Arctic Ambassador Klavs Holm

Earlier this month, Denmark appointed Klavs A. Holm as the new Arctic Ambassador, an office which will become permanent. At the same time, Danish Foreign Minister Villy Søvndal announced the closure of the embassies in Iraq, Benin, and Zambia. This move gives a strong signal that Denmark is putting forth a more visible diplomatic presence in the circumpolar north while refocusing its priorities in the Global South, where it will open embassies in Myanmar and Libya. Ambassador Holm will represent all three parts of the Danish Commonwealth: Denmark, Greenland, and the Faroe Islands. He will also coordinate the implementation of the government’s Arctic strategy, released last August.

Holm previously served as the Danish Ambassador in London, Paris, and Singapore. He also represented Denmark to the EU, in Brussels, where he worked on Arctic issues. The current ambassador for Public Diplomacy at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs will have his work cut out for him, as Foreign Minister Søvndal made clear when he visited Thule Air Force Base last December. When asked what assignments the new Arctic Ambassador would have, he responded, “If you ask for specific tasks, we can name climate change, which means that shipping in the Arctic is increasing in scope. There are very specific tasks to perform in relation to search and rescue in these remote areas. The area is large, and first and foremost, we must prepare the new agreements.” Specifically, he added, “It is clear that we need the Americans to not block civilian usage of Thule. Now, there will be a negotiation process to clarify how far we can go” (translated from the Danish). Search and rescue will thus be an important topic for Holm, as will mining and indigenous peoples – two issues which overlap heavily in Greenland. China has lately expressed strong interest in investing in Greenland’s mineral deposits, the Wall Street Journal reports, which might be cause for Holm to visit Beijing.

Denmark can now be added to the short list of countries which have Arctic ambassadors, which includes Sweden, Finland, and Russia. The United States and Canada are noticeably absent from this list, though there have been calls in the latter country to bring back the position (see here and here). Canada had an Arctic Ambassador from 1994 to 2006, but the role was abolished, as former Foreign Minister Peter McKay then stated, “We didn’t feel we were getting good value for money from that position.”

News Links

“New Danish Arctic Ambassador,” IPS

“Søvndal udnævner ambassadør for det aller nordligste,” Politiken (in Danish)

“Is the US at risk?” Here is the extremely relevant question raised by this outstanding discussion, part of the 2012 Great Decision eight mini-episodes, on the threat of cybersecurity. Cyberthreats have been at the heart of a new body of literature in International Relations and Security Studies, an inspiration for moviemakers, an obsession for policy-makers, a problem for multinational corporations, and a virtual reality for all of us.

Even though this episode focuses on the US, it is not difficult to see how it is relevant to the other members of the Euro-Atlantic community. Their societies, political systems, values, norms, and perceptions are quite similar to one another. Thus as demonstrated throughout the episode, it would be a mistake to speak of national cybersphere. National borders, institutions, political systems are only small variables in the digital world.

Susan Landau of the Harvard University and Martin Libicki of the RAND Corporation discussed the matter of cybersecurity, cyberdefense, and the cybersphere around the Great Decision table. Susan Landau claimed that one of the problems with cybersecurity is the inclusive approach instead of having a strategic, narrow method. She identifies three pressing threats that need to be tackled: 1) protect assets of private companies such as copyright and intellectual property; 2) protection of government agencies. The most obvious example was the release of documents by Wikileaks; 3) protecting assets of critical infrastructures such as the electrical grid. Martin Libicki went further by claiming that “people have elevated it [cyberthreat] to a national security issue. But for a most part, only a small aspect of the cybersecurity is a national security issue; as it affects the military and particular portion of the infrastructure […] like the electrical system.”

The discussion went further with interviews of other experts such as former CIA and NSA Director General Michael Hayden, Senator Ben Cardin, former National Security Advisor Stephen Hadley, and others all giving insights on the origins of cybersecurity as well as the early ages of the internet, which was not supposed to be secured but instead easily accessibly by anybody.
Michael Hayden talked about a new category of cyberattack when discussing the Stunext attack on Iran. He defined the Stunext as a cyberweapon, which makes it unique as such attack was different than all the previous ones launched considering the physical destruction of properties. It was one first case of cyberassault. In terms of cyberattacks, Michael Hayden claimed “that’s crossing the Rubicon.” However, is the Stunext an example of legitimate warfare that the US should be preparing for? Susan Landau identified three types of actors interested in attacking the US: the state actors; non-state actors; and the criminals. Her argument is that the non-state actors, or terrorist networks, do not have the capabilities and knowledge to go after the US government just yet. These actors are also a menace to other Western states such as France, Britain, Germany, and so on. In 2007, Estonia was a victim of a cyberattack launched by the Russian government after a political disagreement.

Susan Landau argued that one of the problems is that no one has stepped back and asked the question: what are the big issues? These issues are anonymity, loss of borders, new policies/laws. In the US as well as in other countries of the Euro-Atlantic community there exist a body of laws enforcing individual freedoms such as privacy, freedom of speech, and so on. Germany has, for example, one of the strictness in Europe. “The change in technology has not been accompanied by the change of laws.” For example, in the US, government officials need a warrant in order to have access to private emails if stored in private computers at home, but not if they are stored on the cloud. The cybersphere has become an important component in our daily life wherein the big question – not raised in this documentary – is to balance freedom and democracy, as it has been the case with the HADOPI law in France, and SOPA in the US. Considering the constrains at the domestic level, one can imagine the problem to implement a set of rules at the international level. How do you make the right treaty when countries diverge on issues such as freedom of speech and economic espionage? Susan Landau explained that in the US economic espionage is a crime, when in China and France it is not recognized as such. The challenges are quite considerable. Along the same lines, Michael Hayden, former Director of CIA and NSA, raised an interesting point of unfair advantage in building up cybersecurity between the US and China, for the simple reason that the US is a democracy and must balance freedom with security. This is the dilemma facing any democracies in boosting up their cybersecurity, while not violating basic rights. Dr. John Nagl of the Center for a New American Security went furhter and argued for the need of a cyber Pearl Harbor in order to finally adjust – he even uses the verb ‘sacrifice’ – individual privacy in exchange for a greater degree of security. One could draw comparison with the adoption of the Patriot Act soon after the 9/11 attacks.

