Around the web

Below are some posts that caught my eye this week:

From Ethan Zuckerman,Two hours of Tom Barnett in Twenty-Thirty?-minutes which uses Tom Barnett's presentation at PopTech 2006 to provide us with a pretty good summary of his two books.

From Abu Aardvark, US Negotiating with Iraqi Insurgency which focuses on an al Hayat report that claims US diplomats are talking to representatives of Jaysh al-Islami, which Marc Lynch says is the largest faction of the Sunni insurgency in Iraq.

Also from Marc Lynch at Abu Aardvark, Reality of the Iraqi Islamic State which analyzes reports from al Jazeera which point to its relative non-existence. Here's an excerpt:

Abu Hilala also places the tape in the context of intra-Qaeda struggles, taking seriously resentment that bin Laden chose al-Masri instead of an Iraqi leader; and offers a devastating comparison between the "Iraqi Islamist State" and the "Green Zone State"... neither, he argues, is really a state and both testify to the absence of any real state in Iraq today. (UPDATE - Badger gives a fuller translation of Abu Hilala's piece here)

From the Jamestown Foundation we get, Profiles of Pakistan's Seven Tribal Agencies. This report analyzes many of the reasons why Pakistan's policies to rein in the agencies (and reduce support for foreign elements such as al Qaeda) have failed and also offers some advice on how to use the mechanisms available within the tribal structure to address these problems. Excerpt follows:

they value their independence dearly; they consider all foreign elements suspicious (including Pakistani forces); and they are not ready to lay down their arms in combat zones willingly. Yet, at the same time, they are prone to compromise if there are tangible dividends available and if there is no threat to their lifestyle in the process.

From Thomas Barnett, "Mr. President" Mar 05 piece holding up nicely. This post focuses on how well his Esquire piece (which I have used quite a bit in this blog) has held up to the test of time, particularly as we deal with our failed Iraqi policy, the Iranian threat and North Korea's nuclear test.

From the Arabist, Hassan al-Banna: the movie, this as I think he brings up an important point about our need to continually evolve our thinking with respect to not only our enemies, but also parties in the region who we might be able to negotiate with, or might need to negotiate with in order to bring about the democratic transitions that have been such an important part of this administration's policies. The MB has proven to be an important player in Egypt, and this post raises the question of whether our analyzes and knowledge of the MB belongs to the dustbin of history and necessitates a complete overhaul to reflect current realities on the ground. One may not agree with his take on the MB, but it gets one thinking about whether what we consider to be "conventional wisdom" is as most conventional wisdom tends to be, wrong.

Yet another post from Marc Lynch, The Fernandez Problem (sorry this one came up as I was compiling this list) which talks about the controversy that is brewing over remarks made by Alberto Fernandez, who is "Director of the State Department's Arab media outreach office, that America had been "arrogant" and "stupid" in Iraq" and his argument on why State should come out strongly in support of Fernandez given that once you read the entire text of what he said, it is clear that he was trying to establish "credibility and a reputation for candor with Arab audiences - two things that almost all American spokespeople who stick to the administration's script lack."

From IntelliBriefs we get, A Secret Regional Alliance Against Iran. This post talks about a French think tank's report that a secret intelligence alliance has developed between Israel and four Sunni states (Jordan, Saudi Arabia, Egypt and Turkey) to counter Iranian aspirations in the region.

From Donklephant, Michael Yon on the Importance of Media which looks at the importance of the press in war., particularly in gaging the success or failure of a strategy there. Please note that Michael Yon is far from being a liberal, so his criticism of the ideologues on the right is particularly damning, as is his ominous warning for Afghanistan:

Early this spring, when I reported from Afghan farms about this year’s bumper opium crop, people thought I was using that opium. Now it is common knowledge that the opium trade is fueling a Taliban comeback. Mark this on your calendar: Spring of 2007 will be a bloodbath in Afghanistan for NATO forces. Our British, Canadian, Australian, Dutch, and other allies will be slaughtered in Afghanistan if they dare step off base in the southern provinces, and nobody is screaming at the tops of their media-lungs about the impending disaster. I would not be surprised to see a NATO base overrun in Afghanistan in 2007 with all the soldiers killed or captured. And when it happens, how many will claim they had no idea it was so bad and blame the media for failing to raise the alarm? Here it is: WARNING! Troops in Afghanistan are facing slaughter in 2007!

From China Confidential, Chinese Think Tank Predicts New Mideast War, the Think tank is linked Sun Bigan who has been a "strong supporter of both Iran and Syria" hence giving the report added weight.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Back to Central America

Just a few quick updates.

