Stalemate: Who is Russia Neutral Against?

Your Move

The permanent members of the United Nations Security Council are discovering that the group’s diplomatic efficacy is beginning to fade.  On the other hand, its strategic worth as a medium for deadlock is becoming evident as it now more closely resembles the global equivalent to a Congressional filibuster.   While it may not be new, it is becoming more common for Britain, France, and the United States to vote one way with Russia and China voting a completely different way, typically when it concerns external intervention in a domestic conflict, the most recent example centered on President Assad’s violent crackdown on protestors in Syria.  While the reasons for their divergence from the West may be many, a common perception is that there is a strong hesitation by these two particular permanent members to vote for intervention in a country’s internal affairs because they too experience similar challenges within their own borders; primarily Russia and the restive republics of the Caucuses and China’s ongoing struggles in Tibet and Xinjiang.  Although they are not always alone in their dissent from mainstream diplomatic policy initiatives from the West (India for example sometimes votes the way of Russia and China for very similar concerns over their own conflict in Kashmir), it is the veto power of Russia and China that so damagingly grinds to a halt progress on a number of important security issues.  However, I would disagree that the positions of Russia and China on the Syria issue are based solely on concerns within their own borders as this claim fails to capture the encompassing strategic aims of these countries.

The problem with the most recent departure by Russia and China from the Arab League sponsored UN resolution is that it appears to support President Assad directly rather than opting for passive non-intervention as is usually the case.  Meanwhile Russia continues to provide arsenals of weaponry to the Assad regime, which are then in turn used on civilian populations.

The need for United Nations structural reform is long overdue, and it would be difficult to argue that there is any value in a post-World War II designed apparatus dictating policy for 21^st century challenges which bear little resemblance to the challenges of the post-war era.   More concerning than the structural failings of the UN, however, is the underlying motivation behind the departures by Russia in particular which has turned itself into such a prominent player in the Syria crisis.  While it is easier to pin down and identify the ambitions of China and understand the motivations behind many of their actions and opinions, the task of uncovering Russia’s aims is even murkier.

China’s aims are as complex as they are separate from Russia’s, despite what appears to be their frequent collaboration together in the Security Council, and therefore deserving of attention in a separate post.  The main purpose of this post is to explore Russia’s primary objectives as they relate to the ongoing crisis in Syria and to explore the underlying motivations which both influence this objective and set the stage for Russia’s wider grand strategy.  In the great game of geopolitics, what is it that drives Russia to make its moves?  Why does Russia consistently vote against Europe and the US in the UN Security Council and why is Russia so adamant now in Syria.  With the upcoming Russian elections in March the chatter is going to increasingly focus on domestic developments on the ground in Moscow, but also their wider implications on a vast array of issues currently at the forefront of diplomacy, not least including Russia’s stances towards Syria.  As explosive as the situation was in Syria on a regional level, it has now also found itself a pawn in a strategic game of geopolitical chess between Russia and the West.

I have made the point in previous posts that, for a number of reasons, I am highly skeptical and critical of Russia’s inclusion as a member of the emerging BRIC countries.  My primary criticism is not a political one; I am critical of China’s political system, but agree that it has a firm place in the BRIC club of nations due to what I see as a more vibrant and solid economy. My critique of Russia is that it distinctly lacks a dynamic economy, relying primarily on energy exports and defense and arms contracts to suspect nations.  In this way Russia’s economy is more akin to a Gulf State, oligarchic and ultimately unstable.  This is not enough on which to build an equitable, sustainable, and competitive economy in the long term.  Russia also realizes this, which is why it pulls other levers at its disposal.

Syria, in particular, is a massive client of Russia’s weapons trade.  The same weapons being used against pro-democracy demonstrators are manufactured and then distributed by Russia.

Russia’s Wrong Move

Of course the argument can be made that there is always a moral imperative when the wider world becomes aware of atrocities occurring within a particular country.  Unfortunately, but realistically, this is not enough to justify intervention for most, including the West or the Arab League, and often times there needs to be a long-term strategic imperative which impacts a country’s long term national interests.  There is hypocrisy on all sides of this issue, and most certainly, and especially in the case of the nations of the Arab League, their own strategic long term self-interest.  But because of their veto, it is going to be Russia and China who are remembered by Syrians for looking the other way from Assad’s non-stop crackdown.  Yes, the Arab League’s motivations are likely driven to neutralize one of Iran’s most prized players in the realpolitik chess game that is the Middle East, with wide ranging implications on the Sunni/Shia struggle in the wider region.  The Arab League is an organization comprised of some equally oppressive regimes, including Saudi Arabia, Bahrain and the other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council, but they are united by their mutual fear and apprehension of a rising Iran with nuclear capabilities with a staunch Arab ally at the doorstep.  Despite their arguments at the UN, their collective interest in Syria is not necessarily humanitarian in nature.  After all, it was just less than a year ago, and spearheaded by the intervention of the Gulf Cooperation Council, that the members of the Arab League looked the other way when Bahrain’s government violently assaulted and imprisoned pro-democracy demonstrators in 2011.  The United States and Europe also remained mum in Bahrain’s own homegrown democratic movement.  But unlike Bahrain, Syria lacks the oil deposits and is clearly crumbling, although in a different way from Libya before it.

Checkmate

The efficiency with which NATO was able to assist the rebels in Libya in overthrowing Gaddafi was an alarming signal to Russia that the alliance, despite its weaknesses and areas for improvement, is still ultimately capable of furthering the initiatives of its members.  Russia’s old Cold War enemy in NATO finds itself continually at the center of security and diplomacy, as far away as Afghanistan and now most recently in Libya.  The relevance or hard strength of Russia’s post-Cold War security arrangements, such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization, remains to be seen.  Aside from diplomatic deadlock, Russia has yet to pull new tricks from its strategic arsenal.

