Sun sets over DMZ in North Korea // credit: JoongAng Ilbo

Many are quick to blame North Korea’s Kim Jong-un as the sole cause for heightened tensions between the Democratic People’s Republic and South Korea. In fact, changes in leadership on both sides have contributed to today’s conflict on the Korean peninsula. Looking back to when relations between the two nations were slightly cooler holds some surprising insights.

What is known as the Sunshine Policy started in 1998, but was discontinued in 2008. Was it effective? Well, not enough for reunification, but enough to ease the tension between North and South Korea. The Sunshine Policy took a general approach to North/South relations by South Korea which emphasized cooperation and non-coercion.

There was very little contact between North and South between 1948 to 1998. Thanks to the South Korean Leader, Kim Dae Jung, who implemented Sunshine Policy in 1998, we saw an historic moment in Inter-Korean relations under the new policy.

The world held its breath when Kim stood on North Korea soil after crossing the DMZ (Demilitarized Zone) on June 16, 1998. The policy was aimed at softening the North’s attitudes by providing humanitarian and economic aid with no strings attached.

As a result, a historic summit meeting between Kim Jong-iI and Kim Dae Jung was held in 2000 for the first time since the Korean War ended in 1953. People saw growth in cooperative business development between North and South, and they anticipated reuniting families separated during the war.

The opening of Mount Kumgang tourist region, one of the best-known mountains in North Korea, allowed South Korean visitors to the mountain before a shooting incident in 2008 which inevitably ended implementation of the Sunshine Policy.

President Roh Moo-hyun, Kim Dae Jung’s successor, also maintained warm relations between the two countries through his commitment to the Sunshine Policy. The Kaesong Industrial Park in 2002, a sign of economic ties between two Koreas, is part of Roh’s commitment to the Sunshine Policy. Under the Roh administration, a second land mark summit meeting was held in Pyongyang in October 2007.

Roh was the second South Korean president since the Korean War to have made the trip to North Korea. Of course, there were some uneasy moments throughout the lifespan of the policy; notably, when South Korea asked for a sector of family reunification which upset North Korea. After U.S. President George W. Bush called North Korea a part of the “Axis of Evils” in 2001, tensions surfaced again.

Overall, both Kim and Roh achieved improvements on relations with North Korea. It is no surprise that Kim won a Nobel Peace Prize in 2000 for implementing the Sunshine Policy.

Where do we go from here? Why do changes in leadership matter? In 2008, Lee Myung-bak took office as the tenth president of South Korea. Lee’s foreign policy did not please North Korea, but the Bush administration supported it. Lee’s less open policies towards North Korea quickly cooled the warming relations between North and South.

Lee suspended humanitarian aid to North Korea by claiming that Sunshine Policy did not change North Korea’s attitudes, but that it had actually strengthened the communist regime. Lee’s hard line policy towards North Korea was more intensified by the reactivation of North Korea’s nuclear program and missile tests in 2009 and 2012.

The effectiveness of Sunshine Policy has been controversial among Lee’s supporters and his opponents. However, no one could deny the policy improved relations between the two Koreas and no other policy achieved so much in history.

Although there was hope that Lee’s new policies towards North Korea would eventually end following current president Park Geun-hye’s election in 2013, a new young leader in North Korea, Kim Jong-un emerged at the end of 2011 before Park took office.

Park also had a vision similar to the Sunshine Policy of the early 2000s and she spoke about her dedication to improving relations with North Korea during the years before election. However, tensions between the two countries worsened by Kim Jong-un’s recent provocations against South Korea and the United States.

Tensions escalated after the UN broadened its sanctions against North Korea in response to Kim Jong-un’s long-range rocket test at the end of 2012 and by joint military exercises on the Korean peninsula. In February 2013, North Korea launched a third nuclear test and both the UN and the United States considered it a highly provocative act.

North Korea responded by attempting to cut off communications with South Korea and warned Seoul that it had entered “a state of war.”

Although the Sunshine Policy gave hope to inter-Korean relations, and saw improvements over several years, changes in leadership in both countries reversed most of the progress that had been made.

