Tag: China
Pakistan hat trick
This is pretty dramatic. That’s Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League (Nawaz) in the lead, by a wide margin. More knowledgeable people are predicting he’ll have little difficulty getting installed for the third time as prime minister, relying if necessary on independent votes rather than a coalition with one of the other major parties.
There is a lot of reason for celebration. Turnout was high. Though the election was marred in some places by mainly Pakistani Taliban violence, it was peaceful in much of the country. The margin of victory makes allegations of irregularities relatively unimportant to the result, even if they undermine public confidence in some places. A good deal of effort went into purging the voter rolls and establishing the independence of the electoral commission. If the process proceeds as anticipated, Pakistan will accomplish its first transition from one elected government to another since independence.
Best as always to look the gift horse in the mouth. There are big problems. The largest by far arise from Pakistan’s parlous economic situation, which will require for its cure a major effort to ensure payment for electricity, deregulation of energy prices, an International Monetary Fund loan, a pickup in global demand and wise management of the budget on Nawaz Sharif’s part. The odds are bad for all of that happening smoothly while Pakistan suffers attacks from insurgent groups and completion of the American withdrawal from Afghanistan, ending an important boost to the Pakistani economy and a good reason for the Americans to be cooperative.
Nawaz Sharif’s victory came overwhelmingly from Punjab, Pakistan’s most populous province (more than half the population lives there, and more than half the parliament is elected there). His most noisy rival, star cricketeer Imran Khan, did well in Pakistan’s Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (formerly the Northwest Province). The Pakistan Peoples Party, which holds a plurality of seats in the current parliament, looks likely to finish a weak second or possibly third in Saturday’s polling.
The main issues in the campaign were economic. The Express Tribune gave a “B” to Nawaz Sharif’s center-right party manifesto on economic issues, in particular energy, fiscal responsibility, reducing regulatory hurdles, and improving government efficiency. Imran Khan’s Pakistan Tehreek-e-Insaf (Movement for Justice) also got a “B,” with the PPP and other parties lagging far behind. Of course party platforms are no more serious as an indication of how the parties will govern than they are in many other countries. It is perhaps indicative that no grade was given on corruption, which is a serious problem at all levels in Pakistan.
What does the return of Nawaz Sharif mean for Pakistani foreign policy in general and the United States in particular? Ahmed Rashid suggests Pakistan’s neighbors will welcome Sharif back, hope he can heal his relations with Pakistan’s army (which deposed, imprisoned and exiled him last time he was prime minister) and regain some measure of control over Pakistan’s foreign policy, which for years has been left mainly to the security forces. An improved relationship with Afghanistan is particularly important, but Pakistan also faces challenges in dealing with its Chinese ally, which does not appreciate Muslim extremism, and with Iran, from which it hopes to import much-needed natural gas despite US opposition. Anti-American sentiment is running high in Pakistan, in part due to drone strikes, but Sharif will need sympathy in Washington if he is to secure a big ($6-9 billion) IMF loan.
So the hat trick is to be celebrated, but Nawaz Sharif has his work cut out for him.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Syria’s humanitarian catastrophe
This past Tuesday I moderated the Q and A for a Middle East Institute presentation by Baroness Valerie Amos, the UN’s Under Secretary General for Humanitarian Affairs, on “The International Response to Syria’s Humanitarian Catastrophe.” Here is the video, which is also up on the MEI website:
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Civilians >> chemical weapons
The “Salon” I did with Stanford’s Lina Khatib yesterday on “Should the U.S. intervene in Syria?” focused mainly on chemical weapons, as all conversations about Syria yesterday did.
Lina, who had published a piece with Larry Diamond on Thursday making the case for military intervention (arms to the rebels plus a no-fly zone but no boots on the ground) in Syria, is concerned not only about chemical weapons use, the evidence for which she regards as “credible,” but about the fertile ground for Islamist extremists and the impact on the region. The longer the fighting lasts, the worse it gets.
