Obama’s strategy against the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria (ISIS) was not working and had to be changed. This, however, is not the right way to look at it. I think it is more accurate to say that the president’s strategy has been working in Iraq and Syria, but ISIS is now reacting to the setbacks in innovative ways.

In 2014 ISIS spread across eastern Syria and western Iraq in a rapid, sudden, and unexpected way. The advance left such a strong impression that some people seem to think that it is continuing. Yet, at this point, ISIS has largely been brought to a halt. Moreover, it has been losing territory.

According to the Pentagon, as of April 2015, ISIS “can no longer operate freely in roughly 25 to 30 percent of populated areas of Iraqi territory where it once could.” (This calculation, presumably, leaves out the extensive empty desert areas that fall within ISIS’s borders.) The road between Raqqa and Mosul has been cut. Thousands of fighters have been killed. The Iraqi army has not been vigorous in its attempts to retake the most recent ISIS acquisition, the city of Ramadi (and in some cases may actually be happy to see the Sunnis kept outside of Baghdad’s jurisdiction and elections), but even there ISIS is physically surrounded and isolated.

War, however, is a highly interactive enterprise. Rather than simply taking its hits on the ground, ISIS has responded by shifting part of the fight to a different theater—one that features a different balance of advantages and disadvantages. As I have noted before, ISIS does not have a tradition of terrorist attacks against distant targets. This was a point of dispute between al-Qaeda’s Osama bin Laden and the founder of ISIS’ predecessor organizations, Abu Musab al-Zarqawi.

Both sought ultimately to depose the (un-Islamic or insufficiently Islamic) regimes of the Middle East (the near enemy). Bin Laden, however, saw these regimes as sustained by the West (the far enemy) and therefore directed his attacks at the West to induce Western countries to drop their support. Al-Zarqawi attacked Middle Eastern regimes directly or sought to incite civil conflicts within these countries as a way to increase local support for his cause. The 2003 invasion of Iraq, by bringing the far enemy near, led to a temporary alignment between the two, and to Zarqawi’s founding of al-Qaeda in Iraq.

In recent weeks, however, ISIS and its affiliates have engaged in an unprecedented series of attacks at distant targets.* Although some of the details have yet to be confirmed, these acts include suicide bombings at a Kurdish peace rally in Ankara, Turkey; the destruction of a Russian airliner over Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula; suicide bombings in a Shiite neighborhood in Beirut, Lebanon; and most recently, the  attacks against random civilians by three coordinated teams of gunmen and suicide bombers in Paris. Unable to prevail against technically advanced forces on the battlefield, ISIS is shifting the battle to a place where it is in a better position to inflict costs directly on those countries that have taken up arms against it.

It is highly unlikely that the leaders of ISIS have ever read the works of Thomas Schelling, but these actions can be interpreted in terms of his notion of coercive threats, which include both deterrence and compellence.** Schelling, who played a large role in the development of deterrence theory, was the originator of the notion of compellence. The basic concept, deterrence, uses threats of retaliation to induce an adversary not to engage in some behavior that you want to prevent (e.g., Don’t attack me!). The derivative concept, compellence, is the use of threats or actual violence to compel an adversary to stop or change some behavior that is already under way (e.g., Stop attacking me!). Schelling reasoned that compellence would be the more difficult of the two inasmuch as it required a change in the status quo rather than the maintenance of the status quo. Both, however, entailed the manipulation of the adversary’s perceived costs and benefits so as to convince the adversary of the wisdom of avoiding, or ceasing, the undesired behavior.

Thus the recent attacks most likely represent a further round in the “natural” escalation of the sectarian war in Iraq and Syria—one carried out in the spirit of compellence. The expanding war on the ground has drawn in a number of outside powers who are concerned about the balance of power in the Middle East and eager to prevent an ISIS victory. These interventionists supply their preferred local factions, directly participate in ground combat, or in the case of the Western powers, bomb ISIS positions from the air.

Unable to defeat modern air forces, ISIS is raising the costs of intervention by attacking their homelands and killing their citizens, hoping to undermine their willingness to remain engaged in a distant fight in a foreign land. In the Vietnam War, the United States similarly used bombing in an attempt to raise the costs of war to the North Vietnamese and Viet Cong, in the hope that they would recalculate their relative costs and benefits, pack their bags, and go home. Unfortunately for the strategy in that instance, the Vietnamese were already home and it was the United States that packed its bags. Compared with that, ISIS’s use of compellence is far more logical.

