Kashif. N. Chaudary

Imran Khan is Pakistan’s sports superstar. His philanthropy is also admirable. This, however, does not mean I should not exercise my right to criticize Khan’s politics. Sadly,Imran Khan’s followers do not take criticism all that well. Anyone who calls him Taliban Khan is quickly ascribed a set of views and labeled a “pseudo-liberal” and “fascist”.

In a recent interview, Imran Khan said he believed in engaging the far right and justified being represented at rallies of extremist groups by stating that his was a political party that believed in engaging marginalized groups. Will Imran Khan also engage the ostracized Ahmadi Muslims, Hindus and Christians of Pakistan? Or is his engagement limited to those that preach and execute their killings?

Imran Khan has been represented at rallies organized by banned terrorist outfits such as the Jamaat-ud Dawa and Lashkar-e-Jhangvi. His vice president has spoken at pro-Mumtaz Qadri rallies and has been in attendance at anti-Ahmadi rallies organized by the extremist Aalmi Majlis Tahaffuz Khatm-e-Nubuwwat. Khan believes this approach of friendship with the radical right will help bring them to the center. It will soften them and with time, allow them to shun their extremist ideology.

If Imran Khan genuinely believes in coherence, he should employ the same approach of engagement with the far left to make them more centrist, right? Surprisingly, he ridicules them openly, calling them “the scum of Pakistan.” He does not stop at that. He also blames all the extremism in Pakistan on the liberals living within. For example, in a recent interview, he said:

“These liberals. I don’t know these liberals, because these liberals back bombing of villages. They back drone attacks. I mean, I don’t call them liberals. I call them fascists. In my book these people are fascists…Because of them we have extremism in this country these liberals, so called liberals, applauded the incineration, where they bombed this mosque when there were children and women in it, students in it. And these liberals were in the forefront. I don’t call them liberals. I agree. I really think these are the scum of this country.”

Let me remind Imran Khan that liberals were not in the forefront at Lal Masjid. It was the Army. Also, drones do not take off from atop liberals’ houses; they take off from army bases. But I understand it is much easier to criticize vulnerable unarmed liberals than take on the Military-Mullah nexus.

I am flabbergasted. I am also confused. Does Imran Khan and his die-hard fans really understand the words he uses? A fascist is a person who is dictatorial and suppresses criticism and opposition through use of force. Scum refers to a low life, worthless or evil person.

I am yet to meet a “so-called liberal” who bombs mosques and attacks shrines. I am yet to see a “so-called liberal” who kills fellow Pakistanis citing differences of faith. I have never come across a “so-called liberal” who persecutes Pakistan’s very own minorities and razes their places of worship. I am yet to come across a “so-called liberal” who delivers sermons of hate against Shia and Ahmadi Muslims, inciting their killings.

Let me remind Imran Khan that it is the religious fanatics he engages that are the real fascists and the real scum of Pakistan. It is they that are responsible for all the extremism in the country.  Lest he has forgotten, it is they that bomb mosques and shrines. It is they that murder fellow Pakistanis they despise, namely the Ahmadi and Shia Muslims, and non-Muslim Pakistanis. It is they that have made life in Pakistan a living hell for everyone, especially its minorities. It is they that spread hate and incite violence against any and all voices of reason and moderation. Many have had to flee after being threatened by these bigots.

Now, why the far left liberals should be considered scum and unworthy of engagement while those who openly carry out and endorse acts of terror be considered worthy of engagement is beyond me!  Why must only the far right be brought to the center and the far left subjected to ridicule and left isolated? Why must one end of our political divide be
befriended and the other rejected? Above all, why must the heavy burden of sins of one be taken off its shoulder and placed on the shoulders of the other?

Is this justice? Is this Insaaf?

Imran Khan’s justice appears to favor the rightist and the strong. Unless he garners courage to blame extremism on those that actually perpetrate it and relieve the “so-called liberals” of unbefitting slander, his party will increasingly be seen as TPI (Tehreek-e-Pseudo Insaaf) and not PTI.

God Save Pakistan!

Here are the most recent updates from four of the eight SAARC nations. For news from the rest of the countries, please visit their respective national pages.
…

MALDIVES – A top US diplomat arrived in the Maldives on February 11 to help resolve a deepening political crisis sparked by the ousting of the Indian Ocean nation’s first democratically elected president.

Mohamed Nasheed, who came to power in 2008, says he was forced to quit on February 7 in a coup led by mutinous army and police officers who threatened him with violence unless he stepped down as leader of the famous holiday islands.

He was replaced by his vice president Mohamed Waheed, whom Nasheed accuses of being party to the conspiracy to topple him.

…

SRI LANKA – Sri Lankan President Mahinda Rajapaksa reached Pakistan on February 10 to Pakistan to further strengthen political, economic and defence ties between the two countries.

Pakistan and Sri Lanka are also expected to sign an agreement during President Rajapaksa’s visit under which the latter would get $200 million export credit facility through the State Bank of Pakistan.

The two countries are aiming to increase bilateral trade to $2 billon mark over the next three years and pledged to support each other at regional and international forums.

The commitment is significant in the light of the forthcoming UNHRC session, which is expected to put pressure on Sri Lanka to address the ethnic conflict between Sinhala majority and the Tamil minority of the island nation.

…

NEPAL – A top Maoist leader on February 10 said the government will finish the key task of concluding the peace process and framing a new constitution, amid a deadlock between the political parties over form of governance and federal structure to be adopted in the country.

“The peace process and the constitution drafting will be completed within the stipulated time frame of May 27,” Education Minister and senior Maoist party leader Dinanath Sharma said on the sideline of the inaugural function of the UK Education Fair in the capital.

The landmark peace process has been stalled amid the failure of the political parties to agree on the form of governance and federal structure.