Before Park could revamp the discontinued Sunshine agenda, North Korea made multiple brazen moves toward military escalation. Is there still hope of improving relations between North and South Korea? The answer is likely “No” on the face of current tensions. However, solutions to increased volatility have been few; the only hope is likely one that bears a similar resemblance to the Sunshine Policy of years past.

San Win SwePangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

ChameleonsEye / Shutterstock.com

Afghan National Army casualties continue to rise as Afghan troops begin taking command of combat operations in the war-torn country. NATO leaders and Afghan Ministry of Defense officials are working to increase the efficiency of the newly formed security forces by focusing their efforts on improving troop morale.

Although Afghan forces have already demonstrated improvement in their overall combat ability, recent operations in the Kunar Province show they lack strong logistical support, a problem which officials hope to remedy by increasing Afghan Special Forces operations in rural areas in order to secure infrastructure and necessary human personnel.

The actions of Afghan Special Forces and their coalition partners have resonated strongly with conventional infantry units, who view the commandos as inspirational and patriotic amid widespread corruption and desertion within the Afghan military. NATO agreed last May to continue funding the commandos until 2017 with the hope that their contributions to the war effort will continue to raise morale.

As part of the same effort, the Afghan Ministry of Defense announced last week they would begin retiring high-ranking military officers who have served past the time set forth by their government contracts later this month. Although some Afghan soldiers have expressed concern that this decision may reduce the army’s effectiveness, Afghan officials hope that it will encourage younger officers to improve their leadership skills.

Since 2008, the International Security Assistance Force has gradually increased the number of Pashtun military leaders in order to reduce ethnic tension within the army. ISAF hopes that the younger, more charismatic leaders will help discourage corrupt activities and forge motivational bonds with their troops that many soldiers within the army find lacking.

With the Taliban’s annual spring offensive reaching its climax, NATO leaders watch nervously as the Afghan National Army stands to showcase its capabilities for the first time.

Bryceson CabadingPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

Escalating tensions with North Korea have dominated the attention of foreign policy analysts and the press. Following strong rhetoric from the Democratic People’s Republic of North Korea on Friday, the general consensus of experts and officials alike is one of cautious reserve.

The Korean Central News Agency of the DPRK released a statement Friday:

“The moves of the U.S. imperialists to violate the sovereignty of the DPRK and encroach upon its supreme interests have entered a grave phase… If they make a reckless provocation with huge strategic forces, the KPA should mercilessly strike the U.S. mainland, their stronghold, their military bases in the operational theaters in the Pacific, including Hawaii and Guam, and those in south Korea, he said. He examined and finally ratified the plan of the Strategic Rocket Force for firepower strike.”

The statement came in response to a joint military exercise between the U.S. and South Korea. A B-2 ‘stealth’ bomber and multiple F-22 Raptors performed annual air drills within South Korean airspace. Seemingly interpreted by North Korea as unilateral aggression, the statement declared that any further provocation by the U.S. would be taken as an act of war and would prompt retaliation, potentially with nuclear weapons.

The prevailing consensus among North Korean experts, as described by The New York Times, is that the young North Korean leader, Kim Jong Un is using the charged language to shore up a popular appearance of standing up to the ‘imperialist’ United States.

The statements have been called ‘nothing new’ by South Korean officials, yet the nuclear test from February remains a cause for concern. The projected timeline for a nuclear attack-capable North Korea is three to five years, with no indication that the program will slow down.

The escalation in hostile rhetoric, however harsh, does not constitute a new page in the United States’ relationship with the country as the Korean War never officially ended. Only a ceasefire was signed in 1953, not a peace agreement, known as the Korean Armistice Agreement. As the KCNA put it, “The situation in the Korean Peninsula, which is neither peace nor war, has come to an end.”

Cryptic and vague as usual, the DPRK’s statements have caught eyes and ears the world over, but many remain skeptical that a serious conflict will result.

Alex GauthierPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

The Committee on Foreign Investment in the U.S. (CFIUS), a multi-agency committee chaired by the Secretary of the Treasury, is in charge of reviewing foreign acquisitions of U.S. businesses that could affect the national security of the United States. Share the article: Tweet

CFIUS is comprised of the heads of the departments of Defense, Homeland Security, State, Energy, the Office of the Special Trade Representative, and the Office of Science and Technology Policy.