I don’t disagree with any of that. But it doesn’t matter whether she and I think the evidence of chemical weapons use is credible. What matters is what the Russians, Chinese, Turks and others think. If there is going to be serious military intervention in Syria by the United States, it is going to need multilateral cover, preferably a UN Security Council resolution as well as an Arab League request. The standards the evidence is going to need to meet are high. The world is in no mood for another Middle East war based on flimsy claims related to weapons of mass destruction.
It is going to take time to assemble the evidence and convince skeptics. Once we are ready, Peter Juul proposes a reasonable course of action to mobilize the UN Security Council and NATO (for both military action and humanitarian relief). If that fails, the US will have to consider unilateral action without multilateral cover, but that is a course of action with many drawbacks.
There is also a credibility issue in the other direction: if the US doesn’t act against Syrian use of chemical weapons, why would the Iranians believe that we would take action against their nuclear program? This is a serious problem, but it should not drive the timetable. Being 100% certain, and trying to convince others, is more important than the timing.
That is a cruel thing to say. Syrians are dying every day. The average is climbing towards 200 per day, 6000 per month. The total by now is well over 70,000. Those are staggering numbers. Few of them are killed by chemical weapons. Bombing, Scuds, artillery and small arms fire are much more common:
The targeting of civilians is a war crime, no matter what the weapons used. Civilians are more important than the weapons that kill them. The standards of proof are easily met. The Syrian security forces and their paramilitaries are attacking and killing civilians daily with conventional weapons.
I would like to see the international community act on those grounds, rather than focusing on a limited (and difficult to prove) use of sarin gas. But this is not the unipolar moment of 1999, when the United States led a NATO intervention in Kosovo without UN Security Council approval. That is unlikely to happen. So we are heading down a long road of difficult proof.
Some, like Leila Hilal on Chris Hayes’ show last night, would prefer a negotiated solution. So would I. But it is not looking as if Bashar al Assad is hurting badly enough to yield to the transition plans that Russia and the United States agreed in Geneva last June. The mutually hurting stalemate that would provide the conditions for that will require that the revolutionaries do a bit better than they have managed so far. More international assistance is going to be needed.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Is the Middle East only about oil?
Increasing energy demand in the East, decreasing energy demand in the West, and North America’s shale energy revolution have sparked debates regarding the future of OPEC and US-Arab relations. But focusing on energy risks neglect of non-energy dimensions. This week’s National Council on Arab Relations discussion hosted by the international law firm Wilkie Farr & Gallagher LLP discussed the myths and realities surrounding US-Arab energy relations. Paul Sullivan of NDU, former Shell President John Hofmeister and former Associate Deputy Secretary of Energy Randa Fahmy Hudome pariticipated. The discussion focused on the following questions:
1. Will increasing domestic energy supply cause the the US to disengage from the Middle East, jeopardize US-Arab relations and reduce American influence in the region?
Shale oil and gas have significantly boosted US prospects for attaining energy self-dependence. Projections suggest the US will become a net oil exporter by 2030. Natural gas will replace oil as the country’s main fuel. BP goes so far as to declare the US will become 99% energy self-sufficient by 2030. With this increased supply the US has reduced its oil and gas imports from every Arab country except Saudi Arabia and Qatar.
Despite the reduced imports, Middle Eastern stability and protection of the energy resources there remain a US priority. Because the oil market is a global one, the US still has an interest in continuing its role as protector of the choke points, sea-lanes of communication and stability needed to secure world access to Middle Eastern energy resources.
Paul Sullivan emphasized the importance of “virtual energy.” China imports 90% of its oil from the Middle East. A disruption in that flow would affect the price and access to imported Chinese goods. Any US import from China (or India, or Japan, or South Korea, or Europe for that matter) is a “virtual” import from the Middle East. Reduced dependence on Middle East energy imports will not end the strategic importance of the Middle East or strong relations with the Arabs for the US.