…

BHUTAN – By the end of 2012 at least 40 locations in western and central Bhutan will have access to 3G or third generation high speed Internet connectivity, which is today available only in the core areas of Thimphu city.
Starting March Bhutan Telecom will start work to expand its 3G network in Thimphu, Phuentsholing, Paro and Gelephu.
3G is the ‘3rd Generation’ technology for mobiles which enhances internet speed and enables features like video calling, faster audio and video streaming and quicker downloads.

In urban Thimphu, six more locations will be added to the 14 existing 3G sites. The other 20 locations will be added in Phuentsholing, Paro and Gelephu and at tertiary institutes like Sherubtse College, College of Science and Technology and the college of business studies in Gedu.

“Many young people at these institutions are in need of these services and they are the people who use these services more often,” the CEO of Bhutan telecom, Nidup Dorji, said.

The present 3G sites in Thimphu are located within a five km radius of Bhutan Telecom head office. For 3G data service the speed range is 7.2 mbps.

- Agencies

Mere days after sobering official ceremonies marked the end of the U.S. mission in Iraq, America’s most dubious partner – Prime Minister Nouri al Maliki – charged his Vice President Tareq al-Hashemi with aiding and abetting terrorism and sought to remove his Deputy Prime Minister, Saleh al-Mutlaq from office. In short order, sectarian violence spread rapidly from the capital city of Baghdad, further south into Basra and north towards Mosul. Within a month, nearly 450 Iraqis had lost their lives – one of the highest tolls for short an amount of time in years.

However, the physical violence that rocked the struggling democracy concealed a major political crisis simmering below the superficial horrors of car bombs and death squads. Iraqis now face a new crisis as the fragile government juggles uncertain national unity under pressure of sectarian tension and raw competition for political leverage.

The Carnegie Endowment for International Peace is holding a special forum, “The State of Iraq” to discuss the growing political crisis left behind in the wake of America’s military occupation. Ad Melkert, former UN Special Representative in Iraq, and Carnegie’s Marina Ottoway will discuss the prospects for quelling the gathering storm.

The United States has exited Iraq, stage left, but for the second time since the 2003 invasion disrupted Saddam’s autocracy, the state finds itself on the verge of disintegration. Thank goodness some folks haven’t forgotten our obligation to help clean up the mess we left behind.

A couple of weeks shy of the scheduled presidential elections, Vice-President Abdu Rabbo Mansour Hadi announced in an official ceremony that he would run for president, adding that he hoped Yemenis would entrust him with the responsibility of running the affairs of the state.
On Tuesday, Yemenis across the country woke up to find that a number of posters advocating their electoral participation had been hung throughout their towns and villages, reminding them of their democratic, constitutional and civic duties. But since VP Hadi is the only candidate running for president, and no matter how few people decide to show up to cast their vote the veteran politician will still be pronounced the winner, many Yemenis are wondering whether the whole thing is a farce and if they should indulge in such a travesty of the democratic system.
From Sana’a to Aden, the eastern shore of the Red Sea to the leafy hills of Hadramaut, Yemenis from all faiths and political denominations are asking the same question: “What does this have to do with us?”

Flash Back

At the beginning of it all, when Yemenis decided during the ousting of Egyptian President Husni Mubarak to rise against their own dictator, President Ali Abdullah Saleh, they wanted to bring about real democracy, turning their country into a civil state where justice, freedom and equality would be revered notions, not just ink on paper. But as Saleh held on to his presidential seat and as blood started flowing through the streets of Sana’a, the capital and Taiz, a flash point of the Revolution, foreign nations scrambled to save Yemen from the precipice, too aware of its strategic importance within the region.

From that moment on, revolutionaries were put aside, ignored by the politicians, as diplomats and high ranking statesmen worked at finding a solution to the conundrum that had become Yemen. In between its many overlapping conflicts, widespread poverty and the threat of terror groups looming in the shadows, Yemen is unlike any other land. Very much like President Saleh put it himself, ruling over Yemen equates to “dancing over the heads of snakes”. But for one who truly understands the essence of Yemen, there is an order to the apparent chaos.

The GCC proposal that enunciated the terms of the power-transfer and its mechanisms never actually took into account the will of the people, but rather it was tailored around Saleh’s will, ensuring him an honorable exit with the promise of immunity. In other words, the fate of Yemen’s presidency was sealed by a group of technocrats and politicians, while the good people of Yemen were completely put on the back burner for it was “better this way.”

Democracy

VP Hadi, who is a member of the ruling party, was chosen by both the General People’s Congress and the Opposition as the candidate of the coalition, ensuring that no other contender would enter the presidential race.
And if even Western diplomats have argued that the move was intended to preserve the country’s unity and avoid a bitter battle for power from the various political factions, Yemenis saw no sense in it. Revolutionaries actually contested the legitimacy of the power-transfer deal from the very second it was inked in Riyadh, the Saudi capital, warning that they would continue to fight until Yemen power players would acknowledge their demands.

And although there was no further violent confrontation between the armed forces and the revolutionaries, at least not in the magnitude manifested before the agreement, hundreds of thousands of Yemenis across the nation are still demanding to be heard, rejecting as a whole “Saleh tailored plan.”

“Are you seriously telling me that a one-man-election can be called democratic? Are you telling me that after a year of suffering, blood spilled and all around misery, that the best the West and its minions could come up with is Hadi? Are Yemenis so stupid that the West does not trust them to choose their own leader? Why couldn’t we have a normal presidential elections like in Egypt based on the principle of political pluralism? Is it so hard to understand that Yemen wants a real civil state… not a make believe one where the old regime is still present but with a new face?” a leader of the Independent Youth argued.

