Day: March 1, 2013
Mali matters
Global energy security depends on stability in North Africa, particularly Algeria. The Islamist take-over of the 2012 Tuareg coup in northern Mali directly affected these global interests, prompting French and concerted African intervention. The Center for National Policy discussion on Wednesday focused on the broad implications of Mali’s internal problems. Speakers were Alexis Arieff, Congressional Research Service; Stephanie Pezard, RAND; and Paul Sullivan, Georgetown University.
Security and politics
According to Stephanie Pezard, the French intervention in Mali runs three risks: radicalizing local populations, exacerbating ethnic tensions between the North and South, and triggering Islamist insurrections in the region. Although Mali does not pose a direct threat to the US, the Tuareg-Islamist insurgency poses several indirect threats.
The Tuareg rebellion stems from Tuareg political grievances the Malian government has failed to address since the 1960s. Long-term resolution of the issues would require internationals and the Malian government to understand Northern politics and to identify the most representative group with which to reach an agreement. Internationals should focus on reconciling the North and the South by encouraging the formation of a government more universally palatable than the one brought down in March 2012. Internationals should also encourage Bamako to deliver on its commitments to the North.
Mali poses indirect criminal and terrorist threats to US interests. In order to fund their activities, terrorist groups in the Sahel and North Africa increasingly engage in kidnappings and cocaine trafficking. Although the drugs are destined for European markets, the proceeds go toward funding terrorist activities elsewhere as well.
The economic opportunism of the Malian fighters provides internationals with an opportunity to reduce their appeal. Clan logic is a vanishing factor in enlistment of terrorists. Fighters follow the money and weapons, giving little weight to ethnic or religious affiliation. Terrorist offers of high salaries and subsidies for the fighters’ families motivate young men to join their ranks. Addressing the root issues by honoring government commitments to the North could alleviate conditions that make becoming a militant appealing.
Energy
A disruption of Algerian oil and gas flow to Europe would damage Algerian and European energy security, with repercussions for the global oil market. Algeria is the third largest natural gas provider to Europe, and in 2011 provided OECD Europe with 38.5% of its crude oil. Continued access to Algerian oil is crucial for Europe to climb out of its economic crisis. According to Georgetown professor Paul Sullivan, 12% of Italy’s liquid fuels, 9% of Spain’s, 13% of France’s, 7% of Brazil’s, and 5% of the Netherlands’ come from Algeria. Likewise, 10% of Turkey’s gas imports, 36% of Italy’s, and 32% of France’s come from Algeria. Still, the US ranks as the largest importer of Algerian oil, importing 500,000 b/d, or 4.5% of US supply.
Sullivan characterized the Islamist attack on the Ain Amenus oil field as a direct attack on the Algerian, European, and American governments and economies. Following the incident, gas pumped through a trans-Mediterranean pipeline connecting Algeria and Italy dropped by 10 million cubic meters a day.
Oil and gas provide 97% of Algeria’s export revenues, 60% of its government revenues, and 40% of GDP. Three quarters of the oil industry relies on two oil fields (Hasi Massaoud and Ourhoud). The intervention in Mali threatens to push militants into Algeria, whose destabilization would send Europe and the US reeling.
US Policy
Alexis Arieff argued that the use of counterterrorism as the lens through which the US formulates policy towards the region is inadequate for resolving the situation in Mali. Previously the US approach aimed to strengthen the security apparatus of weak Sahel states. The US lacked a strategic design with comprehensive inter-agency cooperation and effectiveness. US efforts to encourage Algerian leadership and multilateral cooperation on countering terrorism domestically and regionally suffered from distrust among the partner governments in the region.
The US faces the challenge of weighing the costs and benefits of direct versus indirect involvement in Mali. American officials disagree on the nature of the threat posed by the terrorist groups. Congressional restrictions make US military assistance to the Malian army difficult. At UN talks on Mali, the US and France have not seen eye to eye on Mali’s future. The US Administration wants the African-led International Support Mission for Mali (AFISMA) to be a fully UN funded peacekeeping mission, while implying the need for a French commitment to maintain troops on the ground as a rapid reaction force. The US role in Mali will hinge on evaluation of whether the violent extremists pose a serious threat to the US.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Beginning to do the right thing
John Kerry ‘s first trip abroad as Secretary of State is focusing on a problem the Obama Administration has been trying hard to ignore: what to do about Syrian President Bashar al Asad, whose recent use of Scud missiles against civilian population centers is just the latest of his war crimes. His indiscriminate shelling of Homs, Hama, Aleppo and smaller Syrian towns will long be remembered as crimes against humanity that went on for far too long.
Washington has so far preferred to focus on the humanitarian crisis in Syria. A million Syrians are now refugees in other countries, several million are displaced inside Syria, more than 70,000 are dead and half of those alive and still inside the country are in need of relief. The U.S. government has committed upwards of $365 million already on humanitarian assistance, hoping an opposition military victory would determine the political outcome.
It has not worked out that way. The Asad regime has cracked with myriad defections but has not crumbled. Its core, based on an Alawite minority that has reason to dread its fate if the regime fails, remains intact. Iranian and Russian military and financial support remains solid. Scud missiles and the Syrian air force have provided the regime the means to challenge the opposition even in liberated areas. The regime is unable to “clear and hold” territory, but it can still prevent the opposition from doing so.
The flow of military assistance is increasing. Saudi and Qatari funding has flowed mainly to Sunni Islamist groups, some of them affiliated with Al Qaeda. This tilts the playing field against the more moderate opposition, now more or less unified in the Coalition of Syrian Revolutionary and Opposition Forces. It is fractious, but has managed to put forth parameters for a political solution that would allow talks with the regime while reaffirming that Bashar al Assad and his coterie have no role to play in Syria’s future. The Coalition will appoint a provisional prime minister on Saturday.