2. Is there more to the US-Arab relationship than oil?
The energy dimension represents only one aspect of US-Arab relations. The US and Arab nations cooperate in the defense, military, intelligence sectors, on cyber security and financial markets. If strengthened, these aspects could ensure the survival of strong US-Arab relations despite the decreased relevance of the energy relationship.
Fahmy Hudome noted that OPEC too has begun to invest heavily in renewables. Saudi Arabia plans on generating a third of its electricity from solar energy by 2030, and has formed a joint venture with the US SolarReserve to pursue this goal. The UAE is investing in nuclear energy and signed the 123 Agreement with the US. Fahmy Hudome suggested policymakers view the relationship between the US and the Middle East as cooperative, not adversarial.
3.With the evolution of natural gas as a transport fuel, will OPEC lose its relevance in the energy market?
John Hofmeister was adamant that OPEC’s price-setting days are numbered. He argued that reduced US dependence on oil imports and China’s unilateral approach to energy security through cash-for-oil undermines the cartel. Natural gas will replace oil as a cheaper, more available alternative. Liquid natural gas could increase train and freight mobility in the US and compressed natural gas could fuel the trucking industry. Natural gas can also be converted into methanol, a cheaper, more-efficient alternative to ethanol. With natural gas’s comparative practicality and affordability there is no question the cartel will lose relevance, Hofmeister argued.
Hudome was less convinced. She rejects the idea that the shift in global energy demand and supply represents a zero-sum game between the US and the Middle East. The US and its Arab partners can both gain from the rise of natural gas and renewables. She argued world energy supply and demand projections base themselves on difficult to predict variables: shale oil, the rise of renewable energy, and the future regulatory environment in the US. All these factors will influence OPEC’s future role in the global energy market.
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Peace picks April 2 – 5
We are late with the peace picks, but here they are for the remainder of the week:
1. Nagorno-Karabakh: Understanding Conflict, Tuesday April 2, 4:30 PM- 6:00 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Rome Building, Johns Hopkins SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave NW DC
Students from the January 2013 SAIS trip to the Caucasus region will discuss their findings and present reports based on their interviews with leaders and members of international organizations in the region about the roots of the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-04-02…
2. ‘New Challenges in Europe and the Middle East: A Conversation With Julianne Smith’, Tuesday April 2, 6:00 PM – 7:30 PM, Johns Hopkins SAIS
Venue: Rome Building Johns Hopkins SAIS, 1619 Massachusetts Ave NW DC
Speakers: Julianne Smith
Julianne Smith, U.S. deputy national security adviser in the Office of the Vice President, will discuss this topic.Note: The speakers comments will be off the record. A reception will follow the event immediately after in Room 812, Rome Building.
Website: http://sais-jhu.edu/events/2013-04-02…
3. Colombia: Land and the Agenda for Peace, Wednesday April 3, 1:00 PM -5:30 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: US Institute of Peace, 2301 Constitution Ave NW, Washington
Speakers: Absalón Machado, Carlos Salgado, Ricardo Sabogal, Ángela Suárez Álvarez, Zoraida Castillo, Yamilé Salinas and more
Five months ago, formal peace talks were launched between the government of Colombia and the FARC-EP guerrillas. The early rounds of talks have focused on the issue of agrarian development-the first of six agreed agenda items. Highly skewed land tenure patterns, a root cause of Colombia’s longstanding internal armed conflict, have worsened over time as guerrilla insurgents, paramilitary groups, drug traffickers, agro-industrialists and the State battle for control of land, resources, and geo-strategic corridors. This violence has displaced five million Colombians, forced the evacuation of an estimated 20 million hectares of land, and produced a ‘reverse agrarian reform’ that consolidates one of the most inequitable land tenure systems in the world. What proposals are being developed to address these land inequities, to restitute the victims of Colombia’s internal armed conflict, and to build sustainable peace?