“The cyber is a new domain,” argued Stephen Hadley, “in the same way land, sea, air, or space were domains of threat and challenge.” International organizations like the EU, UN, and NATO are starting to be joining the cyber balance of power. NATO has clearly identified cyberthreat as a real menace and has developed an agenda in dealing with it. NATO is even talking of creating a cybershield. Cybersecurity was at the NATO menu in Lisbon in 2010 and will undeniably be at the heart of the discussion in Chicago in 2012.

This episode was truly excellent in exposing the complexity of cyberthreats and the challenges for the future. The balance between policy-makers, experts, academics and journalists offer a very insightful expose for students, citizens and experts wanting to deepen their knowledge on today and tomorrow challenges. The cybersphere does not belong anymore to the world of science fiction. US policy-makers still have trouble understanding this as they often referred to cyberexperts as geeks. It will be time that our leaders reboot their knowledge and understand today’s realities in order to make informed decisions and adopt appropriate policies. This episode clearly demonstrated the intertwinement between national security, individual security, corporate security, international security and so on is so deep that touching at one aspect will have undeniably a snowball effect.

This episode is part of eight mini-episodes that will be shown on PBS. Great Decisions in Foreign Policy airs on PBS World on Fridays at 7:30 AM and 1:30 PM, and at various times throughout the year on PBS affiliates nationwide. Check local listings for details.

Well, the Global Fund has had a big week.  It’s been ten years since the creation of the Global Fund to Fight AIDS, Tuberculosis, and Malaria, and the recent news about the fund has not been great: internal divisions, questions about improper funding allocations, missing money, and financial shortfalls.  On the other hand, the Global Fund has been key, along with PEPFAR, to incredible gains against HIV/AIDS, TB, and malaria in the last decade.  In November of last year, the Global Fund stated that it was canceling its latest round of funding and would not disburse funds for new programs and projects until 2014.  The global health community was understandably alarmed, especially in the climate of the global economic recession.  As of last week, however, the fortunes of the Global Fund may be turning around.

First, the Global Fund announced that Executive Director Michel Kazatchkine would step down in March.  He cited the recent executive-level re-organization for his decision.  A General Manager, Gabriel Jaramillo, has been appointed to manage day-to-day operations for the fund.  Following reports of financial mismanagement and alleged fraud last year, some donor countries canceled or suspended funding.

The re-organization and other internal changes have restored confidence, and coupled with the fund’s impact over the last ten years, it remains key to rolling back the deleterious effects of malaria, TB, and HIV.  In an opinion piece for Reuters, Natasha Billmoria of the Friends of the Global Fight Against Aids, Tuberculosis, and Malaria argued that more must be done to bolster the Global Fund’s coffers, writing: “We’re in a tough global economy, to be sure, but we’re also primed to beat back AIDS, tuberculosis, and malaria.”  She cited the success of the Global Fund, which has put 3.3 million people living with HIV on antiretroviral treatment, provided PMTCT services to more than one million pregnant women living with HIV, detected and treated 8.6 million cases of tuberculosis, and distributed 230 million bed nets to prevent malaria.  The fund itself estimates that it has saved 7.7 million lives in ten years.  The International HIV/AIDS Alliance released a report last week discussing the potential impact of the Global Fund’s cancellation of its funding round in November, studying the effects this lack of funding would have in five countries.  The report called for donors to provide an estimated $2 billion to fill the funding gap.

“The internal checks and balances have worked in every case…but if you’re going to do business in Africa, you’re going to have some losses.” -Bill Gates

Ask and ye shall receive, it seems.  At the World Economic Forum, Bill Gates announced that his foundation had pledged a $750 million “promissory note” to the Global Fund.  Mr. Gates said that the economic recession was “no excuse for cutting aid to the world’s poorest.”  This announcement marks a bit of a shift for the Gates Foundation, which in the past has disbursed $650 million to the Global Fund for vaccines and innovations, rather than ARV distribution and day-to-day operations.  In his annual letter on behalf of the foundation, Mr. Gates supported the Global Fund’s efforts and pointed out that despite some reports, the fund had had less than five percent of its funding misused and had instituted further internal reforms that will decrease those problems.  Mr. Gates also argued that some financial mismanagement was a cost of working in the developing world.  He was quoted by AP as saying: “The internal checks and balances have worked in every case [at the Global Fund]…but if you’re going to do business in Africa, you’re going to have some losses.”

Although $750 million is not a trifling sum, it is not the $2 billion or more needed to finance grants at the Global Fund.  With his announcement, Mr. Gates has demonstrated his confidence in the Global Fund, which might inspire bilateral donors to honor their pledges and/or restore interrupted funding.  Recent internal changes at the Global Fund may also prompt donors to donate.  We are certainly witnessing a turning point in the fight against some major diseases, such as HIVand malaria, and it is a shame that these partial successes have arrived in tandem with a global recession that shows few signs of turning around soon.  With a strong, well-financed Global Fund, we may, with hope, see  an HIV-free generation and the further curbing of malaria and TB.  Mr. Gates’ support of the Global Fund should give it the much-needed shot in the arm that will help us achieve these goals.

Header photo available here, via USACE Europe District, CC BY 2.0.

In the recent South Carolina GOP Presidential Primary, Fox News’s Brett Baier asked an extremely misleading question to Rick Perry about Turkey’s ‘Islamist oriented’ government, and what policies should the U.S. have towards it. This is how Baier started his question:

“Since the Islamist oriented party took over in Turkey the murder rate of women has increased 1,400% there…”

And, this is how Rick Perry started his answer:

“Obviously when you have a country that is being ruled by what many would perceive to be Islamic terrorists…”

Perry’s comments sparked denunciation both from the Turkish Foreign Ministry and the U.S. State Department. For those who are interested, I think the most entertaining reaction to Perry’s remarks came from Cenk Uygur, the main host of the progressive political commentary program, the Young Turks:

While Perry’s comments make no sense, they brought much needed attention to an important issue: the worsening status of Turkish women.