Another sore point, which Yemeni are finding hard to swallow, lies in the fact that the United Nations, through its multitude of agencies, is currently throwing away several millions of dollars to organize the elections. “Millions of us are going hungry for we have lost everything in our struggle for freedom and rather than pull all the country’s resources together to bring some relief to war-torn areas, the government prefers to spend the UN money on stupid posters and presidential campaign? It is insulting to the nation. We don’t need posters but we need bread. So kindly Hadi, cash out your checks and feed your country,” said an English teacher in “Change Square”, the epicenter of the revolutionary movement.
Yemen is said to have spent 8 million dollars on Hadi’s campaign, with all the funds provided by Japan, Germany, Denmark and the United Kingdom. Given that the majority of the population lives on under $2 per day, this money could have prevented 4 million of people from going hungry or could have provided 80,000 families with an average salary of $100 for a month. Many are warning that in spite of the coalition government’s claims that all will be fixed after February 21st with Saleh’s departure from power, one might want to have a look at who is leading Yemen’s military. With his sons, nephews and brother still very much in charge of the nation’s fire power, Saleh might not have yet said his last goodbye to Yemen. In which case, the GCC proposal will only allow the autocrat to regroup and plan his comeback.

Photo: Department of Defense

The notion of asymmetric power–referring generally to the danger of lesser powers resorting to unconventional weaponry and tactics as an answer to the United States’ immense conventional military superiority–has been in vogue among American defense analysts since the first Gulf War; Gulf War II and its aftermath, with the devastating appearance of the Improvised Explosive Device (IED), gave the idea more credence than ever. So it’s important to be clear about the root of that asymmetry. It’s a result not primarily of other countries’ weakness but of the wildly over-built U.S. military and the country’s stubborn belief that it’s still its job to be the world’s policeman.

Despite the end of the Cold War, the irrelevance of a global conflict between capitalism and communism, and the unthinkability of armed conflict between what once were called the world’s two superpowers, U.S. defense spending has increased more than 50 percent since 2000. Although the United States is arguably only the world’s second largest economic power (strictly speaking the European Union is the biggest), the United States spends more on its bloated military complex that the next 10 countries combined.

President Obama made just that point in yesterday’s slightly peculiar Pentagon press briefing, which appears to have been staged to get the top brass used to the idea that defense spending cuts are ahead–and to send a message that team players will be expected to act the part of team players. But the president was not suggesting that U.S. defense spending should now be cut 50 percent and then some, which would be the logical thing to do now that the neo-imperialist fantasies of former Defense Secretary Rumsfeld and former Vice President Dick Cheney have been discredited and repudiated. No, what the president was evidently doing was positioning the military to accept the $450 billion in defense cuts already mandated by the budget supercommittee, and the additional cuts of $500 billion that will have to be made if congressional Republicans and Democrats are unable to agree on alternative spending cuts. Together, those cuts would equate to about 15 percent of the U.S. military budget, as the highly respected defense analyst Lawrence Korb pointed out in an interesting exchange published in the Sunday New York Times’s Review section on Nov. 13 last year.

Korb argued that the United States could easily go further than that, for example by reducing the number of its nuclear warheads from 5,000 to 311, “as recommended by some Air Force strategists” (as he said); reducing the number of aircraft careers and Air Force fighters by 25 percent; and cutting ground forces by 100,000 to pre-9/11 levels.

Readers reacting to Korb pointed out that the United States could in fact go even further than that, for example by ending its quixotic attempt to develop a leak-proof missile defense system, retiring 50 naval ships and scrapping plans to build up to a fleet of 300 ships, dumping plans to replace the current fleet of nuclear missile submarines, and sharply curtailing the “modernization” of U.S. nuclear weapons. (In that connection, here’s another idea not mentioned by those readers: Shutter one of the country’s two nuclear weapons laboratories, either Lawrence Livermore or Los Alamos, and reduce the other’s budget by 75 percent.)

Responding to those readers, Korb said, interestingly, that he basically agreed with them. So what are the prospects of cuts going even further than those resulting from the supercommittee’s mandate? Regrettably, not good.

On the positive side of the ledger, there now seems to be a bipartisan consensus, as The New York Times has pointed out, that defense spending needs to be cut; indeed, the supercommitte’s mandate was an implicit acknowledgement of that consensus. In a poll of its readers the Times published earlier last year, when they were asked where they would most prefer to see U.S. spending reduced, defense spending ranked at the very top. Though some of the Republican presidential candidates have made intemperate remarks about taking military action against Iran, Ron Paul appears to have got considerable traction with his neo-isolationist argument that the U.S. president should first and foremost keep the country out of unnecessary armed conflicts. Whoever the Republican presidential candidate turns out to be, Obama will surely be able to prevail with a position that avoiding new military entanglements will have equal place with preparedness in his second administration.

But on the negative side, there’s no indication that the president is ready or ever will be to confront head-on the country’s military and intelligence establishments, by far the country’s biggest and more fearsome vested interest. It’s hard to imagine that any president will ever have the guts and skill to face that challenge. But until one does, American military asymmetry will continue to provoke other countries to seek an equalizer, whether it’s an old-fashioned nuke or some much more fearsome biological or chemical device.

Dear FPA Blogs followers,

Azeri APA News Agency recently conducted an interview with me regarding the French National Assembly’s decision to criminalize the refusal to refer to the events of 1909-15 as a genocide and how this affects Turkey’s Caucasus policy. This is the transcript of that interview:

————————-

http://en.apa.az/news.php?id=163076

New York. Isabel Levine – APA. APA’s interview with Mr. H. Akin Unver, Turkey and Middle Eastern analyst at the Princeton University, New Jersey

- What are your views on Armenia’s negative insistence on international community as the French National Assembly recently passed the bill penalizing denial of the so-called genocides recognized by the law? 

- Events of 1909-15 are a part of Armenian national identity and it is perhaps the only issue that binds the international Armenian Diaspora together, without which, the Diaspora will most probably fall apart. Therefore, the Diaspora’s insistence on the genocide question is linked to its raison d’être – from their
point of view, this indeed, is a victory. On the part of the French National Assembly, on the other hand, I think, this is a failure.