Due largely to the acts of Russia, supported by China, and to the disappointment of the Arab League and the  the Western powers, it is going to be the Syrian people who find themselves the losing pawns in a game extending beyond that of Syrian regime.

But Russia too might lose in the long run.  The days of President Assad’s regime may be numbered and the impact, for better or for worse, are widely unknown.  Instead of attempting to prop him up, Russia should consider setting the stage for good relations with a possible alternative Syrian government, perhaps the Syrian National Transition Council, if it really wants to put its long term strategic interests in Syria first.  Publicly and vehemently aligning so closely to a regime which is weakening daily as it continues to exact murder towards civilian populations on a mass scale might be Moscow’s most strategic blunder on this issue.  Russia, no doubt led by soon to be re-anointed president Vladimir Putin, is clearly making short term moves that will set the stage for what will likely become an awkward situation should the Assad regime collapse.  Ironically enough, when it comes to Moscow’s inherent objectives in maintaining its only Mediterranean naval base and securing one of its largest recipients of arms, it might be Russia who finds itself in checkmate after all.

What Lies Beneath: Truth and Reconciliation in Sri Lanka

Trouble in Paradise

Sri Lanka is probably one of the most stunningly beautiful places I have ever visited in my life.  Idyllic, palm tree lined and white sandy beaches, tropical forests dotting the valleys of majestic mountain ranges, and unrelentingly photogenic tea estate-lined hillsides are the images that I was left with after recently returning from my trip.  My general interactions with the people of Sri Lanka mirrored the beauty of the country itself; friendly, gentle, warm, and hospitable.  A bit to my own surprise, Sri Lanka was not a challenging country to travel through and I feel that we have certainly “roughed it” it more elsewhere in some of our other travels.  Perhaps this is why it is so hard to believe, and even more difficult to remember, that it was only just under three years ago that a ceasefire was declared in a civil war which lasted over a quarter a century and which claimed the lives of tens of thousands of civilians.  Having been aware of the political and security situation in Sri Lanka over the last several years I would have expected more overt signs of the recent pains experienced here.  Instead, it was almost as if there was a widespread feeling that the war had never occurred at all.  In one sense this could be positive, signaling perhaps a national psyche that wants to move on and close this horrific chapter of their history.  In another sense, and in light of the government’s increasing consolidation of power and the devolution of democratic institutions, state repression of the opposition, and charges of ongoing and pervasive human rights abuses in the Tamil north, the picture of calm and serenity in the tourist circuits of the South suggest that perhaps there is something more sinister and unresolved lurking beneath the beautiful surface.  If this is the case, and for Sri Lanka to reach its full potential as a functional member of the international community of modern democracies, it is for the benefit of all Sri Lankans, both Tamil and Sinhalese, that the grievous charges of war crimes committed by the government on civilian populations during the final days of the civil war are investigated and the appropriate officials of the regime are held accountable to international laws governing the rules of warfare.  The same would also apply to the terrorist Liberation Tigers of Timal Eelam (“Tamil Tigers” or “LTTE”) who also committed atrocities on civilian populations, but there are few members who remain and many “missing” since the organization was mostly utterly dismantled and destroyed by government military forces in 2009.

There is no doubt that tourism in Sri Lanka is on the rise.  Although we were fortunate enough to travel there while it is relatively untouched, it is quickly becoming a more popular destination for European and Australian travelers who are seeking an exotic, affordable, and pristine sun holiday.  Indeed, the government has rightly made it a national priority to invest in and expand a tourist friendly environment, which still remains relatively undeveloped in comparison to its neighbors, as a way to spur economic growth in a country which lacks any major sophisticated industry.  The ideal scenario would be that the government’s efforts simultaneously benefit all Sri Lankans economically while serving the dual purpose of sharing the rich cultural heritage, history, and beauty of Sri Lanka with the outside world in a sustainable way.  But, despite the ceasefire in 2009, I am concerned that this fate is not yet sealed and that things could deteriorate once again, despite the increasing number of visitors each year.

Why Worry?

Mahindra Rajapaksa and his United People’s Freedom Alliance, after their success in crushing the Tamil Tiger rebellion in the north, swept the presidential and parliamentary polls in 2010, in turn providing Mr. Rajakpaksa with an unchallenged mandate to govern.  Since then, the domestic political situation has raised cause for concern.  Having visited several countries that are subjected to above average levels of authoritarianism, I have developed a knack in sensing when something is just not quite right in a place.  One tell-tale sign is when the leader feels the need to put up pictures of himself all over the country.  When the leader also puts up pictures of his brother, who just happens to run the military, then you know something is amiss.  As a local or a tourist, it is difficult to go anywhere in Sri Lanka without being reminded that it is the Rajapaksa family that is in control.

Since the end of the civil war, Mr. Rajapaksa has shown signs that he intends to establish a dynastic rule of the country, with his three brothers in charge of key government ministries, including the armed forces, while he grooms his son in parliament as an eventual successor to his presidency.  The 18^th amendment to the constitution has removed term limits and given him the power to directly appoint all key members of the judiciary, police, and bureaucracy.  Independence of institutions has completely eroded to an extreme beyond that of even the war years, allowing his regime to operate domestically with impunity.   Most recently in 2011, the Rajapaksa government finally repealed the nationwide emergency law which had been in place for decades, but only to replace it with the Prevention of Terrorism Act which specifically targets ethnic Tamils for arbitrary arrest, interrogation, and indefinite detention without due process.  Although humanitarian organizations including the International Red Cross have requested permission to visit these detention centers, the government consistently denies access.

