Lest we Forget Libya!

Every week we look at an article that is making inroads in the field of international relations. In the recent weeks, the world has been grappling with the war in Gaza, the Ebola outbreak in the Western African states of Sierra Leone, Liberia, Guinea and Nigeria. The embers of the conflict in Ukraine seem to be cooling off while infighting in Iraq has seen America sending rescue missions. Closer home in Tanzania, there seems to be no answer to the constitution deadlock. I hear the ruling party is flexing its political muscles while the UKAWA group remains intransigent. 

On Libya. While the global media casts its cameras in Gaza, Ukraine, Iraq and West Africa, the infighting in Libya seems to be forgotten. I asked my Canadian-Libyan friend Amjad how Libya was fairing after the fall of Gaddafi, and his answer was "The militants have taken over". Foreign Policy Magazine in the Passport series looks at the situation in Libya. Titled "Don't look Now, but Libya is Falling Apart", the author,  Siddhartha Mahanta, explores how the militants are fighting for the control of the oil wells in Libya. NATO intervention in Libya in 2011 which led to the fall of Muammar Gaddafi has been a subject of international debate. When the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1973 for a no-fly zone over Libya on 17 March 2011, the fall of Gaddafi was inevitable. The legitimacy of the resolution under the pretext of Right to Protect (R2P) is also a subject for debate. Critics of the UNSC further highlighted its flaws with the passing of Resolution 1973. 

Libya is now in the hands of hungry militants who are fighting themselves. One wing of the militants are aligning themselves with Islamists. Just like Iraq was stable under Sadam Hussein, so was Libya under Muammar Gaddafi. One excruciating fact is that both countries were undone by UNSC resolutions, which were against international law norms. As ISIS continue to wreck havoc in Iraq, the militants in Libya will get more radicalized. At whose expense was the brutal removal of Sadam and Gaddafi? The people of Iraq and Libya must be cursing and questioning the motives of the powers that be. But as we say in international relations, albeit in the realist thought, 'States pursue power at all cost and their primary concern is state survival'. 

 

#Iran Nuclear Talks: Who's the real loser?

Every week I post an interesting article on issues foreign policy and international affairs. Today, we look at an article by Camelia Entekhabifard who analyses the ongoing Iran nuclear talks with the P5+1 posted on Al Jazeera website opinion space. 

She posits that as much as China and Russia side with Iran, the end of sanctions in Iran will not go down well in Beijing and Moscow respectively. She is of the idea that Russia, China and black marketeers all have something in common - that is, they have nothing to lose if the talks fails. Iran would likely grow more reliant on Russia as a regional security buffer and Russia would lose an oil and gas competitor and might even secure a better deal with Iran if the talks fall apart.

Another interesting point made here is on the stability of the region. The Middle East region faces numerous security challenges. Israel, an arch enemy of Iran is now fighting Palestine's Hamas. In what started as kidnapping of Israelis, the retaliatory attacks have killed over 200 Palestine people in the last week. It has been argued that a failure of the Iran Nuclear Talks will further destabilize the region. For more indepth analysis see link below. 

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2014/07/iran-nuclear-talks-20147156547235397.html

The Future of American Diplomacy

Via the Diplomat

Is not doubling down on its great-power past, but in response to the "rise of the rest" is something more inclusive. Globalization has been changing U.S. foreign policy since the beginning of the American Republic. From our first diplomatic post in Tangier, Morocco founded in 1777, to the more than 285 diplomatic facilities around the world today operated by the U.S. Department of State, the business of diplomacy has evolved over time.

While it is obvious that thriving markets and global security go hand in hand, along with America’s central role in both arenas, often our diplomacy and institutions do not reflect this reality. In other words, the channels of influence that America could once rely on—large, multinational consortia of first-world powers—are waning in power. If one thing is clear to ambassadors around the world, it’s that U.S. diplomacy needs a jumpstart into the 21st century.

The key for American diplomacy is not doubling down on its great-power past, but harnessing the future on the ground. The enthusiasm and entrepreneurial spirit that became infectious in the “Arab Spring” countries will remain the norm. Young people are tapping into the culture of innovation, even amidst the political difficulties and a lack of access to money and resources. In turn, effective, pragmatic partnerships based on shared objectives—economic growth, stability and more—will be the engine for increased security and prosperity. This is the future of diplomacy, not just at the U.S. State Department—but worldwide.