Violence against women:

Apparently, the numbers in Baier’s question – the murder rate of women skyrocketing in the last decade in Turkey – is true. According to the U.S. State Department’s latest human rights report on Turkey, the violence against women “including honor killings” is still a widespread problem in the country. The European Union 2011 Turkey Progress Report also indicates that violence against women is increasing and that early and forced marriages and domestic violence remain serious problems.

True, Turkey has made numerous reforms to address this problem since the Justice and Development Party (AKP) took office in 2002. The most important step came in 2011 when Turkey became the first signatory to the Council of Europe Convention against Domestic Violence and Violence against Women. Yet, according to Human Rights Watch (HRW), “violence in the home against women is endemic, and police and courts regularly fail to protect women who have applied for protection orders under the Family Protection Law.” HRW also indicates that reports of spouses and family members killing women continued to rise in 2011.

Turkish women and human rights activists march during a protest on the International Day for the Elimination of Violence against Women, in Ankara, Turkey, Thursday, Nov. 25, 2010. The banner reads: "We will stop the killings of women!" (Credit: AP)

The legal framework in Turkey is broadly in place. What is lacking is the proper implementation. More importantly, the laws need to be transformed into ‘social reality’ which would change root causes and perceptions of violence against women. For example, as the EU progress report indicates, gender stereotyping is common in Turkish media. In fact, while the country’s media is subject to serious pressure from the government regarding its coverage of terrorism and politics, it faces no real challenge in perpetuating gender stereotyping and hate crimes.

The following is an excerpt from an article appeared in a retired police association journal. It represents the perceptions shared by some, if not many, in the courts and the law enforcement in Turkey:

“Naturally our women are in a position of victimhood against men due to the [discrepancy between their levels of] physical strength. It is not possible to say the same, however, with respect to [women’s use of] language and gestures. The blame for the murders cannot be squarely placed on men’s shoulders”. According to the author, who is a former police chief and a PhD, “it is a grave mistake to link the problem merely to the sadism of men. It is entirely impossible to ignore or deny that the matter is related to our national traditions and customs, and even to our social mysticism, or in other words, our religious perspective.”

The Turkish Gender Gap:

The AKP is often praised for pursuing polices to improve gender equality in Turkey. It reorganized the General Directorate on the Status of Women, an office tasked with improving women’s rights and strengthening the status of women in social, economic, culture and political life. In 2009, a parliamentary commission was set up to address the problems faced by women. In 2010, the AKP-sponsored constitutional reform package made it legal to enact future affirmative action laws for promoting equal opportunity.

Numbers, however, tell a different story. According to the 2011 Global Gender Gap Report (World Economic Forum), Turkey ranked 122 out of 135 countries studied. The WEF report investigates instances of inequality between men and women in areas such as political empowerment and economic participation.

According to the state personnel office, 36 percent of all civil servants in Turkey are women. This number falls to 13 percent for senior level public administrators such as advisors (danışman), counselors (müşavir), legal counsel (hukuk müşaviri) and general-directors (genel müdür).

The presence of women almost disappears within the senior level bureaucracy in Turkey. There are 26 ministers and 22 deputy ministers (bakan yardımcısı) in the current Turkish cabinet. Of these 48 top executives, only two are women (both in the Ministry of Family and Social Policies). While there are no women among the 26 undersecretaries (müsteşar), there are only two women among the 80 deputy undersecretaries (müsteşar yardımcısı).

Do these numbers represent the occupational choices by women or women’s ‘traditional family roles’ in Turkey? The answer is no. There are many qualified women to run Turkey’s public administration, but their presence in country’s top bureaucracy has eroded in the last decade.

According to the Union of Turkish Bar Associations, around 38 percent of all lawyers in Turkey are women. In the Ministry of Justice, however, of the 33 executives only one is woman and all five of the deputy undersecretaries are men. Women also lack representation in country’s high courts. There is only one female member in the country’s highest administrative court – the Council of State (Danıştay). There are no women in the boards of the Supreme Court of Appeals (Yargıtay) and the Court of Accounts (Sayıştay). Moreover, of the 17 members of the highest legal body in Turkey, the Constitutional Court (Anayasa Mahkemesi), only two are women.

Similarly, around 40 percent of all teachers in Turkey are women; however, only eight percent of women are serving as principal administrators in public schools. There is only one female appointee (Press and Public Affairs Advisor) to 27 top offices in the education ministry. While women constitute over 30 percent of all doctors in Turkey, of the 81 provincial directors, only five are women. Men also dominate the executive post of chief of staff in public hospitals. Moreover, there is only one woman (Directorate of European Union Coordination) among the top bureaucrats in the Ministry of Health.

As in the cases of education, health, and justice ministries, there is only one female appointee to the executive posts in the Ministries of Forestry (and Water Affairs), Energy, Agriculture (Gıda, Tarım ve Hayvancılık Bakanlığı), and Labor and Social Security. The Ministries of Internal Affairs, Development, Science (Industry, and Technology), and Environment (and Urbanization) have no women in their executive offices.

Interestingly, the majority of women who are in senior management are either in charge of public affairs or European Union and/or International relations. Coincidentally, the only ministry where there are more woman appointees to senior offices is the Ministry of European Union Affairs. Of the 19 senior managers, 11 are women, while the ministry’s top three executive posts except the minister (deputy minister, undersecretary and deputy undersecretary) are held by men.

Only in the Ministries of Culture and Tourism and Family and Social Policies women constitute 20 percent of the senior managers. Yet, there are still only a few women among the top four bureaucratic offices in both ministries.