In a country where censorship is prevalent and the press is increasingly centrally controlled, it is nearly impossible for citizens to obtain reliable and truthful informatoin.  The rights group, Journalists for Democracy in Sri Lanka, estimates that since August 2009, 34 journalists have been killed, 10 have disappeared, and 50 have had to leave the country due to fears for personal safety.  Journalism has proven to be an incredibly dangerous profession in Sri Lanka and, as a result, newspapers and television programs will now only tow the government line with little in the way of debate or honest national dialogue.

Meanwhile, the wounds sustained from the Sri Lankan Army’s brutal crackdown on civilians in Tamil areas have not healed due to a government guideline of official denial.  A United Nations-commissioned report released by Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon on the humanitarian disaster which remained after the ceasefire confirmed that once rebel-held areas were captured or when rebels surrendered and a “no fire zone” or safe zone was declared, a campaign of terror against the civilian population by the army was undertaken which included the shelling of villages, the targeted bombing of hospitals and schools, depriving access to medicine, food, water, and other internationally sanctioned aid, the rape, torture and execution of prisoners, and the internment of women and children in concentration camps.

While it is certainly true that the government was not alone in the atrocities committed against civilians towards the end of the war, and that the LTTE is responsible for comparable crimes against humanity including the abduction and conscription of child soldiers, the reality is that they are not the ones currently in charge of Sri Lanka.  Therefore the highly weakened and defeated LTTE commands a lower share of my cause for concern than that of the Rajapaksa regime that is still in a position to enact horrific policies and actions on a disturbingly damaging scale.

The International Community

While it is not realistic for the West to police the world and protect all the disenfranchised people on the planet, in this case there are non-governmental organizations which could be held culpable if the situation in Sri Lanka spirals out of control once again.  Approved in 2009, the IMF granted approval for several tranches of loans to aid in the post-war recovery of Sri Lanka, contingent upon “considerable reductions in military expenditure” and the “creation of safety nets for war-displaced people”.  Interestingly, and due to their doubts that Sri Lanka could honor these terms, Britain and the United States abstained from the discussion altogether.  On the first point the Asian Development Bank forecasted that defense spending increased by over 6 percent in 2011 and aid organizations on the ground confirm that the most affected communities continue to live in slums that were once villages.

To make matters worse, the Presidential Task Force for Resettlement, Development, and Security, the organization which Rajapaksa agreed to create in order to meet the second condition for IMF funding, has instead acted as an administrative unit in the north which makes decisions on the distribution and use of land, frequently confiscating property from ethnic Tamils and re-apportioning it as housing for the massive military presence in the north and east.  It is clear that the terms of the loan are not being adhered to and for the IMF to continue to either fund the regime or allow the terms of the agreement to be breached will sorely undermine the strength of the institution in enforcing agreements, not to mention seriously diminishing their moral credibility.

Discussion has swirled about this perceived “slow” progress in meeting criteria, and as a result of what the regime sees as increasing international pressures to investigate the war crimes committed towards the end of the civil war Mr. Rajapaksa established the Lessons Learnt and Reconciliation Commission in order to provide an objective and transparent medium to scrutinize these claims.  So far this commission has been criticized in the international community as a stunt, not adhering to any credible standards of objectivity and not providing any details on methods and infrastructure that would adequately pursue its purpose.  Meanwhile, the cries for justice continue to get louder from victims and survivors with appeals aimed at the UN Human Rights Council specifically.

This is not a new appeal.  In the spring of 2009, I recall the mass demonstrations here in London by ethnic Tamils in an effort to raise awareness about the bloodshed occurring in the north and east of Sri Lanka during these final days of the war.  The objective then, as it still is now, was to encourage international intervention, led by the United Nations, by providing observers and a peacekeeping mission to protect civilians.  Within the UN, led by the efforts of the usual dissenters Russia and China on such human rights issues, and under the guise of “Southern Solidarity” with several influential developing countries including Venezuela, Cuba, Egypt, Iran, Pakistan, Indonesia, Vietnam, and the Philippines, these appeals continue to fall onto deaf ears.  India, seeking to balance a check on influence in Sri Lanka by Pakistan and China, avoiding the internationalization of its own conflicts in Kashmir, and seeking regional stability for continued economic growth in the region, also falls short of applying pressure.  The official government response from the Rajapaksa regime is that the defeat of any such UN resolution is a “defeat of the foreign affairs apparatuses of the European Union, the Western dominated international media, international NGOs, and the pro-Tamil Tiger Diaspora.  The Rajapaksa regime has become very clever at galvanizing supporters with anti-imperial, East versus West rhetoric in order to carry on with its crimes.

Prospects for the Future

As it stands now and if circumstances carry on unresolved, I see only two scenarios for Sri Lanka in the medium term.  At best Sri Lanka will remain a beautiful, tourist friendly country lacking democratic institutions with a large marginalized minority in the north or at worst it will find itself back in armed conflict just as it did in 2002 after the failure of the first ceasefire.  There are credible indications that the second fate is just as probable as the first.  Democratic institutions are in ruins, there have been no attempts at reconciliation between communities, and there has been no progress on Tamil grievances regarding economic opportunity, equality and political representation which caused the conflict in the first place.  The muted response thus far by the international community has given Mr. Rajapaksa carte blanche with how he chooses to pursue policy in post-civil war Sri Lanka and the signs have not been encouraging.  Human rights activists and political opponents of both Sinhalese and Tamil origin continue to disappear mysteriously.  As the situations becomes more dire from all those affected, frustration and hostility by ethnic Tamil’s who view their situation as hopeless and some of whom view the Tamil Tigers are martyred freedom fighters, may decide to trigger a new era of conflict.  The world should not be so naïve as to ignore the fact that desperation, bitterness, fear and poverty are the key ingredients for militancy.