On The Ground 

While terms such as “Economic Statecraft,” “Global Engagement,” and “Strategic Partnerships” have come into fashion in Washington, the tangible impact of these buzzwords is difficult to measure. Ironically, some of the most challenging places for U.S. foreign policy represent some of the greatest opportunities for these new approaches in 21-century statecraft.

The key is to create and empower stable business conditions in unstable places through private-sector leadership. The intersection of public and private sectors has now blurred the lines in diplomacy. Today, our diplomats are beginning to understand that public-private partnerships can get the most out of available resources, technology, knowledge, and networks. In fact, these partnerships might be the most effective foreign policy tool America has at its disposal today.

Take Israel and Palestine, where U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry is pushing towards a final diplomatic peace between the Israelis and Palestinians. Last year, I visited the Palestinian Territories to support an event called “Celebration of Innovation,” a locally organized business development and investor pitch competition. Essentially the State Department’s own prototype of Shark Tank, fifteen young Palestinian entrepreneurs were selected from hundreds of applicants to compete for the chance to present their ideas to an international audience. The two winners, Alaa—a twenty-four year old from the Gaza Strip who had never left his home before winning the chance to pitch his business—and Aya, the first Palestinian woman to own and raise sheep from Nabulus, are representative of a global change. If one thing became clear, it was that the next generation doesn’t want charity; they want a chance. 

Working with the best and brightest that this troubled region had to offer, their ingenuity—especially limited money and shaky security—is impressive. While observing the number of Palestinian businessmen and entrepreneurs that had succeeded throughout the Arab world, despite the odds, a Palestinian professor commented to me that, “Diamonds are created under pressure, therefore it is only natural that Palestinians entrepreneurs are like diamonds within this region.”

Alaa beamed with pride as he presented his business idea of creating miniature furniture for densely packed living conditions, like those in cramped New York studios, that he invented to deal with the overcrowded apartment in Gaza that his family lived in. Aya, short and covered in a traditional head-scarf, electrified the crowd with her energy as she pitched her idea of raising organic sheep to be locally sourced, given restrictions faced in the West Bank of imports from neighboring countries. In a packed room that was being broadcast live on television, both of these young entrepreneurs won grants to further develop their businesses.The amount of these micro-investments were negligible when balanced against the international aid and development budgets that the U.S. lends to their homeland. But the impact of empowering these young leaders—and the jobs they create—will be felt long beyond the legacy of the political leaders that today dictate the terms of the ongoing peace process. Cities like Richmond and Chicago have seen a link between creating jobs and lowering crime; Gaza and Nabulus are no different.

Changing Global Dynamics

The international system, which until the 1990s saw power disproportionally concentrated in North America and Europe, has since witnessed a dramatic change in distribution to other players—mostly in Asia and South America. To understand why 20th-century diplomacy needs an upgrade, it’s worth a look at the recent changes on the global stage.

Brazil, once a poster-child for income inequality, has enjoyed its economic renaissance following a prolonged lull. Indonesia, although still manacled by corruption, has evolved from an insular military dictatorship into a politically stable democracy with a promising economy. India has gone from an aid-dependent regional power to a hotbed of entrepreneurship, with its economy more than doubling in size between 2002 and 2008.

In that same period, Turkey’s economy has more than tripled, accompanied by a strong sense of identity and a brash self-confidence. Last, but certainly not least, is the dramatic rise of China, which in 1990 had a gross domestic product per capita less than India’s, but is today almost four times as wealthy. Yet with each of these economic successes comes development challenges, as played out recently in the streets of Brazil and Turkey through protest movements, not to mention the ongoing tumult playing out throughout the Arab world.

This so-called “rise of the rest” presents the United States with a decision. On the one hand, it could incorporate these new players into established systems of global governance, more accurately reflecting the distribution of international power and strengthen international cooperative mechanisms. On the other hand, if the West were to continue to resist or deny these new global players a place at the high table, there is a strong likelihood that the entire global system – which the West created and carefully nurtured over the past half century for its benefit, and that of others – may be jeopardized.