Whether one believes the events of 1909-15 are genocide or not, French National Assembly’s view on the matter extends way beyond legislating on another country’s history, and infringes upon the Copenhagen political criteria for European Union membership, as well as the Article 11 of the Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union as it relates to freedom of expression.

To that end, I don’t think any observer or scholar would associate French National Assembly’s move as a matter of principle or retrospective legislation on human rights; it is a simple pre-electoral and populist legislation, which is passed by less than 10% of the French National Assembly and therefore, does not represent 90% of the French people. More worrisome perhaps, is that the legislation tramples the founding principles of the European Union and is an inherently undemocratic (and even anti-democratic) move.

- What are the prospects of the Armenian-Turkish reconciliation in conditions when the Armenian lobby does not disavow the global campaign for recognition of ‘Armenian genocide’ by parliaments, as well as by the US Congress? 

- This dilemma was addressed many times between Turkish and Armenian governments; Turkey has been complaining about the Diaspora drawing a wedge between Turkish and Armenian governments, whereas Armenia sees the Diaspora a natural extension of the Armenian consciousness. In return, the Diaspora will not accept any settlement with Turkey that marginalizes the Diaspora’s influence.

I believe the Diaspora’s permanent role in this issue is to assert its weight and influence over the negotiations by using its financial capabilities and large amounts of money sent to Armenia from abroad, which surpasses the Armenian national budget. Armenia is dependent on Diaspora money and therefore, cannot sign bilateral agreements with Turkey regarding the genocide question without the consent of the Diaspora.

I do not believe that the radicalized segments of the Diaspora will give up the genocide issue, nor will it simply disappear from the Turkish-Armenian equation. The only way we can talk about a Turkish-Armenian reconciliation without the influence of the Diaspora is that either Turkey accepts genocide allegations and pay large amounts of compensation (and possibly land transfers) in a protracted legal process, or if Turkey creates an immediate need for the Republic of Armenia (either through trade revenues that exceed Diaspora money, or via a military-strategic necessity) which will create an urge for the Armenian decision-makers to sideline the Diaspora and deal directly with Turkey. Both of these options are quite unlikely at this time, though.

- What should the US do in that case – stand aside (of the reconciliation process) or continue participating in the processes? 

- Even though the US House of Representatives Foreign Affairs Committee passed a non-binding resolution on the genocide issue in March 2010, I think this is the furthest it can get in any American institution as long as Turkey remains a key ally in post-war Iraq and growing Iranian and Russian influence.

While the administration may issue statements calling for Turkey to recognize the genocide allegations, it will refrain from doing anything binding. Even though Turkey and Armenia had signed reconciliation protocols in October 2009, there is very little move towards honoring its principles as Turkey moves closer to Azerbaijan for the future of the Nabucco pipeline deal.

I believe the future of Nabucco is closely linked to the future of Turkish-Armenian reconciliation. As long as Turkish-Azeri relations remain close and energy
politics remain the most important issue in Turkey’s Caucasus policy, I believe the United States will support Turkey’s position with regard to Armenia.
Although US Vice-President Joe Biden had suggested Turkey to ‘pursue its protocol with Armenia’ during his recent visit, Armenia is not a priority either for Turkey or the United States at this moment.

- And how will the French National Assembly’s “genocide” bill affect to the Nagorno-Karabakh adjustment process? 

- Most visibly, it will push Turkey towards Azerbaijan and will cause the collapse of the Turkish-Armenian protocols. This is important, as the US leave Iraq, and leaves a massive power vacuum in the Middle East and Russia, Iran and Turkey move in to fill that gap; a conflict is now more likely. There is a possibility that Azerbaijan, benefiting from successive securitizing moves in the region, may engage in a quick military move against Karabakh.

Russia certainly prepares for this possibility. When Russia extended its use of Armenia’s Gumru base, it also signed an agreement to protect Armenia against external attacks. Russia is concerned with the size of its military presence in Armenia because of Georgia’s annulment of the treaty that enabled Russian troops to use Georgian territory to be transferred further south. The necessity to bolster Russian military presence in Armenia may lead Russia to force its way through Georgia, or rely solely on Azerbaijan for the transfer of its troops to Armenia. This draws a strategic wedge between Russia and Armenia, and renders Russia’s commitment to protect Armenia uncertain. Meanwhile, Russia also needs to guarantee its use of the Gabala radar installation in Azerbaijan whose lease ends in 2012. Azerbaijan raised the cost of the installation from 7 million to 100 million US dollars per annum, while hinting at the possibility of negotiating the cost in exchange for Russian support for its position over Karabakh.

In this scenario, Azerbaijan suddenly finds itself in a very advantageous position strategically, having both Turkish and Russian support over the Karabakh question. Sarkozy and the Armenian Diaspora in France put Armenia in an extremely difficult situation over Karabakh; I am not sure they realize this.

- Turkey has already agreed to host radar for the early warning missile defence system being created by the United States and NATO. Do you think the French Parliament’s decision will influence Turkey’s activity as a NATO member, its place and importance in the region? 

- The bill already started to affect Turkey’s relations with France. Turkey’s Prime Minister Recep Tayyip Erdoğan announced an eight-point sanctions list against France and unilaterally cancelled all military cooperation agreements, including joint training, intelligence sharing and air space – territorial waters restrictions. Furthermore, Turkey declared that it would stop cooperating with France in all European Union projects (which essentially affects Turkey’s relations with the EU fundamentally). In many ways, Turkey’s EU policy is changing to an understanding similar to that of China, which considers the European Union as an ineffectual political entity and instead deal with the European countries individually.

In that regard, I think the NATO missile shield has more to do with Turkey’s commitment to its alliance with the United States and also its concern with growing Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Even though Turkey has cordial relations with both countries, Turkish decision-makers understand that they need concrete balancing power against Russia and Iran and I think missile shield must be interpreted within the context of Turkey’s own security concerns. Of course, Turkey’s NATO commitments will remain, but Turkish-French cooperation within NATO will freeze in the short- to medium-term.