It is obvious, based on all of the internal developments since 2009 that change will not come from the Rajapaksa government alone and that they will need an impetus from outside.  The US, EU, and Japan have unofficially expressed their disappointment with the current government’s reconciliation efforts, but they each fall short on actions.  Recently there have been discussions in the US House Foreign Affairs Committee to draft a measure that would ban US government funding to Sri Lanka aside from humanitarian aid and activities in the promotion of democracy.  Even in the southern Indian state of Tamil Nadu the chief minister has become the first Indian politician to promote the internationalization of the government’s human rights abuses.  For the sake of all of the people of Sri Lanka, one can only hope that diplomacy and multilateralism will succeed in extinguishing the simmering tensions beneath the surface, but there is an extremely long way to go.

Out of Eden   

The highlight of my trip came when we hiked Adam’s Peak on New Year’s Eve morning.  The peak is among the top three holiest sites in Sri Lanka, sacred to Buddhists, Hindus, Christians and Muslims alike, each believing that at the summit there is a footprint of Buddha, Shiva, and Adam respectively.  Hiking through the night among the pilgrims and reaching the top, standing above the clouds at dawn, peering across the mountain lined horizons and forests below it is easy to see how this land could have easily been the setting for a mythical Garden of Eden.  Because of the sheer grandeur of the landscapes, every moment in Sri Lanka is an opportunity to forget the past.

I will always remember a conversation I had with a local while on one of the most scenic and awe-inspiring journeys of our trip.  Riding a tuk tuk from the base camp town near Adam’s Peak back to Hatton in order to catch our train to Ella, I casually asked our friendly driver Ravi, a Tamil, about the war.  His response was chillingly optimistic, and had an air of rehearsal within it.  “Everyone is happy now, all Sri Lankans, no more war”.  My sincere hope is that someday, when Sri Lanka finally becomes the paradise that the people deserve, Ravi can say this and genuinely mean it.

The Year Ahead: What’s Next After 2011?

The Futility of Predictions

On January 1^st, 2011, standing at the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem, then paying one more visit to the Dome of the Rock before our flight back to London, I could not have predicted then the events that would transpire in the world in the year ahead.  Having just visited several countries in the Middle East, including Syria, I had formulated a number of opinions and insights based on my observations.  In hindsight, several of my short term predictions for 2011 couldn’t have been more far off, including my belief that Syria would begin to liberalize politically and that the Assad regime would seek more openness to the West.  Instead, as I write this post the civilian death count at the hands of Assad’s security forces mounts, the Arab League continues to apply unprecedented financial and diplomatic pressure on the regime, causing further isolation for Assad and driving him even closer to Iran, and a growing insurrection from Baathist army defectors threatens to encompass the country in a full-fledged civil war.  If you review my original travel post on LondonCosmopolitan, you will see that this was not quite what I expected at the start of 2011 and that the events which have transpired in Syria over the last 10 months is a disappointing development in a country where just over a year ago there were indeed positive signs of political development and economic progress.  Syria is just one among an entire host of countries which shared a common theme throughout 2011.  The last year witnessed numerous, sudden, and unexpected changes on a range issues across a broad geographic spectrum.  Much of it was tinged with elements of social unrest, political upheaval, and civil revolt, all of which sought to challenge an established and accepted status quo in their respective geographies.  The effects of these events will carry on into 2012 and beyond.

Looking back to January 2011 I could not have predicted then most of the events that would come to define the year including the fall of Ben Ali in Tunisia, the eventual overthrow of Mubarak in Egypt, the civil war in Libya and Qaddafi’s ultimate demise, or the killing of Osama bin Laden in Pakistan after a nine and a half year manhunt.  Taken in context, the year carried on at break neck speed with devastating natural disasters in Japan, Australia, New Zealand, and the American South, turmoil and protests throughout European capitals as a result of government austerity measures, the wider “Occupy” movement which swept the entire planet, sudden and violent riots in London, a sustained escalation in Mexico’s drug war, wide scale self-immolations in China by Tibetan protestors, the Palestinian Authority’s attempt and ultimate failure at statehood recognition in the UN, popular protest against Putin’s United Russia, and the death of Kim Jong Il in North Korea.  Furthermore, with the  Standard & Poor’s credit downgrade of the US, the worsening global financial crisis and the Eurozone calamity it is clear to see that 2011 will be remembered as a period of high drama and historical significance to a degree of which no one could have anticipated and which will alter the geopolitical and economic landscapes for many years to come.

This year on January 1^st I spent the day hiking through the hill town of Ella in Sri Lanka and in light of the shocking preceding year, I did not attempt to forecast what would transpire in the year 2012.  As of my travels, Sri Lanka was at peace and the ceasefire between the Sinhalese led government and the Tamil Tigers is being honored.  While the sentiment on the ground is mostly positive, there are disturbing signs that hostilities and atrocities remain, making the outlook for 2012 uncertain at best.  We cannot predict the outcome of anything, but I will however argue that the events of 2011, as dramatic and compelling as they were, are left incomplete and will undoubtedly continue to develop and grow in complexity throughout 2012.  In this way I can assume that 2012 will eclipse 2011 in terms of global and historic significance.  Year end reviews and outlooks for the year ahead often incorrectly view a year through a linear and finite lens, almost like a film with a beginning and an end which starts at Day 1 with a finale closing the loop of the plot on Day 365.  In reality, the events of 2011 were not standalone storylines with clear resolutions and closure, but were rather the impetus for future events to come.  If 2011 was a dramatic and thrilling film, then it concluded with a suspenseful cliffhanger whose sequel will be played out in 2012.  Based on the prior year and recent developments thus far in 2012, I highlight below the main topics that will require attention and which will be discussed in further detail in subsequent posts as the year moves forward and these stories develop.

