On the militarization of foreign assistance, and why it should remain the road less traveled

Further to last week's post on American military bases in Africa, Foreign Policy's William Moseley argues for a halt to the militarization of humanitarian aid across Africa. While Moseley is focused primarily on Mali, where he has been engaged in development work for some 20+ odd years, his line of reasoning may well be applied elsewhere in the continent:

In the West African country of Mali [...] there has been low-grade al Qaeda activity occurring in the northern frontier over the past few years. The marginal desert region between Mali and its neighbors is appealing real estate for would-be terrorists because it is difficult to control and monitor. It provides space for camps and opportunities for terrorist cells to tax cross-border trade and occasionally kidnap foreign nationals for ransom. The U.S. government provides assistance to Mali's military to manage and contain the few, mostly foreign, al Qaeda bands in this small area of the country.

But now the U.S. military is getting involved in development work across Mali and in several other countries in the Sahel region of West Africa -- as it did in Iraq and Afghanistan -- despite the de minimis al Qaeda threat. Now, military personnel repair schools, wells, health centers, roads, and bridges. Army doctors provide basic treatment and vaccinations. In fiscal year 2008, the Defense Department gave the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) mission in Mali $9.5 million to run a counterterrorism program, with close coordination between the two. The program provides curriculum advice to Koranic schools and job training for young men (who are seen as highly susceptible to Islamist rhetoric). USAID has also built 14 community radio stations that broadcast programming on peace and tolerance.

But this reframing of aid to Mali within the fight against terrorism could prove counterproductive. The Pentagon has taken its conceptualization of the fight against al Qaeda in war zones and applied it broadly in a peaceful country. In the past, U.S. involvement in West African countries like Mali has focused intently on humanitarian assistance, not a geopolitical agenda.

Indeed, once you increase military involvement in development work to such an extent, such work comes to be viewed by locals as part of a broader military campaign. And while this is quite justified in conflict situations - as are Iraq and Afghanistan, for instance - it may indeed prove counterproductive in an altogether peaceful country, like Mali. While I have absolutely no problem with the U.S. military - or any other foreign military, for that matter - assisting the Malian army in managing the terrorist threat (even running a counterterrorism program if it feels so inclined and such a program is deemed to be of value), I do agree that military involvement in aspects of humanitarian aid in which other agencies are already active, and in many cases better suited, may elevate tensions rather than effectively assisting communities in their needs. This is not to suggest that all military-operated foreign assistance programs be dismantled, but rather that other existing alternatives exhausted before such a path is pursued. And with so many other alternatives, such a path should very rarely be embarked upon.

The 2009 Iranian revolution: 30 years of the Islamic Republic is enough

I couldn't quite decide whether the post title warrants an exclamation or a question mark at its end...

Alas, I've had little else but Iran on the mind these past few days. Like many others, I am trying to wrap my head around the ongoing situation to somehow get a sense of what is likely to result. Should we compare the Iranian protests to Tiananmen? The Solidarity movement? The Orange Revolution? Some ignorant commentators have even likened the present situation to the Bush/Gore 2004 recount, demonstrating such a dearth of knowledge regarding Middle Eastern politics that one really can't help but cringe.

Admittedly Middle Eastern politics fall beyond my range of expertise. While I do frequently dabble in democratization theory, I don't quite feel that it's my place to proffer any analyses in this case. Rather, I defer to the experts. Here is a list of several blog posts, newspaper articles and Twitter feeds which I have found to be most interesting and insightful:

• From the Tehran Bureau, "The Leaders of Iran's 'Election Coup.'" A truly fascinating piece which sheds insights on the core ideology guiding supporters of Ahmadinejad and further outlines the primary goals of the coup d'état (aside from the obvious)
• Thoughts on why the revolt is so powerful, from Noticed from Northwest
• Iran's Political Structure and its Potential Implications, from Cheap Talk
• Former U.S. Ambassador to the U.N., John Bolton, on what the West doesn't understand about what's happening in Iran - and about Iranian politics in general, for that matter
• Wikipedia has a rather interesting collection of pre-election polls, the majority of which give the lead to Mousavi
• The FT's Gideon Rachman suggests the election results are most certainly rigged - with evidence to boot!
• The ladies at Wronging Rights have been running a great "Ask an Iranian" series. Both Parts I and II are worth the read, though I am particularly biased towards the insights raised in Part II
• From among the countless Twitter feeds tracking the Iranian election aftermath, two in particular have caught my eye: @iran09 and @StopAhmadi
• An Oxford Iranian student has been arrested at the airport in Tehran. Both his family and St. Antony's College where he is based are silently pushing for his release
• Iran's football team is silently supporting the revolution, while pro-Ahmadinejad rallies appear to be photoshopped. Go figure