ISIS runs the risk, of course, of eliciting a backlash in the form of even more intense bombing. Deterrence theory suggests an additional response. The Western powers should strive for “escalation dominance.”*** ISIS is seeking to fight on a battlefield of its choosing, one where the circumstances favor it over its adversaries. Its adversaries will have to make sure that no such battlefield exists. That does not necessarily mean changing strategy in Iraq and Syria (although one may choose to adjust it for other reasons). It means creating the capacity to defeat ISIS at other levels—thus removing the incentive to escalate—while the fight in Iraq and Syria continues.

Since the nature of the fight differs, the means will have to differ as well. Stealthy terrorist attacks against soft civilian targets in home cities cannot be combatted with battalions or fighter jets. It calls for police action, surveillance of suspected terrorists, cutting communications and travel links between ISIS headquarters and its operatives abroad, countering ISIS ideology and recruitment efforts, and improving relations between Muslim communities in the West and their host societies.

This approach will not satisfy those seeking a quick and easy answer. Unfortunately, quick and easy answers have a tendency to make things worse.

*For this argument’s sake, we shall assume that these actions have been directed by a central ISIS command and are not simply the products of inspiration or loosely networked organizations.

**The noun normally associated with the verb “compel” is compulsion, but Schelling was not happy with all of that word’s existing connotations, so he invented a new word.

***Herman Kahn developed this notion with reference to escalation among finely measured gradations of nuclear war. In my opinion, the expectation of controlling nuclear war with such precision is unrealistic. In the present context, however, the idea might be more useful.

via Flickr’ user mg-muscapix

While the U.S. is inching closer to pre-crisis unemployment and GDP growth figures, the picture across the pond is much, much darker. The Eurozone, once the darling of economists and businessmen everywhere, is unable to wiggle its way out of a quagmire of depressed investments, contracting exports, low employment and external shocks. The third-quarter growth figures, released on November 13, were underwhelming and fell beneath the expectations of analysts, further dispelling the hopeful notion that 2015 will be the year the Euro will boom. Instead of a predicted 0.4% growth, the 19 members of the currency bloc clocked in at 0.3% as Germany slowed, Portugal caved and Finland out-shrank even debt-laden Greece.

While a full, sector-by-sector breakdown of the economic contributions of every member state will be released in December, Barclays estimates that “domestic demand, and in particular private consumption, was once again the main contributor to GDP growth”. However, saying that consumption was responsible for keeping the Euro area in the green isn’t an epiphany—what is, however, is the extent to which exports slowed and imports rose. If historically net trade served as the engine of growth for the Euro economy as a whole (especially for export-dependent Germany), pundits, faced with a slump in emerging markets, anticipate consumption to become the dominant force in European growth. Indeed, consumption can be held responsible for the strong performance of the Euro area’s industrial production, which rose by 1.9% in the three months to September.

With unemployment refusing to budge downwards from its 11% summit, inflation barely registering at 0.1%, the onus is now on the ECB to accelerate its stimulus program ahead of a key meeting in December.

However, it’s not just global market trends that are responsible for the Eurozone’s flagging exports. In certain sectors, it is European policy itself that is to blame. Take the Small and Medium Enterprises (SME) sector, seen as the backbone of the European economy. Unlike their American counterparts, EU SMEs are ill-fitted to secure financing, partly because the EU lacks a capital markets union, but also because EU funds are slowly trickling down and not across all sectors. For example, even if the European start-up economy benefits from a talented pool of STEM graduates that surpasses the U.S.’, the lack of collaboration between tech hubs and dependency on outside funding has meant that almost no innovative products have come from Europe. While the U.S. raised financing totaling some $39 billion in the first three quarters of 2015, the EU lagged far behind with $7.43 billion. Venture capital is so fragmented and caught up in red tape that European startups have to turn to the U.S. to secure funding, leading a CEO to exclaim: “How come we can’t get funding right in Europe?”

And it’s not just access to financing: sometimes competing European interests collide, dealing blows to European competitiveness and growth. Even if more than 600,000 EU SMEs are part of the export ecosystem, generating over a third of EU exports and employing more than six million people throughout the continent, their capacity to grow has in some respects been curtailed by poorly tailored policies. According to industry sources, adapting to regulations is a topic of growing concern, consistently ranking in the three most pressing problems faced by SMEs across the European Union.

A vivid example concerns the lowly aluminum foil sector, where an over-eager trade policy has led to significant job losses that eventually put at risk the viability of the entire sector. The European Commission placed anti-dumping tariffs upon aluminum foil imported from China, Brazil and Armenia back in 2009, ostensibly in a bid to protect businesses in the EU from the typically unfair trade practice of selling goods or commodities at a rate far below the ordinary market value. A similar action is now on the table for Russian exports. But with 80% of the production costs for the European SMEs rewinding foil into supermarket rolls, cutting off the source of raw materials can only bode ill on the industry as a whole. In safeguarding this principle, thousands of workers spread across several dozen EU SMEs involved in the chopping down of the so-called “jumbo rolls” into the household items used in kitchens everywhere are now at risk of losing their jobs, posing a threat to the European aluminum rewinder industry as a whole.