Here is the most confusing statistics: the AKP not only has the highest number of female political party members in Turkey, it has the highest representation of women in party membership with around 35 percent in Turkey.

The AKP describes itself as a democratic movement with a conservative ideology. Its supporters argue that the party is no different than the conservative political movements in the West. However, AKP policies are becoming associated more with Islamic conservatism than with democracy in a number of issues including the status of women. The critics question that if the AKP has the support of the majority (of women), why serious problems in the status of women persist and why women’s presence in the country’s public administration is disappearing.

By Mohammed Aasim Saleem for Deutsche Welle

Officials from India and Pakistan have announced they are moving closer to inking a deal to import gas from Turkmenistan via a pipeline through Afghanistan. The 1,700-kilometer “TAPI” duct will transport over 30 billion cubic meters of gas annually from fields in Dauletabad in southeastern Turkmenistan.

In high-level talks in New Delhi this week, Indian Oil Minister S. Jaipal Reddy said “considerable progress” has been made on the project. His Pakistani counterpart, Asim Hussain, added at the meeting that “the issue of transit fees is being discussed with Afghanistan. A joint strategy is also being created between India and Pakistan.”

When the four countries signed a framework agreement back in 2008, the Asian Development Bank estimated the cost of the TAPI pipeline project at around $7.6 billion.

After the talks in New Delhi, the Indian oil minister emphasized that the pipeline would help address the energy needs of the region. Reddy also clarified that security concerns were discussed with Afghan officials, who themselves sought to provide reassurance that necessary measures would be taken to protect the TAPI project.

“We consider it a pipeline of peace,” Reddy said. “Everyone needs gas.”

Improving cooperation between the nuclear armed and traditionally hostile neighbors is seen as a positive development towards establishing long term stability in South Asia.

Pakistan gave India a “Most Favored Nation” trading status when the countries’ commerce secretaries met in New Delhi in November last year to discuss energy and bilateral trade. Indian commerce chief Rahul Khullar expressed his desire to boost bilateral trade to $6 billion within the next three years. Currently, total trade amounts to $2.7 billion.

Reddy said that Pakistan had pledged to also consider a proposal to import Indian petroleum products, highlighting the cost advantages for Pakistan. India, meanwhile, offered electricity to Pakistan through its power plants in Punjab and Gujrat.

The Indian oil minister went on to express disappointment over a failed Iran-Pakistan-India gas pipeline project. With the US leaving no stone unturned in trying to corner Iran over its nuclear ambitions, any possibility of India, Afghanistan or Pakistan going against the Obama administration is somewhat remote. India imports 12 to 14 percent of its oil from Iran, making the Islamic Republic India’s second largest source of oil after Saudi Arabia.

There was significant domestic pressure in India as the analysts and masses called for a stern stand against the US in determining trade relations with Iran. With other regional countries, including China, also refusing to follow US directions, India is still continuing with the import of oil from Iran. In this regard, Reddy said that New Delhi would continue importing oil from Iran and was not bound by new sanctions imposed by the European Union on the Islamic Republic earlier this week.

“We, as a member of the UN, are obliged to follow UN sanctions. Other sanctions imposed by big blocs of countries, we can have some freedom there,” he added further.

Improving relations and cooperation in the energy sector between India and Pakistan will go a long way to establishing harmony and stability in the region. Pakistan is experiencing a severe energy crisis whilst India needs to feed its rapidly developing economy. Mutual dependency and cooperation in this sector with projects such as the TAPI pipeline can also ensure smoother political ties.

Pakistanis for Peace Editor’s Note- A Peace pipe was often used between the Native American tribes when they ended their wars and called a truce. A different sort of peace pipe between Turkmenistan and India via Pakistan can do great wonders for the bilateral relations of the two feuding neighbors and must be encouraged to fruition.

Filed under: Afghanistan, Desi, India, Iran, Pakistan, Pakistanis, Peace, United States, US-Pakistan Relations Tagged: Afghanistan, India, India-Pakistan Pipeline, Iran Sanctions, Iran-Pakistan pipeline, Most Favored Nation, Obama Administration, Pakistan, S Jaipal Reddy, Saudi Arabia, TAPI, Turkmenistan, United States

India has reportedly agreed to pay Tehran in gold for the oil it
buys, in a move aimed at protecting Delhi from US-sanctions targeting
countries who trade with Iran. China, another buyer of Iranian oil, may
follow Delhi’s lead.

The report, by the Israeli-based news website DEBKAfile, states that
Iran and India are negotiating backup alternatives with China and
Russia, should the US and EU find a way to block the gold payment
mechanism.

Delhi’s move is seen as surprising, as earlier India
and Iran said they would switch to yen and rupees. China, another major
importer of Iranian oil, may follow Delhi’s lead, the report adds.

India
and China need to switch from the dollar in bilateral trade, since the
US and EU have issued unilateral sanctions against the Iranian oil
industry and financial institutions. The sanctions would ban any bank
involved in oil trade with Iran from dealing with American and European
counterparts.

Both India and China, two major buyers of Iranian
oil accounting for 22 and 13 percent of its total export respectively,
have refused to join such sanctions. This means they have to establish a
reliable way of paying for crude, independently of the parts of the
global financial system controlled by New York and London.

Delhi’s
current plan is to effect payments through two state-owned banks,
India’s UCO Bank and Turkey’s Halk Bankasi, Turkey being another country
refusing to join the sanction spree.

The US issued sanctions
against Iran in December, aiming to put pressure on the Islamic Republic
and make its controversial nuclear program more transparent. The EU
joined the initiative on Monday, banning new oil contracts with Iran,
but allowing current ones to be fulfilled.

Australia on Tuesday
became the latest country to voice plans for such an embargo, although
the move would be more symbolic than practical, considering the
country’s small share in Iran’s oil export.