While most requests are approved, in some occasions the CFIUS will regard a specific transaction as a strong threat to the country’s national security. In this case, a number of options are possible.

First the foreign company can withdraw its investment in the face of the challenge. Second, an agreement can be found between the CFIUS and the foreign company that will allow the transaction to proceed while mitigating the national security threats. Finally, if the disagreement continues, the case is given to the President of the United States who has the power to block the transaction.

In recent years, the CFIUS work has significantly increased, going from eleven cases in 2006 to forty in 2011. This followed the enactment of the Foreign Investment and National Security Act (FINSA) in 2007, which strengthened the scrutiny process over foreign investments.

After 9/11, and more recently with the Chinese hacking scandals, Congress has expressed concerns about who controls strategic infrastructures such as ports, oil production facilities, and advanced technologies. One of the most recent example is the Ralls Corp case.

In September 2012, President Barack Obama, at the request of the CFIUS, banned the construction of four wind farms in Oregon by a Chinese company named Ralls Corp for national security reasons. The explanation given was that the wind farms would have been situated too close to a Navy base where training missions are conducted for drones.

Ralls Corp sued the CFIUS, as well as President Obama and Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, for abusing their power.

At issue is the opacity of the CFIUS review process which requires a wide disclosure from foreign companies without reciprocity. If a deal is rejected or if a modification is approved, foreign companies are often left without an explanation for the decision.

At a time when U.S. companies are looking for investments and Chinese and other foreign companies have the resources to meet this demand, the lack of transparency of the CFIUS is acting as a deterrent. However, the lawsuit against CFIUS might change this.

A U.S. judge ruled that the Obama administration had the authority to force the company to sell the wind farms, but allowed the request for a justification to go forward.

“The statute expressly authorizes the president to do what he deems necessary to accomplish or implement the prohibition — not merely to issue it,” wrote Judge Amy Berman.

Ralls’ CEO hopes this decision will result in opening the CFIUS review process to more transparency.

However, even if it fails to do so, this challenge would have at least sparked a discussion over the methods of this process. While national security raises understandable concerns for the U.S, foreign investments and their impact on the U.S. economy should not be adversely affected

With another important Chinese investment currently under review, the U.S. government will have to consider what would be the consequences of another unexplained refusal. Not only could it deter Chinese and other foreign companies from investing in the U.S, but American companies investing abroad could suffer from retaliation. A balance needs to be found between these two interests and the sooner, the better.

Lucas EavesPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

hecke61 / Shutterstock.com

Last week in Argentina, a trial began, charging five former intelligence and military officials with kidnapping, torturing, and killing left-wing activists under the country’s military rule which lasted from 1976-1983. Share the news: Tweet

The trial is part of an effort to shed light on a larger military operation, Operation Condor. Condor was a joint effort among South American military regimes during a period that aimed to suppress perceived left-wing opposition in the region.

While the operation involved mainly military officials from Argentina, Brazil, Bolivia, Chile, Paraguay, and Uruguay, there is now substantial evidence that the CIA as well as the U.S. state and defense departments were aware of Condor and were often involved in organizational, financial, and technical assistance in the operation.

This specific trial focuses on five men who ran a notorious detention center in Buenos Aires, known as as Automotores Orletti. Aimed at tracking down and silencing dissidents, over 200 people passed through the prison, mainly Uruguayans. Tweet it: Tweet

The case of one couple, Marcelo Gelman and Maria Claudia Garcia, has garnered international attention and will feature prominently in the trial.

Marcelo, the son of the Argentine poet Juan Gelman, was one of those detained in the prison. He was killed, and his wife, who was pregnant at the time, was taken to Uruguay where she too was disappeared. However, not before her child, Macarena, was born in prison.

No one ever heard from or even found María Claudia’s body, but her daughter, Macarena, was adopted by a family associated with the Uruguayan Police Force. Macarena’s experience was not an isolated incident; according to human rights groups, as many as five hundred children in Argentina and Uruguay were taken from their imprisoned parents and given to childless military or police couples who the military regimes favored.

After years of searching for his missing granddaughter with the help of the Las Abuelas de Plaza de Mayo, Juan Gelman finally found his granddaughter Macarena in 1999 and brought the case of the disappearance and illegal adoption before the Inter-American Court of Human Rights (IACHR).