Seeds of Democracy in the Middle East

In 2011 I rightfully devoted a significant amount of time discussing events in the Middle East.  The democratic movements which swept the region in 2011 should no longer be referred to in 2012 by their cleverly given media names, nor should they be substituted with new catchy phrases such as “Arab Winter” or “Arab Awakening”.   The initial events which caused the related, but slightly disparate movements which came to be collectively known as the “Arab Spring” are in the past.  In 2012 the political developments occurring throughout the Arab world are going to be more transitional in nature as these countries embark on a long journey towards reform with each country facing very different challenges and suffering setbacks along the way as they each attempt to reconcile their unique circumstances.

The West, after fledgling regime change experiments in Iraq and Afghanistan, may need to become comfortable with the fact that there is not a universal template for functional democracy that can be applied to these distinct countries and that democracy must evolve and adapt in different ways based on a country’s historic and cultural backgrounds, just as it has in Europe, North America, and Asia.  Tunisia will be largely concerned with ensuring ongoing progress toward institutional reform, balancing Islamism and liberalism, while Egypt will grapple with the fact that the far right Salafist movement gains in popularity, eclipsing even the influence of the Muslim Brotherhood.  Libya faces internal instability due to a lack of political infrastructure and weak institutions and faces a risk of tribal conflict as rebel groups lose patience and may seek more immediate control over certain areas to get things moving again.  Meanwhile, rising unemployment and worsening economic conditions, one of the main catalysts for revolt in each of these countries in the first place, remains a serious threat to stability.  Syria, most seriously of all and with perhaps the worst prognosis, faces the reality of an all out civil war which could encompass the greater region in conflict, from Lebanon to the borders of Iraq and Jordan.

On the issue of Iraq and in light of the American troop withdrawal at the end of 2011, the country is at serious risk of sectarian conflict and violence between Sunnis and Shias.  Already the rhetoric between those who are meant to be the legitimate progenies of a stable and democratic Iraq, Prime Minister Maliki, a Shia and his Sunni colleagues in government, is unfortunately and disappointingly trending towards the toxic, set against a backdrop of a recent wave of terrorism and violence.  America’s newfound absence in the country creates questions about how Iran may see an opportunity to meddle internally and pull levers here as a new mode of bargaining and manipulation on unrelenting nuclear issue.

Meanwhile, Iran will continue to become more isolated as a result of increasingly tightened international sanctions as the year goes on.  Consequently, they will use the void in Iraq and the isolation of Syria as an opportunity to regain some sway in the region to meet their national interests, further prolonging the stalemate between Mr. Ahmadinejad and the West over the nuclear issue.

On the issue of Israel and Palestine, the Palestinian Authority in the West Bank is likely going to be forced to forge closer ties to Hamas in Gaza as its position becomes more desperate and hopeless and its number of genuine and strong supporters proves scarce or unreliable, including primarily the United States.  In a world defined by quick headlines and snappy sound bites, when it comes to the current situations in the Middle East, patience and good nerves are required in 2012.

Europe Limps to the Hospital

Several years ago I wrote an optimistic piece on the future of Europe in light of the Treaty of Lisbon, an attempt then at greater political and federal union.  I argued then, as I do now, that in order for a common monetary union to function effectively a common fiscal union is also required to ensure fiscal discipline among member states, thereby ensuring stability for the common currency.  The destructive results of this missing piece of policy and the catastrophic sovereign debts of individual member states were highlighted in 2011 and will be the single most important issue for Europe throughout 2012.

It is the consensus among economists that the economic situation in Europe will likely continue to deteriorate throughout 2012.  Already this year, France, along with eight other members of the Eurozone have had their credit ratings downgraded by Standard & Poor’s.

Britain nearly turned itself into a pariah state among Europe at the end of 2011, the only European Union member among all 27 member states, to veto a treaty which had built within it clauses to fortify closer fiscal union for the common monetary union.  The reasoning behind Britain’s departure was that it lacked clauses protecting the City of London from pervasive financial regulations from Brussels.  As a result, the 17 Euro member states will now have to draft a resolution for tighter fiscal regulation outside of a new treaty.  While Britain was the only country to veto the treaty, it is not alone in its impatience with the “European project”.   Other nations with the currency opt out clause such as Sweden and Denmark have also shown signs of weariness towards the struggling economic union and voters in the stronger Euro countries of the north, led by Germany, are growing irritated with what they perceive to be a large scale bailout program for less fiscally responsible southern members (i.e. PIIGS).

While yet another schism between Britain and the continent is not surprising, Europe should begin considering the possibility that British voters may respond with demands for a referendum on British membership entirely.  If this were ever to occur there is no reason Eurosceptic governments in other tired European countries wouldn’t follow suit.  The bottom line is that in 2012 Europe must find a remedy to cure itself of this disease of debt which risks killing the euro and further paralyzing the wider European economy.

Further to the east, the presidential election in Russia due in March will likely spur further protests against Vladimir Putin’s United Russia party.  While corruption is expected to be rife, how the government chooses to respond to these demonstrations will set the tone for further political and social developments in Russia.  Under the leadership of United Russia over the last several years, democracy has eroded in several ways and the recent protest movements which began at the end of last year and which will certainly continue up to and probably after the election in March will be the greatest test for Russia’s democratic institutions to date.  As Mr. Putin will likely emerge as the winner, how he chooses to approach many of the global issues discussed here, including Syria, the Israel/Palestinian debate, and Iran, will set the tone for how the regime will engage with the West going forward.