Please do feel free to call other interesting links to my attention, and I will likewise do the same when I happen to stumble upon anything worth the read.

Photo credit: Boston.com (the link has a striking collection of photographs from the election aftermath)

From bad to worse in Somalia

There is sufficient reason to believe that things in Somalia are going south. Wayyyy south. Mere months after the inauguration of the Transitional Federal Government, lead by moderate Islamist President Sheikh Sharif Ahmed, the opposition party (and by 'opposition party' I mean noted terrorist group) al-Shabab is doing everything in its power to bring the country to the ground. And is doing a pretty good job, at that:

After a week of heavy mortar and rocket attacks that have left at least 135 people dead and sent tens of thousands fleeing, the insurgents have moved to within a half-mile of the hilltop presidential palace in Mogadishu, the Somali capital, which is being guarded by African Union peacekeepers with tanks and armored vehicles.

The Islamists, reportedly joined by hundreds of foreign fighters, didn't move on the palace Friday and almost certainly would lose a ground confrontation with the better-armed, 4,300-man peacekeeping force. Still, Aweys, a veteran hard-liner who US officials charge is linked to Al Qaeda, vowed to topple the government and institute "the Islamic state of Somalia."

This is among the worst violence Mogadishu has seen this year, and what's more, it appears that there is little that outside forces can do about it save but sit and watch. Any peacekeeping mission will likely end in disaster,  tantamount to or perhaps even surpassing that caused by the African Union's mission to the country. And, as Elizabeth Dickinson aptly notes, throwing money at the problem won't fix it either; in fact, it may well exacerbate it.

With little prospect for intervention or monetary aid, the international community is seemingly at a loss. This is horrible news for both Somalia and Western interests alike (obviously more so for the former than the latter). I'd venture to guess that life under a militant Islamist regime is not all that rosy, nor is its existence particularly promising for the ongoing war on terror. Hopefully the current state of affairs will not end in such an arrangement, though the present outlook is quite grim. Quite grim, indeed.

Update: Oh! I forgot to mention another somewhat disparaging factor implicated in all of this: the UNDP seems to think that Somalia's plight makes for a brilliant comic strip. A comic strip!! The alleged intent is "educational," but it all sounds a bit demeaning to me....

On Sri Lanka (for want of a better title)

It's quite a curious exercise, isn't it, observing which humanitarian crises receive international attention? Perhaps not surprisingly (though most unfortunately), the most talked about issues are often those that have somehow  been sensationalized by the media and/or altogether clueless celebrities who mean well but often lack the knowledge necessary to raise proper awareness, let alone do anything about the problems at hand. Darfur, the Congo, the AIDS crisis more generally, Somalia - which was brought into the international spotlight only when pirate attacks escalated on mostly Western cargo ships - the list goes on.

Yet what about other parts of the world? Places like present-day Sri Lanka, for instance, where the populace is suffering on an unimaginable scale. Yet who can honestly say that they have heard much about Sri Lanka, let alone the country's problems? Few will likely know that a humanitarian catastrophe is raging on in the country after Tamil Tiger rebels ignored a surrender deadline from the government and the government likewise rejected the rebels' offer of ceasefire on the grounds that the offer was "meaningless." While exact figures are unavailable, it is estimated that there are upwards of 6,500 civilian deaths, with over 100,000 refugees and 50,000 civilians trapped in a space roughly the size of Central Park. According to one British official, Sri Lanka's conflict makes "what happened in Gaza look like a sideshow."