While trials are reopening in Argentina, Uruguay faces a more entrenched battle against impunity. In 1986, during the nation’s transition back to democratic rule, Uruguay passed an amnesty law which protected all those involved in the military regime from prosecution for human rights abuses.

That law was then reaffirmed in two subsequent public referendums. Therefore, Gelman had to take his court to the IACHR.

In 2011, the IACHR found that, despite public reaffirmation of the amnesty, the law was inconsistent with international human rights obligations. The IACHR directed Uruguay to begin to comply with instituting accountability efforts in three key areas to reverse the trend of impunity. Tweet at @IACHR: Tweet

First, it ordered Uruguay to guarantee that the amnesty law did not present further obstacles to the identification and, if applicable, punishment of the responsible parties for crimes against humanity. Second, it directed Uruguay to institute reparations for violations suffered, and lastly, the ruling stated that the small Southern Cone nation needed to make an official apology.

Uruguay has taken important steps to comply with these duties in the past two years. The nation instituted an economic reparations program and President José Mujica, who was a victim of the military government’s repression, made a dramatic public acknowledgement of state responsibility for crimes committed during the dictatorship in March 2012.

However, recent events indicate a step backwards in Uruguay’s accountability efforts. Within the past few weeks, two disturbing events occurred that reinforce the continued challenges Uruguay faces in their fight to achieve justice.

First, Judge Mariana Mota, who had long fought for holding military leaders accountable for crimes committed by the military dictatorship, was transferred from her criminal post to a civilian jurisdiction without any explanation, just as trials were slated to begin.

Days later, the Uruguayan Supreme Court ruled that the legislature did not have constitutional authority to pass legislation which would allow trials on abuses by the dictatorship to be reopened, upholding the amnesty law from 1986.

Together these two events indicate a step backwards in Uruguay’s attempts to grapple with its legacies and stand in stark contrast to the trials that are moving forward in Argentina.

Public opinion, however, appears to be shifting towards more accountability. The transfer and ruling created an uproar in the nation as Uruguayans stormed the court room to attempt to prevent Mota’s transfer and then held a rally outside the Supreme Court.

Many local human rights groups condemned the ruling and on a global level, there is support from the international human rights community.

The Washington Office on Latin America declared that the ruling was a step backwards in accountability while the Center for International Law and Justice (CEJIL) launched a campaign with the U.S.-based New Media Advocacy Project (N-Map) to produce videos about efforts for accountability in the Southern Cone nation.

The United States was intimately involved in the region’s Cold War battles and as trials and battles for accountability continue to be waged in the region, the U.S. remains both an interested observer and participant in these conversations.

Debbie SharnakPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

Credit: http://www.euronews.com/

Following President Obama’s State of the Union, the United States and the European Union announced their intentions to begin negotiations on the US-EU trade agreement.

Once Congress and all 27 European countries of the E.U. are notified, the real negotiations will begin as early as June if everything goes according to plan. Both sides hope to reach an agreement by the end of 2014. Since trade treaties are usually negotiated over many years, this is a very optimistic timeline.

Leaders on both sides of the Atlantic agree such a treaty would benefit everybody as it would give a strong boost to their respective bleak economies.

The US and EU economies account for roughly half of the world GDP and a third of global trade. Reducing tariff and non-tariff barriers between the two economic giants would, according to some estimates, increase economic growth from 0.5 to 1 percent per year for each side, which is non-negligible considering recent years.

However, if both sides show a willingness to go forward with this trade agreement, the negotiations will be hard.

Tariff barriers between the two partners have already been greatly reduced by less than 4 percent. The remaining barriers, such as differences in the safety standards in the food industry or in the manufacturing of cars, have long been topics of contention and will remain heavily disputed.

Agriculture is already known to be one of the key issues. The farm subsidies are the biggest part of the European Union’s budget and countries that benefit from these subsidies, like France and nations in southern Europe, are already up in arms to defend them.

The other agriculture issue to be considered is the safety regulations concerning food. The European Union’s regulations are stricter than those in the U.S. and block the import of genetically modified crops and hormone treated beef.