As is the custom for all FPA Bloggers with the year drawing to a close, it’s time for me to give my thoughts on how events fared in 2011. All in all there were a number of defense policy successes, with the most spectacular being the death of Osama Bin Laden, the continued dismantling of Al Qaeda leadership (in 2011 they lost 10 of its top 20 leaders), the halting of Taliban momentum in Afghanistan, the successful NATO operation in Libya, and the end of our military involvement in Iraq. All of these successes coupled with the Obama administration saying our military involvement in Afghanistan will end in 2014 and the continuing economic crisis have many calling for massive cuts to the Department of Defense (DoD) budget.

I don’t believe that the DoD should be untouched, but I have major concerns about the direction and what programs and organizations will bear the brunt of these cuts. When it comes to the topics of crisis and war, the old Yogi Berra quote: “It ain’t over till it’s over” comes to mind. I don’t believe we have yet reached a stage in our human evolution where world peace is possible. Some will say with the death of Bin Laden, major threats to U.S. national security are gone therefore we don’t need a large military anymore. Others say the last few years have shown that future threats to national security will be in areas like terrorism and cyber space, therefore we no longer need a large conventional military force.

I don’t agree. Just in the last day or so Iran has threatened to close the Hormuz Strait, a waterway that around one third of the world’s oil shipments pass through, if new economic sanctions are imposed. The change of leadership in North Korea has also once again bought that nation back on the radar scope reminding people there has never been a peace treaty signed and we are still technically at war with that nation. Both Iran and North Korea are threats that still require conventional military forces to counter.

Some would say are these real threats or simply excuses some who favor a strong military are using as an excuse to avoid major budget cuts? Looking first at Iran as pointed out in a December 28th article in the Washington Post:

“Despite threats to close the narrow waterway if Western nations tighten sanctions on Iran by imposing an oil embargo, the Islamic republic needs the strait at least as much as its adversaries do, Iranian and foreign analysts said…
By undermining Iran’s ability to generate income through oil sales, the United States hopes to force Tehran to abandon its uranium enrichment program, which the Obama administration suspects is secretly aimed at enabling Iran to build nuclear weapons. Iran denies it is trying to build nuclear arms.
The latest furor erupted when Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi told students Tuesday that Iran would close the strait in reprisal for any Western sanctions on Iran’s oil exports.
In that case, “not even a drop of oil will flow through the Strait of Hormuz,” Rahimi said, according to the state-run Islamic Republic News Agency (IRNA). Iran’s navy commander, Rear Adm. Habibollah Sayyari, later said that for the nation’s armed forces, closing the strait would be “easier than drinking a glass of water.”…
‘’Does the West expect us to be threatened and attacked and we just surrender?’ asked Ali Akbar Javanfekr, head of IRNA and an unofficial spokesman for President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. ‘What are our options? Be sure, we can find ways to tackle any sanctions’.”

Some will ask does Iran really have the capability to close down the Strait. The answer is yes; they can mine it or use submarines to sink ships. The advantage to that strategy is plausible denial. Ships would be sunk but unless Iran publicly admits to it you have a situation similar to the one we had when North Korea sank the South Korean Destroyer last year. According to official U.S. statements we’re pretty certain the North Koreans are guilty but since they continue to deny it we can’t go out and attack their Navy without causing a serious crisis in the region. Publicly China remains unconvinced the North Koreans did it, so… well you get my drift.

If the Iranians want to openly close the strait in addition to mines and submarines they have land based cruise missiles and small boats armed with cruise missiles that could be used. I believe the Navy’s Fifth Fleet, home ported in Bahrain in the Persian Gulf, would be able to successfully counter the threat but that could lead to yet another war in the region.

Back to my budget concerns; historically the U.S. tends to down size its military after a war then build it up again when a new war or major crisis develops. The challenge is predicting and/or recognizing a new threat. Osama Bin Laden declared war on the U.S. in 1996. In 1998 Al Qaeda blew up our embassies in Tanzania and Kenya, yet it was not until 9/11 that the U.S. threw its full security apparatus at the problem. Terrorism has always been a threat but one that the security establishment had successfully been able to handle. As has been reported in the media, there were a lot of terrorist related successes the general public was not aware. For instance, I remember when I was stationed in Panama in the 1980’s; some group was setting off pipe bombs in rest rooms of night clubs frequented by U.S. soldiers. No one was killed but it was a cause for concern. It was not just terrorism threats, during the Cold War there were many incidents that could have escalated to a war or major crisis but did not because our military forces were a powerful countering force to potential adversaries.

The challenge will be to make cuts to the Defense budget but retain a national security strategy that can successfully respond to any threat. I know that will not be an easy task but if we don’t do it and just make massive cuts we risk leaving ourselves open to another 9/11 or Pearl Harbor type incident. The November/December 2011 issue of Geospatial Intelligence Forum magazine states:

“Intelligence agencies are bracing for about $25 billion in budget cuts over the next 10 years, and top officials are saying this will increase security risks. ‘We’re going to have less capacity in 10 years than we have today,’ said Director on National Intelligence James Clapper, Intelligence officials and policymakers will have to decide whether to pay less attention to some areas so increased emphasis can be placed on other areas. The days of ‘worldwide emphasis’ are over.”

There are a lot of ways to cut the DoD budget without taking major hits in the size of the military force. In October of this year, General Keith Alexander, the head of both NSA and U.S. Cyber Command talked about how NSA had made a 30 – 40% savings in their Information Technology budget by switching to cloud technology. He stated at the start of the process NSA had 900 help desks, now they are down to 450 and plan to go down to 2.