Indeed, comparisons are being drawn between Sri Lanka's plight and the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Tamils are using refugees as human shields; the rebels are accusing the government of trying to starve the population into submission; and foreign media is kept beyond the conflict zone. Indeed:

This is a situation of armed conflict in which both parties are acting in ways that pose a grave risk to innocent civilians. The party that is perhaps more culpable -- the rebels -- answers to no one. And the Sri Lankan government has been able to operate with virtual impunity because it is fighting "terrorists." Even Western states that usually condemn violations of international law have given the situation a wide berth.

The international community has, in fact, stepped in, calling for both a ceasefire and permission for aid groups to access the war zone. Neither call appears to have been met. What becomes of Sri Lanka remains to be seen. As Robert Templer observes: either the conflict will end in a bloody massacre, likely resulting in decades more of war and suffering, or there will be a breakthrough of sorts, heralding in peaceful negotiations and the hope for a peaceful Sri Lanka. But no matter: I don't think Bono has sung about this one yet, has he? 

On dealing with pirates

In an interesting letter to Barack Obama on the subject of Somalia, Senator Russ Feingold writes the following:

As you know, piracy off the coast of Somalia is a symptom of the state collapse and instability on land; thus, any military actions we take will only be stopgap measures.  In recent Congressional testimony, Director of National Intelligence Blair and Defense Intelligence Agency Director Army Lt. General Michael Maples cited lawlessness and economic problems on land for the rise in piracy at sea.  The ultimate solution to the problem of piracy, then, is the establishment of a functional government that can enforce the rule of law.  During the rule of the Council of Islamic Courts in 2006, there was a notable decline in piracy that can be attributed, in large part, to the rise of a central authority in southern Somalia. Without replicating the repressive rule of the Courts, we must keep in mind that establishing a central governing structure in Somalia is critical to resolving, not just stopping, the problem of piracy.

Feingold proposes closer U.S. cooperation with the Somali government to "help establish security and functional, inclusive governance within the country." At first glance this seems like the clear way forward. Given that a large portion of pirates are impoverished individuals attempting to make a livelihood for themselves in the absence of other options, an internal solution to the problem (i.e. establishing governance and subsequently creating opportunity) appears the right one. 

Yet while this nation-building route may be the most sensible of options, it does raise two questions. First, should the United States engage in yet another nation-building mission in the Islamic world? Recall that Somalia is in large measure (informally) controlled by al-Shabab, an extreme al-Qaeda aligned terrorist group that has been active in Somalia since 2006. Despite America's benevolent intentions, I remain highly skeptical that any sort of state-building activity would be welcomed, especially given America's recent track record (and reputation) in the Islamic world. And given, too, that Somalia is a sovereign nation. Arguably this would radicalize the pirates just as much as would the second option: military action.

The second option (and second question) is indeed that of air strikes on pirate land bases, an option currently being debated by the U.S. government. While I hesitate to believe that such action would do much to ameliorate the piracy problem in the long term, and would inevitably mar the vision of a peaceful, all-loving America which the Obama administration seems intent on creating, some argue that it may be the appropriate response to what are, in fact, acts of terror. Indeed, the fundamental question implicit in this option is that of what label we designate to pirates: are they merely (helpless) criminals (or a 'better class of criminal' as my colleague Jon Santiago comically muses), or are they terrorists? Hostis humani generis? 

Unfortunately, the recent string of events appears to point to the latter. Mortars were fired on upon a plane carrying U.S. Congressman Donald Payne as it took off from Mogadishu airport on Monday (al-Shabab has claimed responsibility for the act). Pirates attempted an attack on a second U.S. vessel today, and have hijacked four more ships since the rescue of Captain Richard Phillips. Where before I was willing to pass off acts of piracy as acts of desperate individuals attempting to sustain a livelihood, such events seem to suggest something quite different - no less so given the pirates' threats of defiant, bloody revenge.

The question of how to solve the piracy problem is fantastically complex, and I don't claim to have much in the way of a solution. There is much to consider and, as it stands, America appears caught between a rock and a hard place. Arrrghhh matey, indeed.

Let's chat Somalia again, shall we?