Another objective will be to open the service industry more to free competition in the same way the goods market is currently open to free competition. This will include taking away the current restrictions on access to government contracts to foreign companies.

In theory, these changes will increase the competitiveness of companies on both side of the Atlantic which should benefit American and European consumers in the end.

However, this will certainly be a hard sell on both sides. In Europe, such treaty must be approved by the 27 countries. If the U.K. and Germany favor its adoption, France and other agricultural countries will certainly defend the status quo on agricultural subsidies and food safety.

In the U.S, the current economical standstill and high unemployment have caused many Americans to view free trade agreements unfavorably. Popular public opinion is that free trade means outsourcing and foreign companies taking American jobs. A favorable vote in Congress will very hard to obtain if not every state benefits from the agreement.

However, the U.S. is in a better position at the negotiation table as it is currently negotiating an extension of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a free trade agreement with the fast growing Asia-Pacific region.

With the recent announcement that Japan might join the negotiations, America’s focus on Asia is growing stronger. This might be a threat big enough to convince European countries to make the concessions necessary to secure the broad free trade agreement wanted by Washington, Berlin, and London.

Lucas EavesPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

Credit: U.S. Special Operations Command

Is the French military intervention into the conflict in Mali a sign of things to come?

The people of Mali are bearing the brunt of an Islamist insurgency there, which for the last year has seriously destabilized the country. A great deal of Mali’s historic and religious landmarks, such as the shrines in Timbuktu, have been destroyed by Islamist rebels who perceive them to be blasphemous figures. Such monuments and sites of ancient historical significance are listed as United Nations World Heritage sites.

Upon request from the Malian government in Bamako, France is now undertaking a military intervention in the conflict. They are to be assisting the Malian state army in their fight against the Islamist forces and in reclaiming the large swaths of northern territory which the Islamists have captured.

Reports indicate France is aiding the government, as of January 11, by launching air strikes against rebel positions. The Economic Community of West African States is following France’s lead by ordering troop deployments to Mali “in light of the urgency of the situation.” The U.N. Security Council has also stated that a previously planned UN force would also be deployed to Mali sooner than expected.

The European Union is additionally preparing to send in military advisers. Hundreds of French troops are already involved in this operation, with many of them providing security for the capital Bamako. Precision air strikes by French Air Force Dassault Rafale jet fighters has brought any Islamist advance on the Malian capital to the halt. French Defense Minister Jean-Yves Le Drian says France is taking this action against the Islamist’s attempts to advance south in order to prevent them from creating “a terrorist state at the doorstep of France and Europe.”

Despite these most recent efforts, Islamist gained control of another town, Diabaly, nearly 400 km from the Bamako on Monday.

The Islamist groups in Mali have entrenched themselves in the northern half of the country. Among them are many al-Qaeda fighters who desire to implement strict Sharia law on the nation. This wing of Al-Qaeda, called Al-Qaeda in the Islamic Maghreb, has essentially hijacked a campaign of insurgency that is fighting for the secession of a region in northern Mali. Azawad, the northern territory, houses an organization calling itself the National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), which is seeking to transform that part of the country into an independent ethnic homeland for the Tuareg people.

Mali has lost control of this massive area, which constitutes roughly two-thirds of the country’s landmass. The MNLA is also engaged in battles with the al-Qaeda forces hoping to capitalize on the national turmoil.

France has also intervened militarily in Africa before, unilaterally, most notably in retaliatory air strikes against the Ivory Coast in 2004 following that country’s attack on its peacekeepers stationed there.

Americans are lukewarm when it comes to committing forces on the ground of a war zone following the long and arduous wars in Afghanistan and Iraq. The last time American forces were deployed in the middle of a civil war without a proper mission plan was in Beirut, Lebanon in 1983. In that case over 241 American servicemen were killed when there barracks was bombed by Islamist forces there (as was the French barracks which killed some 58 French servicemen).

This led to France and the U.S pulling out of Lebanon and the civil war persisting up until 1990 — when Syria gained control of nearly all the country’s affairs. U.S forces in Africa were deployed to Somalia in 1992 to combat warlords who were purposely stealing humanitarian aid to empower and enrich themselves. During a U.S attempt to assassinate the infamous warlord Farrah Aidid U.S Army Rangers became bogged down in Mogadishu in the ‘black hawk down’ incident in October 1993. In this current operation in Mali we’ve already seen a French helicopter pilot, Lieutenant Boiteux, of the 4th helicopter regiment special forces being fatally wounded by enemy fire whilst engaging those aforementioned Islamist militants.