Please join us on April 3, 2013 to discuss the relationship of land and the peace agenda. The event will provide a platform for discussion among a variety of stakeholders from the U.S. and Colombian governments, victims and affected parties, academics, international organizations, and NGOs. This event is co-sponsored by the United States Institute of Peace and the U.S. Office on Colombia, with the support of U.S. Agency for International Development, U.N. Development Program, Latin America Working Group Education Fund, Mercy Corps, Inter-American Foundation, and Lutheran World Relief.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/colombia-l…
4. Muslim Nationalists and the New Turks — A Conversation with Jenny White, Wednesday April 3 6:30 PM – 8:30 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, Washington, D.C. 20052 Lindner Family Commons
Speakers: Jenny White
Jenny White, Associate Professor and Director, Undergraduate Studies, Anthropology Department, Boston University
Jenny White is an associate professor and director of undergraduate studies in the anthropology department at Boston University. She is the former president of the Turkish Studies Association and of the American Anthropological Association Middle East Section, and sits on the board of the Institute of Turkish Studies. She is the author of Islamist Mobilization in Turkey: A Study in Vernacular Politics (2002, winner of the 2003 Douglass Prize for best book in Europeanist anthropology) and Money Makes Us Relatives: Women’s Labor in Urban Turkey (second edition, London: Routledge, 2004). She also has written three historical novels set in 19th century Istanbul, The Sultan’s Seal (2006), The Abyssinian Proof (2008), and The Winter Thief (2010).
She will be discussing her most recent book: Muslim Nationalists and the New Turks.
*A book signing and wine reception will follow. Limited copies of the book will be available for GW students.*
RSVP: tinyurl.com/afppzwu
Sponsored by the Project on Middle East Political Science (POMEPS
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/c…
5. China’s Maritime Disputes in the East and South China Seas,Thursday April 4 9:00 AM- 3:00 PM
Venue: Dirksen Senate Office Building, Constitution Avenue and 1st Street, NE, Washington, DCG-50
The hearing will explore the security, political, and economic drivers of China’s maritime disputes in the East and South China Seas. In addition, this hearing will examine the implications of these disputes for the United States as well as prospects for resolution.
Website: http://www.uscc.gov
6. Women in a Changing Middle East: An Address by Under Secretary of State Tara Sonenshine, Thursday, April 4 11:00 AM – 12:30 PM, Brookings Institution
Venue: Falk Auditorium Brookings Institution, 1775 Massachusetts Ave, NW D.C.
Speakers: Tamara Cofman Wittes, The Honorable Tara Sonenshine
As Arab citizens struggle to rewrite the rules defining their societies, the role and status of Arab women is a sharp focus of debate. Arab women have been at the forefront of change, but have also faced unprecedented challenges. How central is women’s empowerment to the success of Arab societies, and how important are women’s rights in the struggle for democracy? What is the U.S. doing to help Arab women (and men) to advance women and girls in their societies?
On April 4, the Saban Center for Middle East Policy at Brookings will host Under Secretary of State for Public Diplomacy and Public Affairs Tara Sonenshine for an address on women in the Middle East. Senior Fellow Tamara Cofman Wittes, director of the Saban Center for Middle East Policy, will provide introductory remarks and moderate a discussion with Under Secretary Sonenshine after her remarks.
Website: http://webfeeds.brookings.edu/~r/Broo…
7. U.S. Foreign Policy: The Next Four Years, Thursday April 4 6:00 PM-7:15 PM, Elliott School of International Affairs
Venue: Lindner Family Commons,
Elliott School of International Affairs, 1957 E Street, NW, D.C.
Speakers: Maurice Mickey East, Harry Harding, Michael E. Brown, Hope M. Harrison
Maurice Mickey East, Dean, School of Public and International Affairs, GW (1985-1987); Dean, School of International Affairs, GW (1987-1988); Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW (1988-1994)
Harry Harding, Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW
(1995-2005)
Michael E. Brown, Dean, Elliott School of International Affairs, GW (2005-Present)
Moderated by:
Hope M. Harrison, Associate Professor of History and International Affairs
RSVP: go.gwu.edu/ThreeDeans
Sponsored by the Elliott School of International Affairs
Website: http://www.elliottschool.org/events/c…
8. Afghan Elections: One Year to Go, Friday April 5 10:00 AM-12:00 PM, US Institute of Peace
Venue: USIP, 2301 Constitution Avenue NW D.C.