DoD hired a lot of defense contractors to work in Iraq and Afghanistan. Many were former and retired military personnel. I always thought this was weird. If they needed the service of former and retired military personnel why not just reactivate them. I was surprised when going through the military retirement paperwork process and found out I was eligible for recall until the age of 65. If you’re already paying me a salary and then I go work for a defense company and you pay them for my services, you’re paying me twice. Does that make any sense?

Think I’ll end with saying who is my Person of the Year: the U. S. Intelligence Community. You have thousands of men and women, many in their late teens and early 20’s who are working 24/7 at all 16 of the intelligence agencies, 17 if you include the Directorate of National Intelligence. They never gave up on finding Bin Laden and continued to work hard in an environment where you get very few pats on the back and lots of criticism from the media and the public. They are continually screening large amounts of data looking for threats. The most recent statistics I have come from a briefing given at the second annual Navy Information Day conference held on March 2, 2011. They have a slide that says:

“It took two centuries to fill the Library of Congress with: 29 million books and periodicals; 2.4 million recordings; 29 million photographs; 2/4 million maps, and 29 million manuscripts. Today that much information is generated every 5 minutes.”

Not only do you have people dealing with analyzing all of the information you also have people developing new and better ways of doing business and developing new weapons and tools. Speaking at the October 2011 GEOINT conference, Under Secretary of Defense for Intelligence, Michael Vickers said the surge in Afghanistan included double the number of intelligence surveillance (ISR) assets we had in Iraq. He said those assets had been nothing short of a game changer and that the Afghan commanders have more ISR capability than any military commander in history. Those assets would be worthless if you did not have capable people operating them and analyzing the data.

That’s it for me. As always my views are my own. Happy New Year!

The year 2011 for Southern Africa, and sub-Saharan Africa in general, will probably be remembered for what did not happen in the light of the people-powered uprising and protests that swept across the globe.

In the Arab world, in particular North Africa, what is being now referred to as the Arab Spring made 2011 a tough year for the dictatorial regimes of Zine al-Abidine Ben Ali in Tunisia, Hosni Mubarak in Egypt, and of course Gaddafi, who was killed in Libya. In the Western world, a movement that started as Occupy Wall Street in New York stirred up similar protests across major cities in the US, Britain, Italy, Germany, France, Spain, Portugal and Asian countries as citizens fought back against growing greed and inequality. Public anger over the debt crisis brought down Prime Minister George Papandreou and Silvio Berlusconi in Greece and Italy respectively.

Yet, despite the Southern African region’s high level of poverty, unemployment, and inequality, we did not see a wave of public anger similar to what we have seen across the globe. In a case study of five Southern African countries, the Open Society Initiative for Southern Africa has found that poverty and inequality is tearing apart Zimbabwe, Swaziland, Malawi, Namibia, South Africa and Angola, with many citizens living on a mere US$1 per day. The irony here is that some of those countries, such as Namibia and South Africa, are resource-rich countries with some of the highest GDP in the world.

Amid this global backlash against greed and inequality, why were most Southern African streets (apart from isolated and sporadic protests in Malawi and Swaziland) empty, quiet, and business as usual? What happened to the militant spirit that has sent many young people toyi-toying in the streets of Namibia, Zimbabwe, and South Africa against colonialism, poverty, and social injustice in the 60s and 80s?

One answer given for this widespread citizenry indifference in Southern African has been explained in terms of the belief that some of the governments in the region would not hesitate to use harsh measures if confronted by an Arab Spring-like mass action. True to this, in Zimbabwe some 45 activists were rounded up and charged with treason for watching a Mideast uprising video. In Malawi, the security force launched a violent crackdown on the protestors, leaving at least 18 protestors dead. In Swaziland, pro-democracy activists were banned, arrested, tear-gassed, and sprayed with water cannons.

It is also true that when the uprising was under way in Tunisia, Egypt and Libya, none of the Southern Africa governments (well, South Africa maybe did but flip-flopped later to save face with the radicals within the ANC and other hawkish Africanists in the region) picked up a phone to urge Mubarak, Gadaffi, or Ben Ali to exercise restraint in dealing with the protestors. Instead, what we heard from Southern African governments was the usual song of complaint about Western interference in Africa’s internal matters.

But here is another explanation: Southern African citizens’ indifference can be explained in a “been there and done that” syndrome. This is because in some ways Southern Africa is a little bit ahead of North Africa in terms of democratization, meaning that most governments in Southern Africa are products of democracy and came to power through elections. Whereas North Africa might have been stable and economically advanced but did not have democratic governments. However, a distinctive characteristic of the southern African democracy is that not only we have a democracy without democrats but also a democracy without citizens. Southern Africa’s democracies did not and do not produce citizens but subjects controlled by governments due to the hierarchical nature of Southern African politics which demands obedience and loyalty from citizens. Why? Although they claim to have fought for democracy (such as SWAPO in Namibia, ANC in South Africa, MPLA in Angola, FRELIMO in Mozambique and ZANU-PF in Zimbabwe), most ruling parties in Southern Africa don’t operate as democrats. Their politics and decision making processes are highly centralized. By the way, the same can also be said about most opposition political parties too.

It is against the backlog of this unquestioning and uncritical citizenry, that we understand why Mugabe is still in power today and why most ruling parties in that region have won elections with landslide victory. This is why the Namibian president can place a moratorium on public discussions about the SWAPO presidential succession. And this is why the ANC-dominated National Assembly in South Africa can pass a law (reversing the gains made against apartheid repressive laws and policies) to limit free speech.

On the flip side, events in North Africa made the world forget (as the international media and world government shifted its attention to the Arab Spring) about Southern Africa, especially with regard to what’s going on in Zimbabwe and Malawi

Here are a few predictions for 2012: The ruling party SWAPO’s 2012 election campaign to replace the incumbent Namibian president when his term expires is shaping up to be between Geingob (who is the vice president of SWAPO) and me Pendukeni Ithana (who is the secretary of SWAPO). One is believed to be a technocrat and the other a populist. But both are insiders, so expect less change here if either of them wins. What is clear, however, is that another potential split (this would be the third split if it happens) from the ruling party is looming as the in-fighting has already started. More is too come as we inch closer to Election Day.