The stalemate continues at the UN over which country will succeed Argentina as a rotating member of the Security Council. Guatemala has so far won all but one of the 35 votes at the UN with a margin of at least 20 votes, but has failed to capture the additional 15-20 necessary to defeat Venezuela and succeed Argentina to the Security Council seat.

The last results this week were as follows:

Ronda 30: Guatemala 107 votos y Venezuela 77 votos

Ronda 31: Guatemala 108 votos y Venezuela 77 votos

Ronda 32: Guatemala 107 votos y Venezuela 76 votos

Ronda 33: Guatemala 108 votos y Venezuela 77 votos.

Ronda 34: Guatemala 103 votos y Venezuela 81 votos.

Ronda 35: Guatemala 103 votos y Venezuela 81 votos.

The U.S., Mexican and Guatemalan Ambassador's have called for Venezuela to withdraw from the contest given that it has not won a single round and has managed only to tie with Guatemala once since voting began. They have called it s spoiler and an obstructionist, but Venezuela has continued to press on, with Brazil, Argentina and Chile stating that they will not back Guatemala because they view it as an American proxy, and to deny either side from gaining an outright victory. In essence, they want to end the contest at a stalemate and pick a compromise candidate that is neither Guatemala, nor Venezuela. This would allow Chavez to claim a partial victory because although he did not gain the Security Council seat, he can claim to have denied Guatemala (the American proxy) the chance to serve as well. At the same time, the US would be able to claim a partial victory itself, because it was able to deny Venezuela that which it wanted most even if it had to sacrifice Guatemala's candidacy to do it.

As things stand now (deadlocked) the UN has called for a recess and has suspended voting until next week. The hope is that given some time, the group of Latin American and Caribbean nations will either resolve in favor of one country or the other, or choose an alternate compromise candidate. In the meantime, however, Costa Rica who was mentioned as a possible compromise candidate declined to accept the nomination.

In what seems a bit more than a coincidence, given the current deadlock at the UN, a US Congressional Report issued this week claims that Venezuela is supporting Mideast terrorism.

In other news, El Salvador and Honduras are involved in a land dispute over the uninhabited island of Conejo in the Gulf of Fonseca. According to Reuters, the dispute surfaced after El Salvador's armed forces included the island in a book on territorial defense, which Honduras protested given that it considers the Island to be Honduran territory. This recent incident is troubling given that both countries fought what came to be known as the Soccer war in 1969 because it erupted following a soccer match between the two countries, but which was really a dispute over territorial boundaries. The rhetoric is already heated with the Honduran president of Congress stating that "If we want peace, we have to be ready for war," while at the same time calling for a beefing up of the Honduran armed forces.

Honduras is the poorest country in Central America, while El Salvador has the third largest economy in the Isthmus. Both countries are allies of the US, and until Spain's pull out following the Madrid attacks, both had small contingents of troops in Iraq. Currently, only El Salvador has troops serving in Iraq. Honduras withdrew since absent Spain's military and logistical support, it could not maintain its presence on its own.

Following on my post on an attempt to open a new canal through Nicaragua, Panama will have a referendum this weekend on expanding its own canal. According to the most recent polls, the measure will likely pass with two thirds approval, and is an attempt to stave off the construction of a second canal.

Finally, in Nicaragua, Daniel Ortega is apparently making the rounds with foreign investors in an attempt to calm fears about his likely election to the presidency of Nicaragua. However, the US government is still very much concerned given Ortega's close relationship with Venezuela's Hugo Chavez and his history of antagonism toward the US government. As such, the US has tried unsuccessfully to campaign against an Ortega election, instead bolstering his candidacy against the conservative (and US backed) Eduardo Montealegre. This as Nicaraguans are fiercely nationalistic and do not take kindly having an outside power telling them what to do. In many ways, this is yet another battle where the US is also facing off against Hugo Chavez who has invested heavily in Ortega's campaign. The Washington post article linked above talks about how Chavez has supported Ortega's bid. Given the current political climate in the region, where the old wounds of the Cold War seem to be reopening, having Ortega in Nicaragua would add to Chavez' allies in the Americas to the detriment of the US.