Therefore, the European economy is sputtering not just because the Chinese economy is in for a rough landing, nor because of growing political uncertainties attributable to rising Eurosceptic feelings—that would be an over simplistic analysis of the structural risks underpinning the much-expected and twice delayed European recovery. The truth is that the European economy is getting harder and harder to manage and understand by Brussels. The sad cliché that makes EU specialists chuckle is still relevant—there is no such thing as a silver bullet that can restart EU growth, what is needed is a coordinated institutional response.

Presidents Milosevic, Tudjman, and Izetbegovic formalize in Paris the Dayton Accords initialed weeks earlier, Wikimedia, http://bit.ly/1NZD6TG

The 20th anniversary of the Dayton Accords (November 21, 1995) is much in the news. A conference this week at the University of Dayton includes President Bill Clinton and several principles from the negotiations. HBO’s documentary, The Diplomat, explores Dayton’s chief negotiator, Richard Holbrooke. Continuing trouble in divided societies like Iraq, Syria, Ukraine and elsewhere illustrates how significant was the Dayton agreement that ended the war in Yugoslavia. But many questions remain.

A wide range of analysts are reassessing Dayton. The U.S. Institute of Peace was ahead of the curve, with a conference in 2014. More recently, Stratfor described the risk of declining EU influence in Bosnia, and the risk of renewed violence. The Weekly Standard offered a withering analysis of the agreement, cementing ethnic divisions as political divisions (three presidents, three police forces, etc.), discriminating against other minorities, and creating an EU colonial master—all of which resulted in a stagnant and unreformed economy. Two scholars in The Washington Post described Dayton as a terrible model for understanding Syria—misunderstanding (as they said Dayton did) the causes of the war and the solutions. An article in Foreign Policy asked straight out: Is war about to break out in the Balkans?

Based on my recent travels in Serbia and Bosnia, it seems clear that the relationships inside Bosnia and between Bosnia and Serbia remain strained, at best. Competing narratives over history, that now includes the 1990s and the subsequent peace, continue. And the role of Islam itself remains a seemingly minor, but not fully understood, factor.

Young Serbs feel judged, and misjudged, as the perpetrators of genocide rather than as one side of a complicated story, or even as victims. This summer’s commemorations of the 1995 massacre in Srebrenica were a continuation of a Western narrative, they say, that forgets or deliberately obscures atrocities on all sides, and that overstates an admittedly terrible war crime as genocide. They recognize that their path to Europe, that is, membership in the EU, has been delayed for a variety of reasons but not least of all because of these prejudices against them.

In Bosnia, meanwhile, the divided government contributes to an anemic economy, with an unemployment rate of 60% for young people. Bosnian Serbs have special access to Serbia, including Serbian passports, and therefore a possible future route into the EU economy. Bosnian Croats can get Croatian passports, making them essentially already members of the EU. Bosniaks, whom we called in the 1990s Bosnian Muslims, are being pulled in competing directions by Turkey and Saudi Arabia. The number of Bosniaks attracted to ISIS or other jihadi groups remains limited, but not zero.

A farmer in Bugojno, Bosnia, http://govt396.com/2014/10/19/back-to-bosnia-gallery-1/

A critical difference, however, seems to be the view of the future. The many young Serbs I met were embarrassed and frustrated by the indignities that their country still bears for its role in the war of the 1990s. And it has not forgotten the NATO bombing of their country in 1999—indeed, it leaves the partially-destroyed former Ministry of Defense building “as is” on a major thoroughfare. But the young Serbs were at least hopeful that membership in the EU, that golden ticket, was a possibility and indeed was nearing, however slowly.

The young people I met in Sarajevo—equally smart and ambitious and hardworking as their Belgrade peers—had no such hope. They knew that the political divisions within their country, many of which were driven by the same divisions that led to war in the 1990s and that were made permanent by the Dayton Accords, prevent any reasonable path to the EU, and even any reasonable working governance in their own country.  Two young women I talked with said they wanted to rebuild a multi-ethnic country, but that the economy, health care, and corruption compelled many of their friends to emigrate.  Bosnia’s most recent elections were decently run, but seemed to offer few solutions.

The danger for Bosnia, Europe, and all of us, is that this hopelessness will allow violence—ethnic or jihadi—to re-emerge. The task for the EU, for Bosnia’s benefit and for its own, is to help Bosnia find a new path forward.