Al-Qaeda and the Syrian Opposition

There have been recent developments in Syria lately that have challenged the narrative.  For the last several weeks it has seemed that the common story has been of a dictator in Al-Assad cracking down on a democratic opposition.  However, in the last several days reports have surfaced that Al-Qaeda may be operating within the opposition and be working to bring the Al-Assad government down,  This really complicates things for the United States.  Immediately, the US was supportive of the opposition for obvious political reasons. They have never liked Al-Assad, from his perspective on Israel to his support of Hezbollah, and now was a chance to remove him from power.  But now with these reports surfacing, American support has to be rethought.  If the terrorist group responsible for 9/11 is working from within the opposition then how can the American government continue to fund and support it?  Obama cannot play on the same team as Al-Qaeda.  So the US has to decide how to go about its support.  All along Al-Assad has been saying he has been cracking down on terrorist cells within the country, and now that is proving at least to be a tiny bit true.  His government is clearly guilty of serious crimes against Syrians in Homs and other areas.  However, Al-Qaeda publically siding with the opposition helps Assad.  It helps him politically, reduces American support, gives his narrative some credibility, and buys him time while the international community decides whether Al-Qaeda really is among the opposition or not.

It is very interesting how quickly things can change, and how human life and security all of a sudden becomes less black and white than it should be for political reasons.

George Zimmerman, Trayvon Martin, and the Stand Your Ground Law

I think personal security on an individual level is often overlooked.  I also think that individuals on a more frequent basis are at risk of harm in the United States because of poorly thought out gun laws.  Gun control is a contested issue in the states, where many consider the right to bear arms one of the most important amendments, if not the most important.  This entry is not really about gun control, because that is a topic that needs far more in depth analysis than is what allowed for here.  I will say though, that the perception of Americans overseas as trigger happy cowboys is not alleviated any by the NRA and the so many Americans who place the right to bear arms above the security of others. 

The tragic shooting death of Trayvon Martin has brought gun control back into the spotlight along with a controversial and widely unheard of law referred to as “stand your ground” (SYG). The SYG law differs state to state mostly in regards to the “duty to retreat” aspect of the law.  In some states, you have a duty to retreat in a public place, but not your own home.  In some states however, like Florida, you have no duty to retreat anywhere and can use deadly force if under a reasonable threat.  This opens the door to an abuse of such an ambiguous law.  A little research has revealed this defence has been used in many shooting deaths in Florida, including instances of gang violence and bar fights.  It is extremely hard to prove someone was not under threat, especially if there are no witnesses and thus it is near impossible to convict someone of murder in many circumstances.  Some have referred to this law as the “shoot first law”, perhaps accurately so.

On February 26 2012 Trayvon Martin was shot and killed by George Zimmerman, a community watch coordinator.  Trayvon was unarmed, and was shot after a supposed altercation.  Zimmerman has not been arrested due to a lack of evidence and because he is protected by the law which says he did nothing wrong.  Only in the United States could one individual shoot someone and kill them, and not be detained, at the very least for some serious questioning and witnesses were brought forward.  The law needs to be re-evaluated immediately and I think it anything good comes of this tragic event it will be a change or abolishment of such a preposterous law.  There is nothing wrong with self defence, nor is there anything wrong with laws protecting acts of self defence.  However, there is definitely something wrong with shooting an unarmed teenager 70 yards from his home. 

Another issue is why George Zimmerman was carrying a gun to begin with.  He had the gun legally, but was not supposed to be carrying one as a community watch coordinator.  You are not supposed to carry a gun as a neighbourhood watchman, but because he had it legally, he did not technically break any laws.  He just broke a rule.  There is no need for him to have a gun.  It sounds bad if Trayvon did attack him or knock him down, the worst that would have happened was a physical altercation between two unarmed men.  Arguably, being in a possession of a gun made Zimmerman more aggressive and confident in the situation which led to the altercation in the first place.  In the end, there is no way this 17 year old boy should be dead.