The Tide Turns towards Asia

At the end of 2011, President Obama revealed his strategic plan to scale down the US military in order to meet required cuts in the defense budget.  Without going into the minutiae of the entire plan, the general impact is that resources and focus are being shifted out of Europe and to Asia and the Pacific.  There are a number of reasons for this strategic shift, but the widely agreed upon driving factor is the rise of China and the US commitment to protecting allies and interests in the region.  Coincidentally, the move comes at a time of considerable change in two countries, Myanmar and North Korea, both of which have been traditionally dependent upon and aligned to China.

Towards the end of 2011 Myanmar showed signs that it was finally opening up after 50 years of maintaining one of the most closed countries in the world under brutal military rule.  Since December 2011, and almost on a weekly basis, the country has made massive steps towards liberalization including welcoming American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and British Foreign Minister William Hague, allowing Aung San Suu Kyi’s NLD party to register and run in the upcoming parliamentary elections, and the release from prison of high profile political dissidents and opponents.  As a resource rich country which has yet to develop its full economic potential, Myanmar’s recent embrace of the West and compromise with the domestic opposition indicates a desire to move away from the sway and influence of China.  Myanmar will become a much more geopolitically significant country in 2012 as the West moves in and China struggles to remain relevant.

Developments in North Korea are even murkier, dependent entirely on how the succession of Kim Jon Un as the new “supreme leader” fares.  In the most secretive and perhaps most dysfunctional country in the world, it is anybody’s guess what comes next for North Korea, but internal power struggles and jostles within the military command are probable.  Again, as North Korea’s only real ally or friend in the world, how China chooses to approach this extremely volatile and sensitive situation will have a greater impact on the entire region.  Taken in context of the new American military focus in Asia, there is a renewed potential for the administrations in the US and China to come into diplomatic conflict with one another.  In 2012 if the great game between India and China will be played in Central Asia, then the great game between the US and China will be played in Southeast Asia and Myanmar will be the focal point.

Finally, later this fall Beijing will host the 18th National Congress of the Communist Party of China where a new presidency and premiership will be selected for 2013.  As the ranking members of the Politburo age, speculation is rife that the party may look towards a younger generation for the new leadership.  While any leader is likely to adhere to the same principles and dogma which have dominated the premiership over the last two decades, there is always the slight possibility that there could be minor deviations from the current rigid social and political structures in place.  Either way, as the middle class continues to expand in numbers, political reform will be necessary one way or another and perhaps this new generation of leadership will be wise enough to recognize the inevitability of this.

Unwise to Forget Africa and Latin America

As a whole, I cannot think of a region that is more undeservingly sidelined than Africa.  Dominated only by very light news coverage of the devastating famines in East Africa in 2011, there was also shockingly little discussion of the birth of the newest nation in the world, South Sudan.  For a continent that is receiving so much foreign direct investment, spearheaded primarily by China, it is astonishing that there is so little media coverage for a region which is only going to grow in geopolitical strategic significance.

Aside from the renewal of tribal violence in South Sudan, Nigeria and South Africa will be worth paying attention to in 2012.  The increasing religious violence and the recent protests against fuel price hikes in Nigeria will likely become more severe.  In South Africa, a major recipient of Chinese investment, the ruling ANC faces charges of rampant corruption and cronyism.  How each of these leading large African countries responds to these challenges will be of immense consequence to the greater region.

Meanwhile, across the ocean, an ailing Hugo Chavez continues to beat Venezuela into mere irrelevance.  Despite his efforts this year to bring together all the nations of Latin America in the Community of Latin American and Caribbean States (CELAC) whose primary aim was to demonstrate a counterbalance to US influence, very little came out of it in the way of policy or frameworks for future collaboration and integration.  At best it was a redundant effort for a region which already boasts the Organization of American States and the Union of South American Nations (UNASUR) each of which have already proven effective on a variety of customs and trade issues.  Nonetheless, Latin America is still led by Brazil and Mexico, followed by Argentina and Chile while Venezuela relies on political games and manipulation at the expense of a crumbling infrastructure and economy with very little show for its efforts.  However, it is still worth paying attention to Venezuela due to the mostly symbolic relationship between Mr. Ahmadinejad and Mr. Chavez in light of the greater developments occurring between Iran and the United States.

Leadership (?) in the United States

There is no question that America is in a state of flux.  The economy is severely damaged, unemployment remains stubbornly and destructively high, and the national debt acts as an overhang against any possible spending or stimulus.  More seriously, there is a deficit of trust in the institutions of power and authority whose responsibility it is to solve the problems.

In 2012 the Republicans will select the candidate that will run against President Obama in the general election this November.  Despite all of the complicated and tumultuous events occurring throughout the world, many of which are briefly touched on above, and despite the political hyperbole on less significant domestic social and moral issues that will come from both camps during the campaign season, the major deciding factor in this election will be the American economy; getting people back to work while simultaneously tackling the massive overhang of national debt.  Everything else will be and should be secondary and we can only hope that the candidates are wise enough to spend their energies focusing on the most pressing issues facing the average American.

Already in 2012 Governor Mitt Romney has had early success in the Iowa caucus and New Hampshire primaries.  Former US Senator Rick Santorum is showing early signs of success as a more socially conservative option for Republicans further on the right than Mr. Romney.  Although Mr. Romney is currently the frontrunner, there is still a long way to go in the primaries and beyond that, the general election.  We have yet to see what President Obama’s camp has prepared to counter a Romney presidential campaign, but whoever wins the Republican nomination, the hope is that both candidates seriously focus on fixing an American economy that is quickly breaking down beyond repair.