Speakers: Nader Nadery, Scott Smith, Hossai Wardak, Scott Worden
Webcast: This event will be webcast live beginning at 10:00am ET on April 5, 2013 at www.usip.org/webcast.
April 5 marks the start of the one-year countdown to Afghanistan’s presidential election. Because of constitutional term limits, this will be the first time in post-9/11 Afghanistan that Hamid Karzai is not on a presidential ballot. The fact that this unprecedented handover of presidential power occurs in the same year that international forces hand over security responsibility to Afghan national forces further increases the importance of the presidential election.
Afghans frequently highlight the inter-related nature of the upcoming security and political transitions in Afghanistan, and the importance of elections that produce a legitimate outcome for future peace and stability of Afghanistan. Furthermore, previous flawed elections have made many Afghans doubt the integrity of the democratic process.
If the April 5 election is not a marked improvement on past elections, the democratic progress that Afghanistan has made so far will be put in jeopardy. Please join a panel of experts at USIP to discuss the critically important technical and political issues that need to be addressed during the next 365 days in order for the elections to produce a credible and legitimate outcome.
Website: http://www.usip.org/events/afghan-ele…
9. Women’s Roles in Terrorist Movements, Friday April 5 6:00 PM-8:00 PM, Institute of World Politics
Venue: Institute of World Politics, 1521 16th Street NW DC
Speakers: Paula Holmes-Eber, Christopher C. Harmon
This event is hosted by IWP’s Student Government Association.
In the Latin, Asian, Middle Eastern, and European regions, revolutionary political movements have been accepting and deploying women in various and important roles: cadre; mid-level organizers; intelligence agents; couriers; combatants of many sorts; and suicide bombers. In unusual cases, women have also held senior leadership posts in undergrounds; a few have run their own terror organizations. What are the reasons for, and effects of, incorporating females into sub-state fighting organizations? What are the ‘lessons learned’ for intelligence analysts, military personnel, and students of the social sciences focused on culture and war?
IWP is holding a lecture-and-discussion opening to such issues on Friday, April 5, at 6:00 PM. The speakers are Dr. Paula Holmes-Eber (anthropologist) and Dr. Christopher C. Harmon (who teaches a terrorism course for IWP). Both represent Marine Corps University in Quantico, VA.
Paula Holmes-Eber, Ph.D. is Professor of Operational Culture at Marine Corps University. She is responsible for creating and teaching curricula on cultural aspects of conflict for all four schools at the university: Expeditionary Warfare School, Command and Staff College, School of Advanced Warfighting and Marine Corps War College. She also supports and advises staff at the Center for Advanced Operational Culture Learning, Quantico, VA on academic matters concerning warfighting and culture, Islam, Arab society and North Africa.
Dr. Holmes-Eber completed her Master’s and Doctoral degrees in Anthropology from Northwestern University. She holds a B.A. magna cum laude from Dartmouth College, a Certificate in African Studies from Northwestern University and a Certificate in Tunisian Arabic from the Ecole Bourguiba des Langues Vivantes in Tunis, Tunisia. Her research and expertise focus on kinship and social networks in Arab and Muslim culture in North Africa.
Prior to her current position at Marine Corps University, Dr. Holmes-Eber was an Assistant Professor of Anthropology at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee and a Visiting Scholar in the Middle East Center at the Jackson School of International Studies at the University of Washington. She is fluent in French, Arabic, German and Italian and has lived and traveled in over forty countries around the world including Tunisia, Morocco, Turkey, Israel, Mongolia, China, Taiwan, Japan, Russia and Tonga.