The protests surrounding the case have brought mass media attention to Trayvon’s death.  Unfortunately, politicians and civil rights leaders have used his death as an opportunity to gain attention and score cheap political points.  However the protests have brought attention to the laws in question which is positive.  Hopefully there will be some form of justice for Trayvon and his family.  Even if he was being attacked there was no reason why George Zimmerman needed to shoot to kill as an act of self defence.

Republicans on Iran

Just a few thoughts on the Iranian nuclear “crisis” that has taken over the American political scene during the Republican primaries and has dominated Western media for some time.  Republicans trying to get elected can and will say anything to get into the White House.  Romney, Gingrich, and Santorum have all been actively “beating the drums of war”, as they claim Obama has a weak foreign policy towards Iran.  They all would support a war, because Iran supposedly poses a threat to the entire region.  They would also support being involved in that war both covertly and militarily alongside Israel.  There has been no talk of diplomacy or the prospect of an agreement.  According to these three, one of which may be President one day (Romney), supporting Israel against Iran comes before the national security of the United States.  If anti-Americanism is rampant now, imagine after a united pre-emptive attack on Iran.  In my opinion it would start WW3 and I do not say that lightly.  Russia, China, and the United States would be at odds.  The populations of Syria, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, and Iran would all be supportive of a war.  It would be a war with global impact, and the economic consequences would be dire.  However that does not matter now since all that matters is getting elected.  Ron Paul is the only one who has spoken sensibly about the issue.  To paraphrase his statements in a recent debate, he said we (Americans) talked to the Soviets during the Cold War and they had thousands of nukes.   Iran, he said, does not even have one and we are talking about going to war. 

One point that has not been brought up is what Iran would do with a nuclear weapon.  Some of the most ignorant suggestions have been that they would nuke Tel Aviv or another city in Israel.  Now, I do not condone nuclear proliferation in any sense.  I very strongly believe that weapons in fragile countries like Pakistan can get into the hands of terrorist groups looking to use or sell the technology.  I also believe that a leader would be foolish enough one day to use one.  As a prof of mine recently put it, “nuclear deterrence only has to work until the sun burns out”.  The statement is powerful as it reveals the ridiculous nature of an eternal strategy of deterrence while also acknowledging the possibility the strategy might fail.  In regards to Iran, there would be no possible way Tehran would ever nuke Israel.  If anyone knows the geography of the area, Israel and the Palestinian territories are incredibly dense and intertwined with each other.  A nuclear attack on Israel would not only lead Iran to immediate destruction at the hands of the United States and Israel.  It would also lead to the death of Palestinians and the destruction of Palestinian land.  It is as if you want to save your friends from the Business building at Laurier and to do so you nuke the Arts building.  It just does not add up.  Iran does not like Israel, that much is clear.  It also supports the creation of a Palestinian state.  But under no circumstance is it going to develop a nuclear weapon and send it towards Tel Aviv.  

What You Need to Know - Kony 2012

What You Need to Know - KONY 2012

KONY2012 has gotten a lot of attention over the past few days and gathered immediate supporters and critics. Now that some time has passed and some research is being done, more balanced opinions on Invisible Children, Joseph Kony and the campaign for his arrest are finally being publicized. I did not want to hastily and without justification support or criticize this movement. Those who were quick to rally against the movement without doing any research are just as guilty as those who hastily supported it . The end result is the same in both cases: the continued circulation of misinformation and misguided opinions. Fortunately a professor here at Laurier, Dr. Edgar, who is also employed by ACUNS has significant experience in the fields of international relations, global governance and transitional government. He has worked extensively in Africa including in Uganda and has a wealth of knowledge on the subject of Joseph Kony and Uganda in general. The following is a passing on of what he shared today with the class combined with my own insights.

When looking at Uganda on a map, to its north is the Sudan and to its west is the Congo. The top half (Northern Uganda) is populated largely by the Acholi people while the bottom half (Southern Uganda) is full of other denominations and led by Yoweri Museveni, Uganda's president. Museveni was once a guerrilla fighter and popular leader in the 1980s but in recent years has increasingly resembled a dictator. Nowadays his political opponents tend to disappear and some of his supporters recognize that its best for the future of Uganda if he step down. However, recently he has made clear that he intends to be president for life.