American C-130 planes have been in the skies over Mali dropping supplies to besieged and embattled Malian soldiers and will likely aid in the U.N efforts there in the future. However, for the moment France is the one taking the primary initiative and helping the Malian government liberate the country on a whole.

Paul IddonPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

Credit:http://www.sonofthesouth.net

2012 was a powerful whirlwind in foreign policy. Some of the major foreign policy events of 2012 will continue to shape geopolitical relations around the would in 2013.

Three regions will be of major importance in 2013: the Middle East, Asia, and Africa.

The Middle East:

The Syrian Civil War

The Syrian revolution, which started in 2011 following the sweeping Arab uprising in North Africa, has been a much longer and devastating conflict than Tunisia, Egypt and even Libya. The Assad regime’s strong resistance to compromise or relenting upon rebel groups, and the absence of agreement on an intervention in Syria of the UN Security Counsel, have caused the conflict to last for more than 20 months, with a death toll upwards of 40,000 people. However, it appears the Assad regime has been faltering, and 2013 will be a year of more change for Syria. The rebels have recently been holding sway over the government on the ground, as well as with support from around the world. More than 100 countries, including the United States, the UK and France have now recognized the Syrian National Coalition as the only representative of Syria. Even Syria’s closest supporter, Russia, is now considering the fall of the Syrian government. The end of the Assad regime, also a close Iranian ally, will certainly rearrange the distribution of strength in the Middle East and will be closely monitored by the international community.

The New Government in Egypt

2012 was the year Egypt transitioned toward a more democratic state after being ruled for 30 years by Hosni Mubarak. The military, which seized power directly after Mubarak’s downfall, returned power to civilians in the first free presidential election after the revolution. Mohamed Morsi, a candidate from the Muslim Brotherhood, was elected. However, the authority of President Morsi has become increasingly more contested, especially since November 22, when he passed an interim constitutional declaration granting himself extensive powers. The popular outrage continued when a rushed draft of the new constitution, which is favorable to the Islamist parties, was approved and the referendum on the constitution was held. The evolution of the international tension in the biggest Arab democracy will greatly influence the stability of the region, particularly with regards to relations with their northern neighbor, Israel.

The Israeli/Palestine Conflict

No progress towards a peace agreement between Israel and Palestine has been made in 2012, but two major events from this year will most likely shape 2013 relations. First, the region experience a burst of violence as Israel launched Operation Pillar of Defense against the Gaza strip in retaliation for rocket attacks from Hamas. Before a cease fire was found, through Egypt’s mediation, Israel was on the verge of pursuing its first ground operation in Gaza since the 2008/2009 Gaza war. Second, Palestine was recognized as a non-member observer state by the UN General Assembly on November 29th, which gives the nation more participatory power within the UN. Israel has opposed this recognition and has since pursued more settlements in the West Bank. These developments will leave the peace process in an even more delicate and fragile situation in 2013.

Asia:

China Chooses New Leaders

After a year punctuated by scandals which lead to the fall of senior party officer Bo Xilai, the Chinese communist party chose new leaders during November’s National Congress. Xi Jinping will replace Hu Jintao as the head of the communist party and will become the new President of China next March. He will face many challenges, as the Chinese government will need to address widespread corruption, the growing gap between the population’s rich and poor, and the demand for more civil liberties from the middle class. The new government will also have to deal with rising tension with neighboring countries about the control of the South and East China Sea, especially Japan. China’s management of its internal tensions will certainly affect its influence on a global scale.

The Conservative Party Returns To Power In Japan

On December 16th, the Japanese conservative party, the Liberal Democratic Party, won the general election. This brings back to power former Prime Minister Shinzo Abe. A growing popularity of the nationalist position among the Japanese population is ensuring a stricter stance towards China and some controversial attempts to re-write Japen’s wartime history. Shinzo Abe’s return to power could have major repercussions in its relationship with neighbors China and South Korea. The continuing confrontation with China about the Shenkaku Islands and the United States’ interest in easing the tension in the region will be a major foreign policy issue in 2013.