READ MORE

EU NAVFOR Atalanta in action (source: German Navy)

The last two years were a bumpy ride for the European security policy. One may claim that the Europeans once again failed not only to convey a clear message about their security goals to the foreign partners, but also to take concrete actions in order to stave off the creeping erosion of the Common Security and Defense Policy (CSDP). Do we really face a European strategic decay in that domain? Indeed, some serious doubts about this statement may be raised. Therefore, it is high time to debunk three prophecies about European security in 2012.

1. Do worry, do not be happy. The Polish Presidency did a good job. The last six months have been the most fruitful and substantial for CSDP since the French Presidency in 2008. The joint conclusions of the Council of the European Union of December 2011 gave a vivid signal that the EU Member States are still willing to further develop the CSDP concept and necessary capabilities (personnel, assets, intelligence analytical support.) It was not easy to reach a consensus as there are multiple visions of European security and the pace in which it should evolve. Despite that fact the current message is a bit more optimistic than a year ago: Be of good cheer! After two years of stagnation there is a light of hope for CSDP. However, there are still a lot of obstacles on the European way toward ultimate success. One of them are financial constraints.

2. Crisis will impede everything. Against the backdrop of current financial constraints, the challenge for Europe is to do better with less while making good on its responsibilities. The crisis has inevitably made it more difficult for politicians to sell the benefits of the ongoing defense integration to the wary public. The crisis has blunted the importance of Europe in the world, exposed the Old Continent to numerous risks and threats, but also put it to the critical test that it cannot fail. The biggest challenge for Europeans remains the weakening of mutual trust between the Member States. The Weimar initiative from December 2010 – which sought to strengthen CSDP – has to some extent filled the gap. Poland, France and Germany were able to build a coalition of the willing and able (e.g. Finland, Italy, Spain, Sweden, Romania) to spark a new wave of trust that may empower CSDP. However, crisis can only be overcome by concrete actions. Therefore, without a visible sign of progress in the implementation of the pooling and sharing initiative in 2012 it will be hard to revamp CSDP. In fact, an agreement on at least basic issues (e.g. support structures required for education, training and exercises) is a must.

3. The EU will diminish its external security policy engagement. To be fair, a glance at the number and locations of the past and current EU missions around the world reveals the union’s clear desire to live up to its ambitions in terms of crisis management policy. Since 2003, the EU has launched 25 civilian and military missions, in such far-flung countries as Chad and the Central African Republic in 2008-2009 and Guinea-Bissau from 2008-2010. Currently, the EU’s engagement in the world stretches from the Balkans, in Bosnia-Herzegovina and Kosovo; through Eastern Europe, in Georgia and Moldova; to the Middle East, in the Palestinian territories; up to Africa, in the Democratic Republic of the Congo, the Horn of Africa and Uganda. In 2011, as a result of budget cutbacks, the EU has struggled at least to maintain the status quo of its foreign operational engagements. Some experts even thought that the EU was likely to adopt an even less expeditionary posture in the future. On the contrary, the 2012 agenda looks both ambitious and promising. Besides, the ongoing operations the EU will remain committed to addressing the security challenges in the Sahel with a view to start a CSDP mission to reinforce regional security capabilities, in close cooperation with the African Union. A second operation, in South Sudan (with a focus on airport security), is also being prepared. Finally, the Polish Presidency has facilitated the amendment process of the Athena mechanism which administers the financing of common costs of EU operations having military or defence implications. Therefore, it will be now easier than before to set up a mission.

On paper it all seems doable and easy. But, as diplomats say: Paper is patient. After the Libyan crisis there is a growing sense of ambiguity about the real outcome of the EU’s crisis management policy. Therefore, it is more than certain that the development of CSDP will be a long process. But Europeans should not forget that they are approaching a “do or die” moment for Common Security and Defense Policy.

Dominik P. Jankowski serves as Expert Analyst at the National Security Bureau of the Republic of Poland and is pursuing a doctorate at the Warsaw School of Economics.

The opinions, findings and conclusions expressed herein are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect those of the National Security Bureau of the Republic of Poland.

The Israeli-Palestinian peace process (negotiations between Israel and Fatah) has reached a stalemate that could prove quite detrimental to the two-state solution.  It has allowed Hamas to make a resurgence in Palestinian public opinion.   Since the Gilad Schalit deal, which saw over 1,000 Palestinian prisoners released, Hamas has gained popularity in Gaza and the West Bank.  The Hamas political victory also discredited and undercut the influence and image of Fatah and its leaders.  In the eyes of the Palestinians, Hamas was able to make real gains through the use of threats of violence, while Fatah has nothing to show for their non-violent methods and stalled negotiation attempts with Israel.  In reality, this is of course not true.   The West Bank economy has more than flourished in comparison to that of the Gaza Strip, largely a result of Fatah’s negotiations with Israel.  But come election time, what will Palestinians weigh in on more?

Hamas is gaining popularity in Gaza and the West Bank, at the expense of Fatah and the Peace Process. (Image: vkb.isvg.org)

While neither party may be part of the answer to the Israeli-Palestinian solution, a Hamas victory in the West Bank would put an end to the peace formula altogether.  Fatah is the only reasonable political party that Israel can negotiate a peace treaty with.  As a result, Israel must do all it can to restore the reputation of Fatah and help it win back the hearts and minds of its constituency.  Dennis Ross, a known supporter of Israel and the former special assistant to President Obama, provides some valuable and constructive insight on how Israel can do this in his most recent piece for the Washington Post:

The following was written on January 6, 2012 by Dennis Ross, the former special assistant to President Barak Obama, for the Washington Post:

Dan Meridor, one of Israel’s four deputy prime ministers, said to me years ago that “the peace process is like riding a bicycle: When you stop pedaling, you fall off.” And currently, the Israelis and Palestinians have stopped pedaling.

Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas is convinced that this Israeli government cannot make a peace deal — or at least one he can live with — so he imposes conditions on negotiations. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu sees these conditions as harsh and unprecedented, and doesn’t want to pay a steep political price just to enter talks.