Critics of Museveni claim he could have caught Kony over a decade ago on numerous occasions but has never really been serious about catching him. As long as Kony exists and chaos exists in the North it gives Museveni reason for his forces to exert authority in the north and prevents a political opposition from emerging from the north as well. Essentially, finding Kony or disabling the LRA is not in the best interest of Museveni politically. Museveni used to have an alliance with the Suden People's Liberation Army (SPLA) which fought against Omar al-Bashir in the Sudan. And as long as the Ugandan government supported the SPLA, Bashir supported the LRA (Kony) which combats the Ugandan army, the Ugandan People's Defence Force (UPDF). As the saying goes, the enemy of my enemy is my friend. However, in 2003 a CPA (Comprehensive Peace Agreement) was signed between the north and south Sudanese parties. When the CPA was signed part of the agreement unofficially was that Bashir would cease support of the LRA because he was no longer at war with the SPLA and thus would have no reason to support the LRA against Museveni. Without Bashir's backing, the LRA could not get funding for necessary equipment. Since the LRA was not permitted to enter the Sudan, they went to the DRC which is largely ungoverned and features highly dense jungle. Kony has not been back in Uganda since this point. The LRA no longer operates in Uganda and the children at risk featured in the KONY2012 video, have not been at risk from Kony and his child soldiers since 2008.

What Invisible Children is proposing is flawed at best and recklessly dangerous at worst. The basic idea is we, as in you and me, donate money which goes towards supporting the UPDF (Ugandan army). In turn the army must then invade the Congo to pursue and arrest Kony. Our donations are supporting an invasion on a sovereign nation and the inevitable conflict it will cause. The real kicker is that the UPDF takes on child soldiers and uses rape and murder as a method of warfare. Museveni is a known human rights violator. We are sending our money to support a corrupt, murderous army that employs children to invade a neighboring country and locate a notorious warlord that has not been a threat in Uganda for over four years. There have been instances where LRA child soldiers will surrender to government forces (UPDF) and instead of being rehabilitated or at least set free are employed by the government forces because they are well trained bush fighters. The murder, rape and use of child soldiers is not on the same scale as Kony, but certainly cannot be overlooked.

A separate but related issue is the Juba Peace Accords which were conducted in 2005. The agreement would have Kony and his forces come out of the bush, sign the agreement and move towards peace. Kony's ambition exceeds a life condemned to the jungle with a group of armed children. Despite what the video might claim, he has an agenda. He wants to be a legitimate political threat to Museveni and the the LRA did have and still has some support in the north among the Acholi population. Jubda called for a multi-party state where there would be a chance of political progress. LM Ocampo, the ICC lawyer featured in the video issued an indictment for Kony and his top commanders in 2005 and made him the ICC's number one target. Kony is a bad guy and is well worth arresting to be sure, but that was not why he was indicted. Ocampo had to promote the ICC and show the world that it was worth supporting. There are institutional and political reasons why Kony is number one on that list featured in the video. Kony is universally accepted as a criminal and there is no debate. He is not a leader of a sovereign nation like Hussein or Gaddafi. Kony is an easily agreed upon, lowest common denominator target. Now, why would Kony come out of the bush to sign a peace agreement just to be arrested and thrown in jail for life? He would not and he did not. By indicting him, the ICC let him go, and prevented peace. Ocampo then foolishly took a photo op with Museveni which destroyed the neutrality of the supposedly neutral ICC. Consequently, the Acholi people resent the ICC for its siding with the government. Every major human rights organization in the world has enough evidence to indict Museveni along with Kony but the ICC has no institutional or political reason to do so. And so, without a peace agreement signed, the LRA operated in Uganda for several more years and thousands of more lives were needlessly lost.

In regards to the American military, the IC video portrays a false reality. Solely based on the thirty minute documentary, it would seem that the 100 US military personnel were the first American troops on the ground there. In reality there has been an American military presence in the region for decades and there will continue to be so. Those 100 advisers were there in addition to the troops already on the ground. The United States has been in Africa for its own reasons and will continue to be there for its own reasons with or without Invisible Children.