The next few weeks will be interesting to watch as they will determine the direction in which Latin America is headed toward President Bush's last two years in office.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Some thoughts on Insurgency and the Military Commission's Act

I just came across this story from the Times (UK), which deals with the question whose answer has eluded NATO troops in Southern Afghanistan; mainly "Who are the Taliban?" The story relates the story of Abdul Qarim, a sixty year old farmer of Tajik descent whose wife, two sons and daughters were killed by a NATO operation in his village. Qarim stated that "[m]ore probably though, some people gave the wrong information to the foreigners — told them we were al-Qaeda or Taleban." The story continues

As the soldiers searched the ruins, one stirred the body of Mr Qarim’s wife with his boot to check for signs of life. Then they left. They had found nothing, nor offered any medical aid to the survivors. Nine civilians had died and eleven were wounded. Next day, Nato admitted that civilians might have died. It has refused to confirm whether there was a follow-up operation by ground troops, or the nationality of any unit concerned.

Mr. Qarim distraught by the tragedy proclaims that he used to believe that the foreigners were different from the Russians, but no more. The story next reports this bit:

A senior foreign official with long experience of dealing with tribal elders said yesterday that many of those killed were not Taleban but Noorzai tribesmen, outraged by the presence of a rival Achekzai warlord, Abdel Razak, aiding the foreigners on the battlefield. The warlord, commander of the Frontier Security Force at the border town of Spin Boldak, was enlisted to help Afghan police at the start of the operation. Yet he was already involved in his own blood feud with Noorzais and had been jailed briefly for killing 16 of them. After his release he was deployed with his men to secure Noorzai villages in Panjawi district, the focus of Medusa. “His soldiers started looting and threatening the people,” the official said. “In two days all the Noorzais in the area united and started fighting the Government just as the Canadians became involved. A lot of them were killed.” In Helmand province British forces were engaging not only the Taleban, but a conglomerate of non-Taleban tribes, he said, outraged by the corruption and criminality of the outgoing governor, as well as the Afghan staff who are undermining the efforts of Mohammad Daud, the new governor Afghan intelligence admits that the Taleban is a leaderless hybrid shadow of its original form, with three different and often competing headquarters in Pakistan. That this disparate force of perhaps a few disorganised thousands can operate with such success is due to the fact that the majority of southern Afghans are sick of the squandered efforts of their own Government to improve their lives or give them any security.

In fact, the report relates that in most cases NATO forces are

often ill-briefed, badly informed or outright misled, (and as a result) is embroiled partly in a counter-insurgency, partly in tribal warfare and partly as an executive arm trying to help anyone sickened by corruption and misrule from Kabul.

In other words, NATO forces in many instances are doing more harm than good. The reason, not knowing the situation on the ground, or understanding the complexities of tribal loyalties, disputes, blood feuds that make up Afghan-Afghan relations, NATO many times ends up, however unwittingly, aiding one side or another and in the process driving a wedge between itself and the local population. In so doing, providing the Taliban with greater recruitment possibilities in the region.

Obviously, this is not the way to win "hearts and minds" or even to establish peace and security in the country, since such operations engender and add fuel to ongoing tribal feuds which in turn increase the level of violence against Afghan civilians, and ultimately NATO troops themselves. It is an issue which will have to be addressed before long, to ensure that we don't end up becoming the Taliban's best recruitment tool.

This also raised another question, if NATO troops on the ground are many times used to settle tribal disputes that have little or nothing to do with the Taliban, or al Qaeda, how can we be sure that the majority of the people governments such as Pakistan have handed over to us as being al Qaeda members, are actually members or even supporters of such groups? There have been reports that many of the people who we have in Guantanamo are neither jihadists nor Taliban members. One such credible report comes from Dr. Emile A. Nakhleh, who was Director of the Political Islam Strategic Analysis Program at the CIA, and who has stated that in visiting Gitmo, he found out the following:

Some of the detainees participated in jihad in Afghanistan, mostly against the Northern Alliance; others did not but were caught in the dragnet—having been at the wrong place and at the wrong time. Even the command down there knew that probably one-third of the prisoners were neither terrorists nor jihadists, and wouldn't have been there if we weren't paying a bounty to Pakistani security forces for every Middle Eastern-looking person they handed over to us. Almost every detainee I spoke to claimed that we paid $5,000 per person. Unfortunately, we treated everyone the same, which led the non-jihadists at Guantanamo to hate us as much as the rest, becoming more hardened in their attitudes toward the US and more disappointed in the American sense of fairness and justice.

In light of recent events, particularly the implementation of the Military Commission's Act, which "authorizes military trials of enemy combatants" while denying Federal Courts the ability to hear petitions of Habeas Corpus from said detainees, it is important that we take note of these issues because our policies, in the long run may be doing more harm than good to our prospects for winning this war. The reason is this, in counter-insurgency, the guerrilla (insurgent group) has it in its interest to delegitimize the system by demonstrating how dictatorial, unfair or capricious the system (or those in power) actually are, and in so doing transferring that legitimacy from the discredited government to itself.