In Zimbabwe, it is clear that the opposition party MDC (MDC has lost the mojo, and has been weakened by in-fighting too) is not the party that will bring down Mugabe (as it was hoped), but expect a potential split within the ruling ZANU-PF party. As Mugabe’s health continues to deteriorate, we expect infighting as members vie for control and Mugabe’s position.

On the other hand, South Africa will continue walking the populist road and of course with less transparent governance. Unless restored, expect the worst from Malawi because its life line support, which is aid from the international community, has been cut off, which is going to make life difficult for ordinary citizens. Angola and Mozambique (riding on oil) will continue unabated because we don’t really hear much about these two countries in terms of international coverage anyway. The remaining question is will Swaziland eventually collapse economically, or has it already collapsed?

Vice President Joseph Biden said on Monday that the Taliban are not United States’ (US) enemy — a statement later backed by the White House.       “Look, the Taliban per se is not our enemy. That’s critical. There is not a single statement that the president has ever made in any of our policy assertions [...]

Events last week illustrated that the true fault line in India-China relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Tibetan frontier.

From India’s increasing presence in the disputed waters of the South China Sea to the duel over diplomatic influence in Myanmar, developments in recent months amply illustrate how India and China will bump into each other as they grow in power and aspiration. But events last week illustrate that the true fault line in bilateral relations remains the 60 year-old acrimony over the Indo-Tibetan frontier. The border area was the site for the month-long war between the countries in 1962, as well as serious military crises in 1967 and 1987. It is the only place where the outbreak of armed conflict is a realistic possibility, as well as the focus for much of India’s expansive plans for military modernization. And the chances are good that the frictions here will only intensify in the years ahead.

The border was to be the stage for an act of India-China cooperation last week, when high-level talks were to convene in New Delhi aimed at managing the increasing quarrels along the Himalayan boundary. The meeting was also intended to prepare the way for a visit to India early next year by Xi Jinping, China’s vice president who is heir apparent to Hu Jintao. But the Chinese side abruptly pulled out of the talks after failing to persuade New Delhi to prevent the Dalai Lama, the exiled Tibetan spiritual leader who is much reviled in Beijing as a separatist, from giving the valedictory address at an international Buddhist conclave that was meeting in the Indian capital at the same time.

The border talks will likely be rescheduled in the coming weeks. Both governments were circumspect in their official comments about the postponement. Notably, the Global Times, a Beijing-based tabloid that is an unfailing tribune of bemusing jingoism including recent fulminations aimed at New Delhi, reacted cautiously. In an editorial titled “China and India mustn’t go for the throat,” it counseled that:

“Both sides must keep the border issue from worsening by focusing on keeping good will talks alive and being mindful of the consequences of a sudden breakdown.”

A high-level defense dialogue between the two countries will also go ahead as scheduled in New Delhi this week. With the United States becoming more strategically assertive in East Asia – punctuated by President Barack Obama’s tour in the region last month – Beijing has high incentive to stabilize relations with India while it turns its attention to the challenges raised by Washington. The Global Times underscored this priority when it noted that even though India “appears to be highly interested in facing off with China,” the rivalry with New Delhi “is not the primary focus of Chinese society.”

With its own plate piled high with economic and governance challenges, not to mention the multiple insurgencies underway in its northeastern region, India also is keen to tamp down border ructions. Indeed, in deference to Chinese sensitivities, Pratibha Patil, India’s president who was supposed to inaugurate the Buddhist assembly, cancelled her participation, while Prime Minister Manmohan Singh, also scheduled to make an appearance, likewise stayed away.

But events are conspiring to upend each side’s preferences. As last week’s contretemps demonstrate, the border dispute is not simply a matter of contested claims over real estate. It also is bound up with the increasingly volatile issue of Tibetan nationalism. It is no coincidence that Beijing in recent years has turned up the volume about its territorial claims on the northeastern Indian states of Sikkim and Arunachal Pradesh (the latter of which China has taken to calling “South Tibet”) at the same moment that the ethnic Tibetan population inside China has become more restive. Beijing views the agitations as the handiwork of the Dalai Lama, who has been especially effective in making Tibet an international cause célèbre, as well as the Tibetan government-in-exile. Both the Dalai Lama and the Tibetan exile core are based in Dharamsala in northern India.

Adding to the combustible mix is the location of Tawang Monastery, a revered site in Tibetan Buddhism that is just inside the Indian side of the contested border. The monastery is close to the birthplace of a 17th-century Dalai Lama who remains an immensely popular historical figure among Tibetans. Its significance has greatly increased after the current Dalai Lama stated that he might be reincarnated outside of Chinese-controlled territory and that the selection process for his successor might break with precedent, such as being hand-picked by him or chosen by popular acclaim. With Tawang likely to play an important role in the selection, Beijing is keen to assert control over it.

Beijing’s apoplexy over the Dalai Lama, once again on display last week in New Delhi, is a measure of its insecurity on the Tibet issue. This hypersensitivity has impelled the People’s Republic, officially an atheistic party-state, to entangle itself in deeply into the affairs of Tibetan religious institutions, including absurdly banning the current Dalai Lama from being reborn anywhere but inside China and insisting that it alone has the definitive word on the selection of his successor. It drove Beijing in 1995 to kidnap a six year-old Tibetan boy who the Dalai Lama proclaimed as the Panchen Lama, the second-ranking figure in Tibetan Buddhism. The boy’s fate remains unknown; Beijing has promoted its own candidate as the true Panchen Lama. While many Tibetans see this person as a pretender, he provides Beijing a key opening to manipulate the selection for the next Dalai Lama, since the Panchen Lama traditionally has a central part in the process.