Why Iran should get the bomb: A review of Waltz's perspective

Monday, 27 November, 2012: The acclaimed neo-realist theorist Kenneth Waltz is of the view that Iran should go nuclear. He believes that a nuclear Iran will bring nuclear stability in the Middle East region. There have been historical enmity and callous relationship between Iran and the US and her ally Israel. The tensions have been recently been exacerbated by Iran’s nuclear ambition. The West has responded to these attempts by slapping Tehran with numerous sanctions and trade embargos on her goods.

The implications of Iran’s nuclear ambitions have been written and widely argued on how dangerous such a move will be. Most US, European and Israel commentators and policymakers warn that a nuclear-armed Iran would be the worst possible outcome of the standoff on uranium enrichment in Iran. A number of avenues have been postulated on how to deal with the crisis over Iran’s nuclear program. As noted earlier, sanctions have been used to punish Iran but they have relentlessly pursued the desire for nuclear technology.  Analysts have seen this measure as futile since Iran is determined to pursue her security agenda by possessing nuclear technology, just like the other world super powers. By the look of things, Iran is not willing to drop its nuclear ambition. 

The implications of such a move can also be interpreted with a positive touch. Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, which has endured for close to five decades now, has long fueled instability in the region. Regional balance of power in the Middle East can be stabilized with a nuclear Iran. Kenneth Waltz has argued that the fear of a reprisal attack on Israel by Iran is grossly exaggerated. This has completely distorted the positives of such a move by Iran. There have been misjudged arguments that the Ayatollahs and whole Iranian system is irrational and will hit Israel after acquiring a bomb. On the contrary, Iran as a state wants to compete with other developed nations around the world. History has shown us that when countries acquire nuclear arsenal, they feel increasingly vulnerable and become acutely aware of the dangers posed therewith. 

In 1991, the historical rivals of India and Pakistan signed a treaty agreeing not to target each other nuclear facilities. The two, by virtue of such an agreement respect each other and brought about balance of power in the region. It’s for this reason that Waltz argues that a nuclear Iran will bring about more stability in the Middle East region. A nuclear Iran will bring stability and possibly mend relations with Israel. Who knows?            

Iranians to hold nationwide anti-Israeli demo

Via Press TV

Iran's Islamic Publicity Coordination Council has called on the Iranian people to take part in nationwide demonstrations to condemn Israeli aggression against the Palestinians in the besieged Gaza Strip. The demonstrations are set to be held across the country after Friday Prayers.

 

In a statement issued on Thursday, the council condemned the latest wave of Israeli attacks on the coastal enclave, calling on the Iranians to take to the streets to vent their anger at the fake Zionist regime of Israel and to express their sympathy with the oppressed people of the Gaza Strip.  At least 21 people have been killed and over 160 others injured in the new wave of attacks on the costal sliver, which started on Wednesday.

 

Israel aborted 2010 war plan against Iran out of fear: Report

Via Press TV

A new report reveals that a planned Israeli strike against Iran in 2010 was thwarted due to Tel Aviv’s qualms about its own military capabilities as well as top-echelon internal opposition against the measure.

According to a Sunday report by prominent investigative journalist Ilana Dayan on an Israeli news channel, at a 2010 meeting between Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, Minister for Military Affairs Ehud Barak and a small circle of top ministers, the premier asked the Israeli military to prepare for an imminent strike on Iran’s nuclear energy facilities, Ynetnews reports.

The report which was a promotional preview for an hour-long documentary on a decade of Israel’s decision-making process with regard to Iran is scheduled to be broadcast on Israeli TV’s Channel 2 on Monday night.

During the meeting Netanyahu called on former Chairman of Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) Gabi Ashkenazi to “set the systems for P-plus,” meaning an operation will start soon, the report said.

“Eventually, at the moment of truth, the answer that was given was that, in fact, the ability did not exist,” Barak said in the clip shown in the preview report.

Ashkenazi along with Meir Dagan, former head of Mossad, who stepped down after the meeting, slammed Netanyahu’s order as an attempt aimed at “stealing a war,” and argued that such a decision required the confirmation of all the Israeli ministers, not a small group of officials.

Ashkenazi had reportedly declared that adopting a military measure against Iran would be a “strategic mistake.”

Dayan, who made the documentary, said the Israeli censors prevented her from mentioning the exact date of the 2010 meeting.