On The Bright Side, It’s Not the End of the World

It is a popular fact that the ancient Mayans famously predicted the date for the end of the world to be in the year 2012.  Indeed the natural disasters, social upheaval, and financial calamities of 2011 might have been well placed as scenes in a really bad apocalypse film; however I don’t believe the outcome will be this fantastical.  Rather than feeling pessimistic about the general state of affairs, I do believe there is cause for optimism.

It could be said that the political and economic conditions over the last 20 years culminated in the apex of events witnessed throughout 2011.  In very different places and in very different ways, people across the planet stood against widely accepted and entrenched economic and political systems which had dominated the way business, government and society have been conducted for decades.  Although the times in which we live are tumultuous, the fact that people are challenging ingrained ways of thinking demonstrates the inherent human desire for progress and this is a positive indication for the future.

The reality is that many of the situations and scenarios discussed above will likely have to get worse before they improve.  The solutions to this complex array of challenges likely lies somewhere in the journey to understanding these issues completely.  Without attempting to predict or forecast in too much detail, I do sense that the year ahead will be more historically significant than the previous year.

On a positive note, at least here in the UK we have the London Olympics and the Queen’s Jubilee to look forward to in case the Mayans turn out to be right after all.

The Great Game Continues: China and India in Central Asia

Old fashioned, European expansionist empire is dead.  The days where imperial rivals would race across continents to plant their flag and claim their loot have been replaced by new forms of economic and cultural conquest; seemingly more benign, but still assertive methods of foreign policy which seek to balance a necessary dose of hard power with a more popularized and acceptable form of soft power in the pursuit of “vital national interests” and oftentimes “shared values”.    As the twenty first century pummels forward dramatically, policymakers and thinkers are realizing that the power politics which shaped the past are evolving in ways beyond our original understanding and more quickly than academic and governmental circles are capable of adapting to.  Power shifts, and the competitive struggles between emerging giants they instigate, are the foundation of global and regional policies.  A basic review of the history of political order through the ages is evidence of this.

Despite the still constantly changing landscape which defines international relations in any given era, some things remain uncannily familiar and it appears that the geopolitical and strategic race for influence in Central Asia, the Great Game between the British and Russian Empires during the eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, is still being played, albeit by different players and for very different purposes.  The who and the why say as much about how the world has changed since the decline of empire as it does about the direction that foreign policy is moving in the years to come.

Last week a visit to India by President Hamid Karzai highlighted a major issue underlying peace and security in Asia.  What would otherwise have been overlooked in the media as just a standard diplomatic meeting between a significant regional donor and its war-torn aid recipient was instead a major headline as a result of Pakistan’s condemnation and accusations of a manipulative and aggressive move by India to threaten the peace and security of the region.  True, India and Afghanistan pledged material cooperation in both defense and trade, tinged with inflammatory comments about Pakistan’s role in destabilization efforts and terrorism in both countries, but the bonds forged were not much more significant than what Pakistan already pursues in its longer relationship with China.  If Pakistan feels threatened by its larger, better equipped enemy neighbor and seeks strategic ties with China as a balance, then Afghanistan, feeling similarly towards Pakistan and its role in terrorism across the border, is legitimate in seeking similar support through India.  Through military procurement, defense strategy, and cultural exchanges the Afghanistan/India relationship is the regional counter to a Pakistan/China relationship which works as a mechanism for increased Chinese power in Asia on the one hand and a defense against India on the other.  Likewise, India will leverage its relationship with Afghanistan to counter both China’s growing influence and any perceived risk from Pakistan.  Unfortunately, due to their own internal political and economic dysfunctions, both Afghanistan and Pakistan are left with no viable alternative than to play this part in the game.   Their use extends as far as their ability to be used by one powerful country as a diplomatic pawn against another.

Because of the economic benefits of trade between both India and China, their respective interests in the region will remain defined by a strategy of containment and counterbalance, much like the Russian and British Empires before them.  Direct conflict with one another is not in either country’s national or strategic interest.  Therefore, better to contain the other and if any progress towards primacy is made by one, counter balance it with equally significant actions to maintain a status quo.  As both India and China grow in prominence, we will increasingly see the weaker nations of this volatile region used by both countries in the pursuit of their respective national interests.  Nothing new about this game; it’s just that the players have changed from what we were used to seeing in a world formerly dominated by Western imperial powers.  Like any great game, the winning strategy is the same if you learn how to play it well.

A Reflection on Ten Years: 9/11/2001

We all remember where we were, what we were doing, and who we were with on this fateful and horrible day.  Watching the coverage today, exactly ten years later, the images are still horrifying.  The feelings they conjure from within are still complex, a mixture of uncertainty, anger, disgust, fear, sadness, and confusion, all reminding us that the scars of those attacks, although finally healing, will never entirely fade.  To attempt to summarize the complex interplay of events that occurred over the last decade in one post is utterly impossible.  All that is feasible today is to reflect on where we were on that day, where we’ve been since, and where we should go from here.

In the days following the attacks, President George W. Bush’s approval rating peaked at 90 percent.  His response as a strong Commander-in-Chief at Ground Zero clearly echoed with the majority of a bereaving country who were expecting some signal of decisive action. For the first time in history Article 5 of NATO’s Washington Treaty was invoked and an attack on one was perceived as an attack on all, becoming a rallying cry throughout much of the world.  The international community mobilized around an agreed upon security and military response with a global mandate by the United Nations to invade Afghanistan, not as retribution or as a form of punishment, but in order to destroy Al Qaeda cells that were operating out of the country and being state-supported by the Taliban.  America, and indeed the world, was shaken, but it was looking more unified than it had been in a very long time.