China has also embarked on a charm offensive (here and here) to win the hearts and minds of the international Buddhist community, including plans to build a multi-billion dollar pilgrimage and tourism complex at the Buddha’s birthplace in Lumbini, Nepal, which is right on the border with India. New Delhi is counter-punching by sponsoring Buddhist gatherings, including the one last week that raised Beijing’s ire and which in one of its final acts decided to create an International Buddhist Confederation that will be headquartered in the Indian capital.

Given the volatility of the Tibetan issue, one could envision without much imagination scenarios that result in a military confrontation along the frontier. One might involve the outbreak of serious unrest within Tibet, leading to a Chinese crackdown that spills into India. Beijing could bring military pressure on New Delhi to clamp down on the Dalai Lama and his compatriots in Dharamsala, setting off a dangerous spiral of misperception and miscalculation. Alternatively, the passing of the Dalai Lama, who is now 76, could spark a tumultuous search for his successor, leading China to seize Tawang so it can control the outcome.

Unfortunately, there is ample historical precedent for such scenarios. Indian support of the abortive Tibetan uprising in 1959, for example, colored Beijing’s perceptions in the lead-up to the 1962 border war. And in the mid-1980s, an isolated incident in the Sumdurong Chu Valley in Arunachal Pradesh led to a serious military stand-off in early 1987. As one of the WikiLeaks dispatches from the U.S. embassy in Beijing reported, some Chinese observers believe that policy on Tibet is even more inflexible than toward Taiwan, where Beijing at least tolerates some U.S. interference. And concern among Chinese leaders over internal discontent is rising.

A New York Times article has called Tawang “the biggest tinderbox” in relations between India and China. Expect to hear more about it in the coming years.

(An earlier version of this post appeared at http://www.usinpac.com)

Republican candidate for President, Mitt Romney, said this week that if he becomes President, he will visit Israel during his first foreign trip. So he is only two elections away from those famous Israeli breakfasts and some photo ops at the Kotel with those awkward cardboard kippahs.

So he has obviously earned the votes of all those eligible American voters working hard in the Israeli tourism industry. But what about the rest of the demographic clearly being sought with such promises? Mitt was speaking to a group of Jewish Republicans when he announced his travel plans. And let’s be clear, there are some very powerful Jewish voices in the Republican party. But election in and election out, those on the right are constantly saying that this will be the cycle that finally brings Jews from the party of FDR, JFK and James Carville over to their corner. But it never happens. Jews regularly vote Democrat at a margin of about 3:1.

Of course this promise was not just Mitt looking to add El Al to his frequent flyer miles plan, he was taking a jab at every Republican’s favorite punching bag: President Obama.

President Obama has been in office just shy of three years and since being sworn in, he has yet to visit Israel. And no one in the room listening to Mitt speak needed to be reminded of that slight.

President Obama has sent many from his inner circle to Israel. Secretary of State Clinton has been, Vice President Biden has been (one might recall that he was intentionally embarrassed for the sake of inter-party Israeli politics during his visit). Within two days of his inauguration, President Obama appointed George Mitchell as a “Special Convoy for Middle East Peace.” While this latter appointment did not succeed as hoped, it is more than can be said for his two predecessors on the job, at least in terms of getting involved in the matter quickly. Both Clinton and Bush did get intimately involved in the subject, but not until MUCH further into their tenures.

Mitt Romney famously claimed that President Obama had thrown Israel under the bus for commenting that a future agreement between Israel and the Palestinians would be based on the 1967 borders. Of course what President Obama was saying was no different than what President Bush was saying before him or what a host of Israeli Prime Minister’s have been saying for years. This list includes Ariel Sharon, the original architect of the settlements.

Can attacking Obama on Israel help Mitt become President? Well, it looks like he might need to start focusing on Newt Gingrich first if he wants a chance at the real prize in November.

I wrote a little while back that Israelis have warmed considerably to Obama in recent months. His poll numbers were way up with Jewish Israelis from last year at this time. In fact a new poll even found that Israelis rank Obama in their top-five most admired world leaders. This list isn’t even limited to acting leaders. Churchill made the list. Mitt Romney, he will be sad to hear, did not.

Of course Mitt had hardly caught his breath from promising to nab an Israeli stamp for his Presidential passport than he all but guaranteed that as Commander-in-Chief, he would attack Iran. He said that “the ayatollahs will not be permitted to obtain nuclear weapons on my watch. A nuclear-armed Iran is not only an Israel problem, it is problem for the United States and all the decent countries of the world.”

As a side note, Mitt even called on Iranian President Ahmadinejad, who has about as much power in Iran as Donald Trump has in US politics, to be indicted for the crime of inciting Genocide under Article III of the Geneva Convention. Now do not get me wrong, Ahmadinejad is a world-class jerk who adds nothing constructive to international politics. But Mitt is asking for quite a lot when he himself is clearly at odds with aspects of the Geneva Convention regarding torture. The Convention states that “torture means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person.” Mitt has come out in support of water boarding, which clearly would be outlawed by the preceding provision.

Whether or not the US should attack Iran will not be decided by talking points and sound bites. I am sure that President Obama has held many meetings with many experts on the subject. I am sure that should we see a President Romney in one year’s time, he too will hold many meetings with many experts on the subject. Perhaps his conclusions will be different that President Obama’s; perhaps war really is imminent. Some wars are necessary and if the facts are there, the world, or at least the American people, might stand behind President Romney as he leads us down that path. But in the meantime, it is important to remember that while promising war, especially one that is sure to be extremely painful for both the US (and Israel), in order to win votes might be good politics, it is terrible leadership.

Mitt need give this last point a lot of thought if he wants to make next year’s list of world leaders most admired by Israelis. Because isn’t that really what it’s all about?

Follow me on twitter @jlemonsk