Africa: 

The Crisis in Eastern Congo

The states of North and South, extremely rich in natural resources, in Eastern Republic Democratic Of Congo continues, after many years, to maintain a state of chaos and conflict. The rise of a new rebel group called M23, which took control of the regional capital Goma in November, and its links to the Rwandan government  has been raising concern among the UN and Western nations. The region will be under high scrutiny in 2013.

Islamist Groups Control Northern Mali

2012 has also been chaotic for Mali, which has endured a coup d’etat and the loss of control of nearly half of the country to Islamist groups, some of them linked to the terrorist organisation al-Qaeda. The transformation of the north of the country into an al-Qaeda enclave and terrorist training ground will destabilize the region and could become a new terrorist threat for the rest of the world. On December 20, the UN approved the military intervention of African troops to dislodge the Islamist groups. The intervention will likely take place in fall 2013.

Lucas EavesPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

Photo: OCHA // Click to enlarge

Editor’s Update: 9:33 AM PST

It is being reported that Mali’s Prime Minister, Cheikh Modibo Diarra, was arrested by soldiers last night, indicating a deterioration in Mali’s political situation despite some progress last week. The leader appeared on national television after his arrest, announcing his resignation from his post as the nation’s leader. Mr. Diarra is being accused by the army of “playing a personal agenda,” according to the New York Times report. The incident could mar an international effort to mitigate the very fragile political situation.

The European Union agreed this week to send 250 soldiers to Mali tasked with training 2,600 Malian soldiers to defeat Islamist groups that have contributed to a humanitarian crisis there. Mali’s political situation has deteriorated significantly this year.

The European Union’s contribution of forces is the latest step in an upscale of military intervention in the northern Mali. The forces will be under the command of the Economic Community Of West African States (ECOWAS). The African leaders are waiting for the endorsement of the United Nations.

2012 has been a tumultuous year for the West African nation. The country went through a coup d’etat in March, only to lose control of the north to Islamist groups, such as al Qaeda, soon after.

Background to Mali’s Political Situation

January 2012: The Tuareg Rebellion

The National Movement for the Liberation of Azawad (MNLA), was started by a group of Tuareg rebels. The Tuareg, a group of nomadic people living in the Sahel region, have been fighting for the independence of North Mali for decades. With the collapse of the Gaddafi regime, many Tuareg rebels who enrolled in the Libyan army returned heavily armed to Mali and launched a rebellion, allying with Islamist groups Ansar Dine, the Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO), and Al-Queda in Islamic Maghreb (AQMI)

March 2012: The Coup d’Etat

The Malian army, which has been under equipped, under paid and subject to internal division suffered a number of defeats during the Tuareg Rebellion. This has led Lieutenant Amadou Konaré and military officials to overthrow the President Amadou Toumani Touré on March 22 because of “the incapacity of the government to give the armed forces the necessary support to defend the integrity of the national territory.” The new military junta created a transitional government but essentially left a power vacuum throughout the country.

April 2012: Northern Mali Under the Control of the Rebels

The rebels, MNLA and Ansar Dine took control of the two biggest towns in North Mali, Gao and Timbuktu, after the junta ordered the governmental army to fold back. The MNLA declare the Azawad (North Mali) independent from the Malian government in Bamako, the capital. The Malian government has officially lost control of all of North Mali, where Sharia law is now strictly enforced by Islamist groups.

April-June 2012: The Creation of a Transition Government

The negotiations between the military junta and the ECOWAS countries led to the establishment of Dioncounda Traoré, previously president of the parliament, as the interim President of Mali for one year, during which he is required to organize democratic elections.

June-September 2012: The Tuareg Rebels Loose the Control of the North Mali to the Benefit of Islamist Groups

The Tuareg rebellion has been slowly hijacked by the hard-liner Islamist groups. The Movement for Unity and Jihad in West Africa (MUJAO) defeated the MNLA and took over the town of Gao in the beginning of June. The Tuareg rebels were also forced out of Timbuktu by the Islamist group Ansar Dine. North Mali is now controlled by three Islamist groups: Ansar Dine, a Salafist group lead by a Tuareg; Al-Qaeda in Islamic Maghreb (AQMI); and MUJAO. The latter two are considered terrorist organizations.