Already in Afghanistan, NATO troops have made an enemy of the Noorzais tribesmen even as they sought to make the Taliban irrelevant. In Gitmo, as Dr. Nakhleh states we have turned some detainees who were neither Taliban, nor al Qaeda, into people who now have hardened negative opinions of America, and our system.

These are two parts of the larger conflict, the first deals primarily with our role in Afghanistan, while the other hits at the very core of this War on Terror, particularly in regard to what we gain and loose in the equation.

Read More...

Snippet only...

Of Guatemala, Security Council seats and American Standing

I meant to write about this during the weekend, unfortunately time did not allow, and now I'm a bit late on the news. Yesterday, Guatemala and Venezuela faced off for the security council slot being vacated by Argentina. In this contest, Venezuela has been using its oil wealth to buy votes in Latin America and beyond, promising not only to be the voice of the downtrodden but also lambasting Guatemala's candidacy as just an attempt by the US to prevent Venezuela's election to the council. As this article notes, Venezuela's candidacy has exposed Latin America's "political and regional fault lines," particularly between those countries that are close American allies and those who oppose "American Hegemony." As such, the contest for Argentina's security council seat has become one not between Guatemala and Venezuela, but rather a contest between the US and Hugo Chavez.

Most observers believe that an compromise candidate will eventually be chosen. Currently the Dominican Republic, Chile and Costa Rica, Uruguay or Panama are seen as the front runners in that second contest. In yesterday's voting Guatemala won most of the rounds and by the end of the day had a 28 vote lead over Chavez but fell short of the two-thirds majority needed to capture the seat by 15 votes. In the voting, two blocs emerged, Guatemala's bloc consisted of strong support from North and Central America and Eastern and Western Europe, while Venezuela received its votes mainly from South America, the Caribbean, Africa and Asia. Yesterday's round of voting saw many moments when it seemed that Venezuela would be able to capture the vote, at one point tying Guatemala evenly at 93 votes. The tide turned against Venezuela, in part as a result of additional lobbying efforts made by Mexico and the US, with the final vote count of the day ending at 110 votes for Guatemala to Venezuela's 77. The voting is slated to continue today, but most experts expect the contest to remain open.

Were Venezuela elected to the council, it would gain a valuable pulpit for Chavez and propel him to the role of global opposition leader to American power. In such a position, he would likely play a similar role to that played by Qatar with regard to the Dar fur crises, in which it has repeatedly voted against any Security Council action. In addition, Venezuela's election the Security Council would be seen by many as an embarrassing defeat for the US, who has lobbied hard against the Venezuelan candidacy. Helping the US in Latin America, have been other countries which have also had run-ins with President Chavez, including Mexico (which traditionally has not had good relations with Guatemala).

Similarly, a defeat for Venezuela's bid would be a blow to President Chavez who has sought this as a platform to transform himself into a global opposition leader to American hegemony. That is just what the US wants to do through this vote, to strike a blow against Chavez. however, according to some observers, the US's support and lobbying efforts on behalf of Guatemala have been both a blessing and a curse for the Central American nation. As the contest has come to be seen as one primarily between Venezuela and the US, opposition against Guatemala has emerged not so much because of support for Chavez, but opposition to American foreign policy. This has been Venezuela's main argument in lobbying for votes. Even Guatemala, who has benefited from American support, has tried to distance itself from Washington in this contest, with its Ambassador Gert Rosenthal stating "“We are an independent voice, as independent as any country can be in an interdependent world. We have proved this in the past," while citing the fact that Guatemala has no troops in Iraq, and maintains relations with Cuba.

Earlier, I noted that this contest had exposed the divisions in Latin America's political fault lines, regionally and within each country. There is no clearer example of this than Chile, which has abstained from each vote because its political leadership has been unable to decide whether to support Guatemala or Venezuela. This even as there has been an uproar in Chile over Venezuela's signing of a military agreement with Bolivia for Venezuela to aid Bolivia in the construction of several army bases along Bolivia's borders (some of which it shares with Chile) and statements by Venezuelan officials stating that they would defend Bolivia should its security be at risk. The reason this has caused an uproar is the fact that Bolivia and Chile have not had good relations historically since the "War of the Pacific" in the late 1800 which was fought between Chile, Bolivia and Peru and which cost Bolivia access to the sea. The issue is still alive and well, and even cost Morales' predecessor (President Carlos Mesa) his job when he sought to make a deal with Chile to transport Bolivian natural gas through Chile to the outside world. The deal led to massive protests that eventually lef to the fall of the government, one of the leaders of those protests was now President Evol Morales. Bolivia, has never given up the dream of regaining access to the sea. Similarly, Peru, which recently elected Alan Garcia despite Chavez's aid to his opponent (which many Peruvians saw as unwarranted intervention in the nation's internal affairs) has also voiced its preoccupation with such a deal. Even so, and despite the fact that Chavez is actively meddling in the internal affairs of other nations, and that these interventions have affected other countries in the region (including Brazil with Bolivia's nationalization of its gas industry) in a negative manner, Chavez still retains much support with the populations of these countries, even while the US continues to loose it.