So what happened?  Fast forward ten years later and there is no denying that America’s image in the world has been tarnished, even with the election of President Obama who had campaigned on a platform of “hope and change”.  President Bush’s two terms in office are remembered by most as a complete disaster and the popularity and respect he enjoyed for those few fleeting days after the attacks slowly turned into disgust and disdain by the time he left the Oval Office in 2009.  Today, fourteen months from the general election in 2012, the political environment in the United States is more divisive, toxic, and paralyzed than ever before and the world increasingly looks upon America as a country that is incapable of making decisions at all.  Already called into question with the botched 2003 invasion of Iraq, foreign policy was viewed with skepticism and concern from the rest of the world throughout most of the decade, including criticism from long-standing allies.  Now the world seems to be wondering whether the United States is capable of making sound domestic policy decisions either.  As I have mentioned before, the S&P credit downgrade was less economic in nature and much more a political critique; a vote of no confidence in both Congress and the President.

The first decade of the new millennium was indeed not a Fukuyama-esque “End of History” ushering in a new era of global cooperation, universally accepted doctrines of free-market capitalism and unchallenged democracy, and hence, world peace, but became rather what appeared to be a very subtle Huntingtonian “Clash of Civilizations” view by policymakers, commentators, and academics alike; a decade defined by rhetoric and debates on military mobilization, unilateralism, and cross-cultural antagonism.  Cold War security policies no longer appeared relevant in the face of stateless and religiously motivated violence and aggression and there were no tried and tested textbook models to rely on in the face of a new global threat.  Terms like “soft power” became buzz words used by political academics such as Joseph Nye, but their tenants were rarely embraced as actual policy.  Instead a Bush-era doctrine of “regime change” and the “export of democratic values” were the experiments in the neoconservative political laboratory of Washington D.C., particularly obsessed with the removal of Saddam Hussein in Iraq, a man who himself was considered an enemy and apostate by Al Qaeda.  Hindsight is always 20/20.

Western policymakers were determined to make it clear that, despite the targets of their invasions, the war on terror was not an attack on Islam.  However, the fact that Bali October 2002, Istanbul November 2003, Madrid March 2004, London July 2005, and Mumbai November 2009, among many other attacks scattered in between, were orchestrated and executed by Islamic extremists, implied that indeed there was a deeper underlying issue despite the rhetoric coming from leaders in world capitals.  Islam was not the cause of these attacks, but the attackers carried them out in the name of Islam.  To acknowledge this honestly and to admit that there are complex grievances and motivations by many, even those who are not terrorists themselves, is the only way to get to the heart of the problem.  Something was, and is still, clearly amiss in certain parts of the world that produce this particular brand of terrorism and I have always argued that in order to solve the problem, the solution must come from within the nations themselves and not imported from abroad.

It wasn’t until December 2010 when a young Tunisian man set himself aflame as an act of defiance against an entrenched, corrupt, and brutal regime, which was and remains a prototype for much of the Muslim world, that the new century looked like it was about to take a turn for the positive.  In January 2011 I argued that there is a Third Way, a possible system of government in these nations which does not have to succumb to the twisted ideology of religious extremism or be the enslaved subject to the whims of brutal dictators and a stagnant autocracy.  Moderate, modern, and democratic systems of government are possible throughout the Islamic world, and as has been proven throughout all of 2011, reformation is more effective when it is motivated and executed from within and not imposed from abroad.

Military campaigns and responses, while necessary in many cases, have their shortcomings in others.  Having always called for local, grassroots movements from within the Islamic world to fight against the forces that cultivate the formula which causes extremism through systems of repression and brutality, the effects of the Arab Spring have been far more successful in changing the face of the Muslim World than any bombs that have been dropped since the commencement of the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq.  The vast majority of the citizens in primarily Islamic countries, many of whom proving so with their own lives, are demonstrating that they no longer want to be forced to choose between a universally accepted, but secular dictator and religious extremism and terror.

Where the Bush doctrine failed in Iraq, the homegrown democratic Arab movements have shown promise in places like Tunisia, Egypt, and now in Libya.  In a post 9/11 world, and in a new decade, Western leaders must fulfill their promises of aid, development, and investment in countries that are genuinely trying and struggling to establish democratic and just systems of government.  This will be the West’s most effective foreign policy lever in a war that should be fought to prevent the conditions which cultivate terror in the first place.  There are still many places, some worst than others, that due to their circumstances of dysfunctional government, broken economies, and misconstrued and manipulative interpretation by a minority on traditional culture and religion, are breeding grounds for terror.  Pakistan, Yemen, and Somalia, among others, remain particular causes for concern and should be a primary focus of Western security policy going forward.

Today while we remember and honor the victims of the atrocities of September 11, 2001, let us not forget that the path to global security and progress does not end with the death of Osama bin Laden.  There are still people out there who wish to inflict murder and destruction upon the world to propagate their own warped religious views and political ideologies.  Unfortunately there always will be.  While providing the security apparatus required to protect the lives of civilians, intervening militarily when necessary, today’s leaders must also realize that the problem with doctrine is that it is inflexible to the changes that occur unexpectedly in the real world.  Today, on September 11, 2011, the world once again has an opportunity to adapt and turn a corner in this new decade by actively supporting, through official policy, the efforts of all those fighting for freedom and democracy in the places that will eventually breed the terrorists of tomorrow.