In mid-December I posted on the then quickly collapsing state of affairs in Somalia, hypothesizing that al-Shabab would quickly move in to assert its control (quick refresher: al-Shabab is an extreme al-Qaeda aligned terrorist group that has been active in Somalia since 2006). Sure enough, the Shabab captured Mogadishu on Monday and have since declared the ascendancy of Islamic Law, threatening punishment on anyone who acts in opposition to it. The country now hangs in a period of uncertainty (sadly nothing new for this Horn of Africa country) until its new president is sworn in. A number of individuals have announced their candidacy for the post, including the Islamist Sheikh Sharif Ahmed. 

Some analysts remain optimistic about Somalia's future (bless them), reasoning that if al-Shabab is anything like other rebel groups, it will likely fracture from within before it manages to do any serious damage to the country. Drawing on the experiences of other African Islamic states, however, I remain huuugely skeptical. Al-Shabab may be a rebel group, but they are really, really good at what they do. Lucky for them, not so much for the rest of us.

Promises of governance (in whatever form...) have also done little to bring to a halt Somali pirates, who today seized a German tanker off the coast of Somalia. Japan is now trying its hand at tackling the pirates (I wonder if we might see a Japan vs. China pirate showdown... kidding, kidding), adding to what are already largely international efforts aimed at averting this growing threat. 

Curiously, under his presidency, George W. Bush pressed for a larger international force in Somalia, but was met with little support. It would seem that *gasp!* he may have been right. Indeed, of all the African challenges Obama now faces, I'd place Somalia's turmoils at top of the list. We need to keep our eyes on this one. 

Prank call to Zardari almost led to war

Oh my goodness. I'm amazed that this hasn't received more media attention:

A hoax telephone call almost sparked another war between nuclear-armed India and Pakistan at the height of last month's terror attacks on Mumbai, officials and Western diplomats on both sides of the border said on Sunday.

Asif Ali Zardari, the Pakistani President, took a telephone call from a man pretending to be Pranab Mukherjee, India's Foreign Minister, on Friday, November 28, apparently without following the usual verification procedures, they said.

The hoax caller threatened to take military action against Pakistan in response to the then ongoing Mumbai attacks, which India has since blamed on the Pakistan-based militant group Lashkar-e-Taiba (LeT), they said.

Mr Zardari responded by placing Pakistan's air force on high alert and telephoning Condoleezza Rice, the US Secretary of State, to ask her to intervene.

Pirrrrates... and what to do about them

Somali pirates have been all over the news lately: they hijacked an oil tanker off the coast of Kenya and steered it to the Somali port city, Eyl. The Saudi Arabian vessel - the Sirus Star - is the largest ever raided at sea. According to the FT, apart from the 25 sailors taken hostages, the vessel carried 2m barrels of oil worth about $100m, and accounting for one-quarter of Saudi daily output. Very impressive stuff, indeed. 

Yet this recent hijacking is not an isolated incident. There have been 95 attacks by Somali pirates on vessels this year alone (!), with 39 ships captured and 800 crew held. Events such as this are beginning to raise heightened concern among already worried international governments - many of whom rely on the Gulf of Aden for transport of key exports. In an attempt to combat such piracy, NATO has begun considering significantly extending its anti-piracy mission - Allied Provider - off Somalia.  Members of the international community from the left and right have likewise taken to weighing their options. The UK-based think tank, Chathahm House, has put out a paper examining several such options. You can find this paper here. 

Having had a bit of time to think about much of this, though, I've come to side with those who argue that the culprit of the problem - and the solution - is governance. While international law may take us so far in regulating the problem, lawyers are discovering that it might not take us as far as we would like. And even if it did, how do you impose law upon a lawless people? Somalia has not had a functioning government since 1991, and remains divided between several warring factions. Given the circumstances, it should come as no surprise that the country's people often resort to desperate acts to sustain themselves. Indeed, the majority of these pirates are Somali fisherman living on less than $1 a day; when given the opportunity to acquire a potential $25million (or thereabouts) they take their chances. I'm not sure I wouldn't, too.

So what's the solution to Somali piracy? Well, governance. Opportunities. Alternatives. How do we go about actualizing it? The international community has been trying to figure this one out for over a decade. A valuable first step is to begin paying attention to a country that has been neglected - by its own people and the international community. Every cloud has a silver lining: maybe with this hijacking will come some serious attempts at reform.