The Obama administration and the other members of the Quartet — the Middle East mediating group that also includes envoys from the European Union, Russia and the United Nations — want to resume direct talks and this past week held a preparatory meeting with Israeli and Palestinian negotiators in Amman, Jordan. There may be more such meetings, and that is good, because ultimately there will be no peace without negotiations.

But there should also be no illusions about the prospects of a breakthrough any time soon. The psychological gaps between the parties make it hard to resolve their differences and have bedeviled all the work for peace talks over the past few years.

I have been intimately involved in peacemaking efforts over the past 20 years under Presidents George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton and Obama, and I know that Abbas and Netanyahu carry the weight of their peoples’ history and mythology, and face enormous political constraints. But those difficulties cannot be a reason to despair and accept a stalemate, particularly when those who reject peace will exploit any impasse to challenge the very idea of a two-state outcome.

While there may be no early breakthrough on holding negotiations, it is possible to overcome the stalemate. One way to do so — and to validate those Palestinian leaders, such as Abbas and Prime Minister Salam Fayyad, who believe in nonviolence and coexistence — is for the Israelis to change the realities on the ground. After all, these Palestinian leaders need to be able to show that their approach is producing a process that will, in time, end the occupation.

What could demonstrate to the Palestinians that the occupation is receding? Examples are not hard to come by. Since the interim agreement of the Oslo process was finalized in 1995, the West Bank has been divided into non-contiguous areas known as A, B and C — with the Palestinians having putative control in Area A and Israel retaining overall responsibility in the two other areas. From the fall of 1995 to the spring of 2002, the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) largely stayed out of Area A, which constitutes about 18 percent of the territory and includes all the major cities in the West Bank. According to the Oslo agreements, the Palestinians are to have civil and security responsibility in this area.

But in 2002, at the height of the second intifada and the horrendous suicide bombings that Palestinians were executing in Israel, the IDF began operating in Area A again to try to stop the attacks. Though the intifada ended in 2005 and Palestinian security forces have been generally effective in preventing terror attacks, the IDF still carries out periodic incursions into Palestinian cities to reinforce local security efforts. This grates on Palestinians, reminding them who remains in control.

So, one meaningful step would be either to stop all such incursions in Area A or, if there are continuing security concerns, to phase them out based on the security situation. Gabi Ashkenazi, former chief of staff of the IDF, has consistently said that “as the Palestinians do more on security, we will do less.” A gradual ending of incursions in Area A would certainly be consistent with that axiom.

In Area B, about 22 percent of the West Bank, Palestinian police maintain law and order but are not permitted to deal with terrorist threats. Israel could allow their presence to grow. From my discussions with Israeli Defense Minister Ehud Barak, I know that he is open to increasing the number of Palestinian police stations and broadening the areas where Palestinian security personnel operate. Now would be a good time to take these steps, as any such expansion would certainly be noticed, and welcomed, by the Palestinian public.

Finally, in Area C, which is about 60 percent of the West Bank, Palestinians’ security and police forces have no access, their economic activity is extremely limited, and Israel retains civil and security responsibilities. There is no practical reason that the Palestinians cannot be permitted dramatically more economic access and activity in this area.

To give one example, there are Palestinian stone masonry factories in Area A, but Palestinians have limited access to the rock quarries in the West Bank, which are in Area C. In a case brought against Israeli ownership of the rock quarries, the Israeli Supreme Court ruled late last month that no additional quarries should be Israeli-owned. That ruling creates an opening for private Palestinian ownership, should any new quarries be established — and there clearly is room for more.

Expanding the Palestinians’ economic opportunities in Area C would do wonders for job creation and the overall Palestinian economy. (In the West Bank, unemployment has come down in recent years but remains at about 16 percent.)

These steps should be feasible from an Israeli standpoint. First, these or similar changes could be implemented without altering the territory’ s political status and could be done in a way that would not put Israeli security at risk, particularly if coordinated closely with the IDF.

Second, Netanyahu has said repeatedly that he does not want to rule over Palestinians and that the stronger their economic base, the better the prospects for peace. These steps would certainly demonstrate that the prime minister means what he says. At the same time, they would signal to Palestinians that independence is possible and that the approach from Abbas and Fayyad — not Hamas resistance or violence — can produce it.

I’m not suggesting to forgo negotiations and their focus on a two-state solution. Talks need to be pursued, and the Obama administration is rightly doing so. The administration is also continuing to assist with institution-building by providing material support for the security, judicial and other sectors of Palestinian society — steps that fit neatly with the kind of actions I am proposing to validate leaders such as Fayyad. At this point, validation of nonviolence will come less from words and more from demonstrations that the occupation is shrinking and will, eventually, end.

The rest of the Middle East is churning, with dictators being toppled and protesters still in the streets a year into the Arab Awakening. Since the demand for free and fair elections has become a symbol of credibility in the uprisings, the pressure on both Fatah and Hamas to hold elections this year is likely to become irresistible. For the past few years, Abbas has said that he would not be a candidate in new elections, but now he is saying he would like those elections to take place in May and plans to depart the political scene afterward. Even if it will not be simple to reach an agreement with Hamas on the terms of elections, Abbas will feel the need to hold them sometime in 2012.

These elections are likely to shape the Palestinians’ identity and whether they continue to accept nonviolence, peaceful coexistence with Israelis and a two-state solution. If there are clear signs that the occupation is diminishing, the positions of Palestinians such as Abbas, Fayyad and their followers who believe in nonviolence will be validated before the elections. This is essential because the alternative is Hamas, which rejects nonviolence and peace with Israel.

In the recent deal with the Israeli government to free kidnapped soldier Gilad Shalit, which gained the release of more than 1,000 prisoners, Hamas was seen as delivering political gain through an act of violence. By comparison, Abbas and Fayyad are not seen as delivering on the issues that matter to the Palestinian public, such as prisoner releases, Israeli withdrawal or a reduction of Israeli control.