The Obama Administration has hesitated to provide lethal assistance to the Coalition for good reasons. It fears anti-tank and anti-aircraft weapons would fall into the wrong hands and be used against civilian targets outside Syria. This would amount to “fast and furious” (an operation in which guns provided by the U.S. were used in the murder of an American border patrol agent) on steroids. The Administration also worries about the Russian reaction. It needs Russia to keep open the routes through which American withdrawal from Afghanistan will occur this year and next. It also needs Russia to maintain sanctions and UN Security Council unity against the Iranian nuclear push, promising talks on which occurred this week in Almaty, Kazakhstan.
While others (including some Europeans) supply arms, President Obama should support the Syrian Coalition with the resources it needs to begin governing liberated areas inside Syria. At Thursday’s meeting of the Friends of Syria, Secretary Kerry announced that the United States will provide $60 million to the Coalition, for use in supplying humanitarian relief, essential services and law and order through the local administrative councils that have been set up in liberated areas of Syria.
As soon as the provisional Syrian prime minister is named, Secretary Kerry should also announce that the Syrian embassy in Washington, already in the hands of employees sympathetic to the revolution, will be turned over to the Coalition. These gestures would give the Coalition credibility and legitimacy with Syrians that it has all too obviously lacked in the past. They would also signal to Bashar al Assad as well as his Russian and Iranian sponsors that the Coalition will eventually become the internationally recognized authority in whatever territory it is able to liberate.
Washington today is focused mainly on its own budget problems. Convincing Americans it is a good idea to shell out hard cash for a Syrian revolutionary government that has yet to prove itself is a hard sell. But there are members of Congress on both sides of the aisle who find the situation in Syria intolerable. And there is every reason to believe that the bill for humanitarian relief in Syria will grow by far more than $60 million if the fighting continues. If there is even a 50/50 chance that strengthening the Coalition will shorten the war, the investment is likely to be a good one.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Myanmar: making reforms count
Julian Palma, a SAIS master’s student, reports from Tuesday’s discussion at Brookings:
After half a century of dictatorship and self-imposed isolation, Myanmar is rapidly emerging from a pariah state. Over the last two years, the government has made great progress in political and economic reforms: from releasing political prisoners to the unification of the exchange rate and the possible establishment of a central bank. The concerns ahead, however, lie on will Myanmar sustain the momentum of such reform and transformation.
Panelists
Priscilla Clapp, Former U.S. Mission Chief to Myanmar—U.S. State Department
Lex Rieffel, Nonresident Senior Fellow—The Brookings Institution
Anoop Singh, Director of the Asia and Pacific Department—IMF
Frances Zwenig, President—US-ASEAN Business Council Institute, Inc.
Moderator: Vikram Nehru, senior associate in the Asia Program and Bakrie Chair in Southeast Asian Studies at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace
Priscilla Clap: institutions
Clap began the discussion by stating that one of the biggest challenges in the country today is institutionalization. She argued that during the 50-year military rule little was done to develop institutions. The officials behind the reform agenda today are therefore unaware of what kind of institutions they need in order to develop a sustainable democracy. In order to bridge that gap, the international community must play an essential role in institutional building but “they [Burmese] need to do it themselves.”
Although rapid advancements have already been made, sustainable results will only be visible within the next two to three generations. Rule of law is particularly important: “they do not have a system that delivers justice and fairness.” While laws exist, institutions are weak. Clap is currently working on two projects with the US Institute of Peace (USIP) to meet the challenges.
Anoop Singh: transparency
Anoop Singh was very optimistic with how the reforms are being supported across the spectrum in Myanmar. The biggest concern at the macro level is making the economic transition from a “segmented, informal parallel market” into a unified economy. The objective is to reduce the scale of “off-budget activities.” The establishment of a central bank with a framework that is open and transparent is imminent.
Frances Zwenig: investment climate
Zwenig commented on Myanmar’s investment climate and U.S.-Myanmar relations. It is not clear what the investment regime will look like. The lack of training and capacity building is unquestionably a concern for investors. Although the U.S. has approved four major banks in Myanmar with which to conduct transactions, two are run by ‘cronies’. The recent resignation of the Minister of Telecommunications has raised eyebrows and has left the industry in further chaos. Myanmar’s big success so far has been healthcare. American presence in-country has helped set up NGOs that advocate effectively for maternal and child health.
Lex Rieffel: money, regional factors and military reform
Foreign aid
An assessment of foreign assistance entitled “Too Much Too Soon” will be released next Wednesday (March 6) detailing the implications of aid in Myanmar. While great strides have been made on the government side to manage and guide donor aid, Rieffel pointed out that this is a sensitive topic because “donors bring an awful lot of chaos.”
Regional relations
The three critical regional are China, India and Japan.
Myanmar has long aligned itself with China, whose rise is generating nervousness. Some in Myanmar fear China is taking advantage of Myanmar’s wealth of natural resources, so the country is looking for other partners to help build its nascent economy. Rieffel referred to suspension of construction of the Myitsone dam in Myanmar. This Chinese project was of great commercial interest to Beijing, but President Sein said he responded to the “will of the people”.
While India aims to become Myanmar’s ally, it is unlikely to happen, partly for geographic reasons and partly because of distrust of the Indian minority. Japan recently announced cancellation of $3 billion in debt, making it Myanmar’s closest friend today.
Military reform
Military reform is important. Twenty per cent of the national budget (2013-2014) will be allocated to the military, despite public concern. There is also concern about the resources that former military heads are claiming.
Conclusion
The moderator remarked in conclusion that there are important cultural impediments to development. In Myanmar, authority is concentrated in individuals, not institutions. The shift to institutions will be one of the most difficult challenges.
RSS - Posts