Tel Aviv has repeatedly threatened Iran with a military strike, saying that Tehran is seeking to produce a nuclear bomb, a claim Iran has vehemently rejected.

Western Double Speak: Nuclear Iran v Environment Protection

Nicodemus Minde

October 1, 2012: Iran has always provided us with interesting foreign policy perspectives. The phases of Iran foreign policy have witnessed a different treatise ever since the 1979 Islamic Revolution. This defining moment in their history has continued to shape their politics and relations with other nations. It is difficult to argue that there is a consistent foreign policy behavior in any state. The only consistent factor in defining foreign policy behavior has always been consistent national interests. States, in the realist tradition will always pursue policies consistent to their national interests, which in most occasions are state survival, security and prosperity. The Islamic theocracy under Ayatollah Khomeini was modeled on anti-imperialism establishment and a return to Islamic values which had been eroded by the ousted Western backed Shah of Iran. Contemporary Iran was labeled ‘axis of evil’ by the former US president George Bush on the pretext sponsoring terrorism. Further deluge has been generated by Iran’s nuclear ambition. Iran has consistently said that they seek to enrich uranium for peaceful uses of nuclear energy. My preposition is that Iran should be given the benefit of the doubt and not be subjected to pernicious economic sanctions. 

Iran is a signatory of the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT) and a key player of the International Atomic Energy agency (IAEA). The NPT which is built on three pillars of ‘Non-proliferation’, ‘disarmament’, and ‘peaceful use’ is the principle international treaty whose objective is to prevent the spread of nuclear weapons and weapons technology, to promote cooperation in the peaceful uses of nuclear energy and to further the goal of achieving nuclear disarmament and general and complete disarmament. Israel, the ardent critic of nuclear Iran is widely believed to possess nuclear weapons and to be the sixth country in the world to develop them. It is one of four nuclear-armed countries not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), the others being India, Pakistan and North Korea. Israel maintains a policy known as "nuclear ambiguity" (also known as "nuclear opacity"). Yet it has always questioned the intentions of Iran, which subscribes to the dictates of the NPT and the IAEA. The other ardent critic of Iran nuclear process is the US. The US has gone on to draft sanction policies to Iran due to Iran’s pursuit of nuclear program for peaceful energy purposes. The same countries slapping these sanctions have not been cooperative to the environmental treaties that call for the minimizing of poisonous gases that cause global warming and climate change. 

The Kyoto protocol and many other subsequent climate conferences such as the Copenhagen and Durban have been a failure mainly due to frustrating efforts by the same Western powers that see Iran’s pursuit of nuclear power as wrong. States that advocate for environmental protection should also do the noble task of punishing those who don’t conform to international environment treaties the same manner they are ‘dealing’ with Iran.   

Zionist and Al Qaeda: No difference

Via Press TV

The CEO of Press TV says the al-Qaeda and the Zionists act in the same ways when it comes to committing crimes.

“The Zionists and the Americans, who are apparently the al-Qaeda’s enemies, have gone to the point that today their infantry, which is al-Qaeda, commits the same crimes that the Zionists did in Lebanon and Palestine,” Dr. Mohammad Sarafraz said in an interview with IRIB late Thursday.

Regarding the assassination of Press TV’s correspondent in Syria, Maya Nasser, Sarafraz said that Naser and his colleagues had received 'numerous death threats' months before his murder.

He said the Press TV and Al-Alam Damascus Bureau had received numerous threatening messages over the past few months, adding journalists working for the two Iranian news networks had been directly and repeatedly threatened with death.

Sarafraz said that such threats were part of Western efforts to block the free flow of news dissemination on the regional developments including what is going on in Syria.

"The enemy now targets the free flow of news dissemination and anyone trying to express views that are different from the enemies is either intimidated as part of the psychological warfare so that they fail to do their job efficiently, or the threats are actually carried out and the news person is assassinated,” the top IRIB official added.

Insurgents in the Syrian capital of Damascus attacked Press TV staff, killing the Iranian English-language news network’s correspondent, Maya Naser, and injuring Press TV and Al-Alam Damascus Bureau Chief Hosein Mortada, on Wednesday.

Naser was shot and killed by a sniper, while Mortada, a Lebanese national, was shot and wounded in the back.

The two were covering twin bomb blasts, which targeted the military command building in the Syrian capital and killed at least four Syrian security forces.