For Palestinians, at least, this validation would also shrink the psychological gap between them and the Israelis, inspiring hope that negotiations could actually lead somewhere. It might, thus, also offer the best way to unstick the negotiating track. Even more important, with the changes sweeping the region and a political transition looming for the Palestinians, such a validation may be the only way to preserve support among the Palestinian and Arab publics for a two-state solution.

Dennis Ross, counselor at the Washington Institute, served as a special assistant to President Obama and a senior director on the National Security Council staff from July 2009 to December 2011.

These last couple weeks I have been watching numerous movies on British politics. Coincidence or calculations? Yesterday night, it was Tinker, Tailor, Sailor, Spy, the night before Page Eight (which by the way is one of my favorite spy movies), tonight most likely the Iron Lady. Prior to this triple hat, I did see the Queen, The Special Relationship, Ghost Writer, the King Speech and the Deal among many others. So I cannot help myself thinking: why has Britain always shape imagination? Is there such thing as a British myth? And, what kind of power will Britain be in the 21st century?

All these movies – and I am missing a lot of them – prove that Britain’s soft power – or the power of attraction as defined by Joseph Nye – is more than ever alive and powerful. British cinema and music, such as Coldplay, are still doing very well and truly influence the artistic world to a certain extent. But has British soft power been an overall success? Not really, British soft power is also progressively eroding with the considerable cuts of the British diplomatic services, one of the most powerful in the world, by almost 20 percent. The Foreign & Commonwealth Office (FCO), diplomatic corps, has seen a reduction of its staff from 4,300 to 3,900, which will affect the influence of Britain in less relevant and strategic regions as well as the gathering of information. Furthermore, many radio programs of the BBC have already been cancelled. These moves will undeniably hurt British soft power in the long run. Looking at the domestic politics of Britain, the economic crisis has been pretty violent and led to the appointment of Mr. Cameron, a conservative, to Downing Street. Mr. Cameron’s job and approach have been to cut public programs in order to lower the overall budget deficit, an obsession among conservatives. The budget cuts have been considerable across the board, even the military did not escape it.

Talking of the military, defender of hard power, critics have claimed that defense budget cuts have been made without a clear overall strategy. Many believe that these defense cuts will affect the type of power Britain will be in the 21st century. Some have argued that the defense cuts of “the annual $58 billion Ministry of Defense budget might have to be cut by almost a quarter.” The Franco-British treaty of 2010 illustrates the new approach of cooperation in the very opaque world of military and defense. A year later, France and Britain sought to protect Libyan civilians from their leader Colonel Qaddafi. Both European military powerhouses knew that without NATO they would not be able to act and sustain their military strategies without the intervention of the US. Even though the mission was described as a success and a possible template for future missions, it did show that France and Britain cannot finance military operations at regional and international scales. Furthermore, these defense cuts have sent a wrong message across the pond. The American fear that it could affect the role of Britain in the Afghan counter-insurgency. Britain is the second largest force in Afghanistan after the US. Former US Secretary of Defense, Mr. Gates, expressed his concerns back in June 2011 about the large defense cuts taking place in Europe and their impacts on the relevance of NATO. Robert Gates declared that “If current trends in the decline of European defense capabilities are not halted and reversed, future U.S. political leaders — those for whom the Cold War was not the formative experience that it was for me — may not consider the return on America’s investment in NATO worth the cost.” Following the cuts, Defense Minister, Liam Fox declared in order to reassure his American counterpart, “We would be able to maintain a moderate deployable force for a considerable length of time, if required,” Mr. Fox added. “Maybe not exactly at the level we have now, but at still a respectable and useful level.” This remains to be seen.

So is Britain a Great Power? I would answer yes and no. No, Britain has never fully recovered from the crisis of 1929. At the time, Britain was a hegemon with overwhelming military, financial and economic power. The famous say “the sun never sets on the British Empire” illustrated the power and influence of the British empire around the globe as well as its exceptional nature. Since then, Britain has remained a very relevant power in the world thanks to its strategic positioning on many issues; historical heritage; membership of the EU and NATO; and its ‘special relationship.’ Multilateral institutions, such as the EU, NATO, the UN, the IMF, G-20, wherein Britain holds powerful seat and/or important shares can allow Britain to remain influential in the high sphere of politics and international security.

However, British power is undeniably declining as illustrated by the domestic turmoil such as the 2011 summer riots, the problem of radicalization among the communities of immigrants, and the erosion of the welfare state. Domestic signs as well as revision of ambition downwards are clear symbol of the decline of British power. The dispute with European counterparts on the protection of the British financial sector, the famous City, which has contributed to maintaining the world status of Britain, is considerable. The shift of power of the financial system will progressively move to Asia and impact the financial power of Britain. Following the election, Mr. Cameron declared in an interview:
What does it mean to be British in the 21st century? This is still a great country. Being British is being part of a successful multi-racial country that has traditional beliefs in liberty, supporting the underdog, and having a role that punches above our weight in the world. All those things still matter. We’re going to have a tough time for a couple of years. We’ll come through it, and we’ll be even stronger.

The decline of a great power of such preeminent power has already started and has had a considerable effect on the moral of the country. Let’s face it, movies will always be around in order to remind us how powerful Britain used to be.

In an era of austerity,US defense is facing cutbacks, or to stick with the administration’s euphemism, the US military will become “leaner”. This much is clear following the release of the latest US defense review, Sustaining US Global Leadership: Priorities for 21st Century Defense.

Most would agree that defense spending cuts are only natural, considering the winding down of two land wars by a military that outspends the military of the next 10 countries combined. But before we soft power enthusiastic Europeans get too carried away, it is worth taking a look at what these cutbacks will mean for Europe.

Cutbacks necessarily mean prioritization of available means. If there were doubts as to where the US intends to focus its resources, the defense review made it clear; the Asia-Pacific will be given top priority while the Middle East and South Asia also will be area of special focus. Europe‘s days as US priority numero uno are long gone. With cutbacks that fact will now become apparent.