Christopher C. Harmon, Ph.D. has had 21 years of teaching security studies, strategy, military theory & history, and courses on terrorism at six graduate schools, including a division of National Defense University, and the Naval War College.
Currently, he teaches Terrorism and Counterterrorism at IWP and is MajGen Matthew C. Horner Chair of Military Theory at Marine Corps University.
Dr. Harmon has served as Curricula Director for the Program on Terrorism and Security Studies at the George C. Marshall European Center for Security Studies in Garmisch Germany. He has also served as the Kim T. Adamson Chair of Insurgency & Terrorism, Marine Corps University at Quantico, VA, and as Professor of International Relations at the University’s Command and Staff College. He has done academic research fellowships with the Earhart Foundation; Hoover Institution on War, Revolution and Peace; Claremont Institute.
Dr. Harmon holds a B.A. in History and French Language from Seattle University, where he graduated summa cum laude, and an M.A. in Government and a Ph.D. in International Relations and Government from Claremont Graduate School.
Dr. Harmon is the author of Terrorism Today, co-author of Toward a Grand Strategy Against Terrorism, and co-editor of Statecraft and Power. His article ‘Spain’s ETA Terrorist Group is Dying’ was published in the geopolitics journal ORBIS in Fall 2012.
Website: http://www.iwp.edu/events/detail/wome…
Share this, I'll really appreciate it:
Beijing needs to reign in Pyongyang
North Korea’s announcement that it plans to reopen its plutonium production reactor at Yongbyon clarifies at least one reason for its belligerent statements in recent weeks. It will take some years to restart the reactor, which was partly dismantled in a 2007 deal that Pyongyang has in effect renounced. Kim Jong-un is however making it clear that North Korea intends to remain a nuclear weapons power. He (rightly) perceives that the United States would like to see his regime collapse and his people liberated. Nuclear weapons are his security guarantee.
It is doubtful he can be bought off this idea. Pyongyang has appointed a (relatively) “reformist” prime minister, one likely at least to continue the liberalization of the agricultural sector that has reduced economic pressure on the regime in recent years. The people of North Korea are used to extraordinarily harsh conditions. It does not take much to make them feel better off.
The White House is making it clear it sees no signs of preparation for war on the part of Pyongyang. The American deployments of aircraft during the ongoing military exercises with South Korea are intended to back Seoul but also restrain it from precipitating a conflict.
So should we forget about Pyongyang and turn our attention back to Iran? No. Iran is apparently going to be well behaved on nuclear issues at least until its election in June. South Korea will be under enormous pressure to respond if the North were to attack. Even if both sides remain restrained, the Americans have a serious problem with North Korea, which has threatened to attack the United States with nuclear weapons. It would be a mistake to forget about the threat just because the capability does not exist today.
How long will it take to acquire the capability? It is hard of course to tell, but easy to picture that in ten years Pyongyang could have both the missiles and the nuclear weapons to strike Japan if not the United States. I’d be surprised if there weren’t someone in the Pentagon suggesting that it would be better to deal with that threat now rather than wait. If North Korea attacks the South, Americans and Koreans may be surprised at the extent and force of the response.
War on the Korean peninsula is a frightening proposition, even if a strike on North Korea’s missile and nuclear facilities were 100% successful. Pyongyang would presumably respond with a massive artillery barrage against Seoul, which is well within range. Who knows what the Chinese would do. Last time there was war in Korea they threw their full weight behind the North. South Korea is a major economic power these days that could suffer massive damage. Spread of conflict to Japan and Taiwan is not inconceivable.
Even if the prospects are not good, we are thrown back to the need for diplomacy to restrain North Korea. That’s where Beijing comes in. The Chinese don’t like the idea of a nuclear North Korea. They are terrified of anything that would open the door to a massive flow of refugees from the hermit kingdom. As next door neighbors and allies, it is up to Beijing to reign in Kim Jong-un. If they fail to do so, the consequences could be catastrophic.
RSS - Posts