The control of the region by the Islamist groups has led to many exaction: murders, rapes, stoning, amputations as well as the destruction of many sacred mausoleum, especially in the region of Timbuktu, listed in the UNESCO World Heritage. The hundred of thousand of people that have had to flee the regions since the beginning of the rebellion has added a humanitarian crisis to the conflict.

October-December 2012: The Preparation of a Military Intervention

On October 12, the UN Security Counsel gave 45 days to African leaders to advance a detailed military plan for the fight against the terrorist groups in North Mali. On November 11, the ECOWAS agreed to send 3,300 men in North Mali. The African Union agreed to the deployment. The African Union has asked the UN to give their approval for a one year deployment, under Chapter VII of the UN Charter which allows military intervention to maintain or restore international peace and security.

On Wednesday, December 5th, at a UN Security Counsel meeting, France, the biggest backer of military action among Western nations, asked that a decision be made by December 20th. However, Washington is unlikely to back such a move as it would prefer to wait until after a new government has been elected. UN Peacekeeping Chief Herve Ladsous believes that a military intervention is necessary, but not before September 2013.

In the meantime, the ECOWAS council has encouraged Malian officials to meet with the Tuareg and the Ansar Dine spokesmen in order to reach a negotiated end to the crisis. Mali’s neighbors fear the country’s instability will allow Al-Qaeda to spread further in the region. Thus, these countries would favor an agreement with the Tuareg and the Ansar Dine, which have distanced themselves from the terrorist groups in the recent months.

During last week’s meeting the two rebel groups agreed to a ceasefire. However, the discussions about a military intervention, which would only target the terrorists groups AQMI and MUJAO, continues.

Lucas EavesPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.

Photo: Mohammed Dabbous

On Wednesday, Libya swore in its newly elected government, with 19 new cabinet ministers under Prime Minister Ali Zeidan. The ceremony was held under heightened security due to lingering unrest between rival militias that ousted the former dictator, Muammar Gaddafi. The ministers swore to uphold the goals and constitution of the 17^th of February Revolution.

Eight cabinet ministers were absent from the ceremony, accenting the disorder in the wake of the newly elected government. The ministers in charge of electricity, higher education, relations with congress and interior in new government were rejected by the integrity commission because of questionable sympathies and ties to the former Gaddafi regime.

The ruling on the other four cabinet nominees (foreign affairs, agriculture, social and religious affairs) is in progress. The previously nominated prime minister, Mustafa Abushagur, was removed from his post after receiving a vote of no confidence by congress. His two attempts to win approval for his cabinet were met with disapproval due to controversial ties with the previous government.

The deployment of the Libyan security forces, in addition to detection dogs and trucks mounted with anti-air craft guns, was a reaction to last month’s storming of congress. A group of objectors composed of civilians and militia forces gathered outside the General National Congress, firing weapons.

Eventually, they invaded the hall as the congress deliberated on the Zeidan’s cabinet line-up. The charge was instigated by dissatisfaction with the prime minister’s cabinet nominees, some of whom were accused of being loyal to the former Gaddafi regime. The interruption led the congress leader, Mohammed Magariaf, to postpone the session.

The newly elected National Congress came into power on August 8^th, marking the first peaceful transition of power in Libya’s modern history. However, the fighting in the Libyan capital of Tripoli earlier this month is indicative of the nation’s regional and sectarian tensions, and is only made worse by the refusal of militia groups to disarm.

In response, the liberal leaning Zeidan has made an effort to geographically balance out his cabinet, as well as appointing six independent ministers (defence, interior, justice, foreign affairs, international cooperation and finance portfolios) and two women (social affairs and tourism). The delicate government is further augmented by the six political parties that comprise the congress. Currently, 120 of the 200 seats of congress are occupied by independents.

Despite the progress made by the new Libyan government, the widespread unrest instigated by the civil war, militia groups, factionalism and violence following the Arab Spring and Gaddafi’s removal have created a wide array of challenges for the budding democracy to tackle.

Zachery AbramsonPangea - Foreign events, developments, and agendas particularly relevant to American interests.