Although the defense review in diplomatic terms calls “most European countries producers of security rather than consumers of it”, and underscores its commitment to NATO and Europe, between the lines the intention is clearly that Europe must take on a larger share of its own security responsibilities. Some US commentators, particular those on the right, are less diplomatic, condemning Europeans for skimping on defense, taking advantage of the US security umbrella, while they instead spend on welfare.

Although I believe a pretty solid argument could be made for a more holistic approach to security than the one mentioned; i.e. that the strength, stability, and security of a country has as much to do with the wealth and wellbeing of a society as whole as its military, it would seem that Europe must now get serious on defense if it intends to exert influence in its own neighborhood.

The EU’s own security strategy, A Secure Europe in a Better World, has building security through the development of democratic government and the rule of law in its own neighborhood as one of its central aims. However, the intentions set forth in A Secure Europe in a Better World have largely proven outside European capabilities. In particular the intention of providing “robust intervention” has proven illusionary.

The NATO led action in Libya, for example, demonstrated the limits of European nations’ logistic capabilities. Ammunition had to be bought from the US, likewise US refueling and intelligence capabilities were relied heavily upon. As for coherence, Europe’s most powerful nation, Germany, chose to sit Libya out, making a mockery of a common EU defense policy.

In a time when the only effective security institution at Europe’s disposal, NATO, is being downsized, and no sign of the EU becoming better at pooling its military assets, it would seem that Europe will find it even harder to make its preferences felt in the future. Even with this being the case, the time is not ripe for raising defense budgets. Regardless that less security is being provided by the US, European constituents would not appreciate cuts in education, hospitals, and pensions while defense appropriations go up. Furthermore it is hard for the US to put pressure on Europe to up its defense budgets, when the US itself is slashing its expenditure.

And what do the cutbacks mean for NATO? Thomas Valasek of the Centre for European Reform points out, that as forces on both sides of the Atlantic are cut back, NATO’s security guarantees will increasingly lose their credibility. It doesn’t seem unreasonable to see the US shift toward the Asia-Pacific, coupled with the transatlantic defense cuts, as the end for NATO as we know it. Instead of an institution of collective defense, NATO will be the framework within which smaller coalitions of the willing operate.

So, perhaps Europe must seek out alternative security arrangements for itself? For example, smaller coalitions formed around core nations on more or less ad hoc basis, coupled with intergovernmental asset sharing agreements, such as the French-British talk of coordinating aircraft carrier patrols. Regardless of the desirability of such solution, considering the current state of the Common Foreign and Security Policy, solutions outside the EU framework seem the only way forward.

Novel fish-based biological tools for EDA of environmental endocrine disrupting chemicals (EDCs) PhD position in Environmental Toxicology   Within the EU project EDA-EMERGE, the Unit of Ecotoxicology in vitro and in vivo at INERIS seeks a PhD in the field … Continue reading →

When I look back to the ended year, I think of so many unexpected turn of events, civilizations ruined, great people we lost as well as so many remarkable achievements in global peace, freedom, and justice movements. Some of these developments are easy to forget and some are cherished already. In North Africa protesters overthrew entrenched autocracies, the US caught it’s most wanted man, a tsunami devastated Japan, the European Union teetered on the verge of collapse, while famine ravaged the horn of Africa and demonstrators mobilized across the globe to slam excesses in the financial industry. In short, 2011 is unique on so many levels.

A society’s well being depends on ensuring that all its members feel that they have a stake in it and do not feel excluded from the mainstream. In democratic societies all groups, but particularly the most vulnerable, have opportunities to improve or maintain their well being. When governments fail or are unable to keep with the common good, it’s a matter of time until we will see them going down. This reminds me Martin Luther King Jr. “Freedom is never voluntarily given by the oppressor; it must be demanded by the oppressed.”

Thanks to TIME Magazine, in its special edition, the liberal magazine honored the 2011 person of the year award to the protestors. There are indeed many to choose from. It’s a great recognition for the sacrifices paid by those who stand for freedom and justice. No one could have known that when a Tunisian fruit vendor set himself on fire in a public square in a town barely on a map, he would spark protests that would bring down dictators in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya and rattle regimes in Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. Or that that spirit of dissent would spur Mexicans to rise up against the terror of drug cartels, Greeks to march against unaccountable leaders, Americans to occupy public spaces to protest income inequality, and Russians to marshal themselves against a corrupt autocracy.

TIME’s nomination was not free from questions. There are philosophical differences in mapping who is protesting for fairness, who is fighting for freedom and who is terrorizing humanity. As Larbi Sadiki noted in his view “Veiling luminance”, do the meanings of protest, dissidence, and objection apply to Osama bin Laden? Was he a protester? We all know he was a terrorist. Are terrorist’s protesters? Is it the medium of protest, its reach, geography or end that defines the properties or identity of a “protester”? Do Gandhi, Martin Luther King and Mandela epitomize “the protester”. Would Ché? Castro? ANC? Hamas? The Afghan Mujahedeen (once allies of Bin Laden)? The Tunisian Federation of Trade Unions? All had something to do with “redefining people power”!

Despite such critics, everywhere the protestors of 2011 were disproportionately young, middle class and educated. Almost all the protests last year began as independent affairs, without much encouragement from, or endorsement by, existing political parties or opposition bigwigs. All over the world, the protesters of 2011 share a belief that their countries’ political systems and economies have grown dysfunctional and corrupt — sham democracies rigged to favor the rich and powerful and prevent significant change. They are fervent small democrats.

While there are universal values which are the common denominators of all the 2011 protestors, there are no ready-made recipes for bringing an end to their plights. Their quest requires a broad and long-term perspective analysis on what caused the protests and how institutions respond to their plights. Time will tell the historical, cultural, and social factors in a given society or country that shape the protest. I hope 2012 will be time to act on our global peace and development challenges on the bases of respect, tolerance, and mending our long standing political deference.