This has been made even more apparent from the voting at the UN, particularly with regard to Latin America, mainly that Venezuela is fast becoming the leader of the opposition to American policies in the hemisphere, and two blocs are clearly forming, one with closer ties to the US, and the other which seeks to reduce their dependency on American power. This partition seems to hark back to an earlier era, mimicking the Cold War partition between the West and the Communist East only this time the partition is between North and South. In like manner, a third bloc is emerging, led by Chile of non-aligned nations. At least, that is they way its abstention on this vote is seen, as a third way that avoids it making a choice between Washington and Caracas, even as some parties within the Chilean government have been lobbying for Chile to support Guatemala. As I said last week, despite all the issues we have to deal with around the world, we need to once again take a look at Latin America as there is clear disenchantment with American policies in the region. The time has come for the US to re-engage the region, as we have clearly done with Guatemala through its "debt for preservation" initiative, but more needs to be done to prevent firebrand populists such as Chavez from using the region's disenchantment with the US as a means to increase their own power. One of the biggest issues that has polarized the continent has been the proposed FTAA, and the US's reluctance to negotiate away its farm subsidies (one of the main points of contention with nations such as Brazil).

Voting is continuing today on the vacated Security Council seat. It will be interesting to see whether the US can prevent Chavez from attaining his goal, or whether opposition to American policies is so strong that Chavez is able to achieve it. For now, the manner in which this contest has played out, should give us a lot to think about, not only with regard to Latin America, but also with regard to the manner in which our policies are affecting our standing in the rest of the world.

Update

Guatemala continues to win in today's voting, but has still been unable to reach the two-third mark necessary to attain the non-permanent member seat in the Security Council. Voting was scheduled to resume at 3 pm, so they are currently engaging in the seventh round of voting. At one point, in the third vote of the day Guatemala seemed to be inching closer to its goal of 123 votes when 112 votes came in its favor. In the three later rounds however, this lead was reversed with the final vote before adjurnment ending at 108 votes for Guatemala, 76 for Venezuela. Some members, sensing that the impasse was likely to continue without either party withdrawing have already begun calling for a compromise third candidate.

Update 2

The impasse continues at the UN, however, in the last few rounds of voting, Venezuela seems to be gaining ground on Guatemala. Below are the results:

Ronda 17: Guatemala 104 votos y Venezuela 78

Ronda 18: Guatemala 100 votos y Venezuela 85

Ronda 19: Guatemala 107 votos y Venezuela 79

Ronda 20: Guatemala 102 votos y Venezuela 81

Ronda 21: Guatemala 101 votos y Venezuela 79

Ronda 22: Guatemala 102 votos y Venezuela 77

Voting has ended for today and according to CNN it will not resume until Thursday. A compromise candidate cannot be put forth until the 23rd round of voting. According to Brazil, Ecuador which currently holds the chair of the group of Latin American and Caribbean nations is currently engaged in talks with member states to see if the time has come to put forth a compromise candidate. According to the Guatemalan Ambassador, American support was hurting Guatemala's cause because Chavez had succeeded in portraying this as a contest between Venezuela and the US. Since Guatemala is seen as nothing more than an American proxy, there are enough votes against the US to deny Guatemala the council seat. However, there is still another possibility to resolve the impase. This alternative is to share the two year term with each country serving a one year term. This alternative would give Venezuela the ability to claim a partial victory because it made it into the council despite American opposition, while it would give Guatemala a means to prove that it is not an American proxy by choosing on its own to share the term with the Venezuela. This has been done three times in the past and would be a blow to the Bush administration because it would have failed to keep Venezuela from serving in the council despite using all of its power to do so.

Read More...

Snippet only...

A brief look at Central America (Revised)

Nicaragua

I was browsing through the UK’s Guardian and came upon this story. The story has also been reported on by the LA Times. Apparently, Nicaragua, one of Central America’s poorest countri