There has also been much discussion about Invisible Children. They have undeniably done good work with school building and improvements to infrastructure. However this Kony campaign is several years too late and more than slightly misguided. Furthermore, a very high percentage of donations cover their overhead instead of the actual cause which is disproportional with comparable well recognized NGOs.

In the video the young boy is presented with two pictures, one of a good man, and one of a bad man. In his world the sensible thing to do is stop the bad man. And the entire video and the campaign are based upon that black and white, good versus evil analysis. The world and especially Africa is not broken down into good and bad. There are complexities that the KONY2012 campaign has not even begun to address. If you want to give money to this campaign then by all means that is fine but at least do it with an understanding of the facts and not with an elementary school analysis of Uganda and its politics.

Education is power. Be responsible and neither support or disregard a campaign based on a quick glance but instead make an informed thought out decision. Look past catchy language like “cover the night” and see through marketing ploys at the social media generation. Instead of covering the night, let us all uncover some truth about this issue and other global issues as well. Instead of sticking up posters on one night in April we can take that time to really learn about something going on in the world. This is not about skepticism or over analysis. This is about responsible, educated decision making. . This year let us all become a little more educated, a little more investigative, and let us all understand that its about more than one year or one man. #EDUCATION2012

How Do You Solve a Problem Like Iran?

How do you solve a problem like Iran?

The United States of late has experienced intense difficulties maintaining relations with other governments unwilling or unable to cooperate with American demands.  Leaders of “rogue nations” such as Iran have expressed no desire to comply with the United States and in turn, the United States has been unable to accomplish anything of substance in the region.  With an economy fuelled by oil, a young and highly educated population, and a huge stake in virtually all Middle Eastern affairs, Iran directly factors into American foreign policy decisions.

In order to take steps towards finding a progressive solution to Iran, The United States has to come to terms with three basic concepts.  First, the UN imposed sanctions are not hurting Ahmadinejad’s regime but further bolstering it.  Second, diplomacy and soft power and more effective than hard power in 21^st century conflicts, especially when considering that going to war with Iran is not an option.  Finally, the United States must realize that strong relations with Iran represent more than just standard diplomatic relations but could shift the outlook of the entire Islamic Middle East.

The UN imposed sanctions with strong American backing are supposed to stifle economic growth and create hostility between Iranians and Ahmadinejad’s regime.  However, a reverse effect is occurring, as the sanctions are not hurting the country as a whole, but rather the largely conservative rural groups and the working middle class.  Since the struggling middle class can be blamed on external factors, it provides a viable scapegoat for the government.  By standing up to the United States and international community which is imposing these sanctions, support only grows for him back home.  Furthermore, the American government continues to ignore that clearly Iran does not need them to survive.  The U.S. has to realize that in the 21^st century, Iran has other allegiances and trade relationships that can sustain its economy. Had the sanctions not been imposed, Ahmadinejad’s incompetence would have been undeniably due to his own decisions and policies, which would have left him vulnerable.  Instead, he maintains support due to the sanctions in a country desperate for change.  Until the sanctions are re-tooled or lifted entirely, Iran will continue to make friends with American enemies while the current regime will remain supported and in power.

To solve even the most elemental problem, communication must exist for a solution to be created and successfully executed.  The United States has neglected to create a real soft power strategy with aims of improving relations with Iran and its people.   Diplomacy and other methods of soft power are more effective than hard power, especially when dealing with uncooperative governments.  Ousting Ahmadinejad is possible through the use of soft power if America dedicates itself to the cause.  The United States had no reservations in using extreme methods of soft power when ousting the progressive Mohammad Mossadegh in favour of the ruthless Shah.  The CIA and its cohorts managed to turn an entire nation against their leader in favour of a man who maintained his authoritarian grasp on Iran until the Islamic revolution.  Essentially, the United States is here because of a mistake made decades ago, and it is time to reverse that grave error in judgement by using soft power the right way.  If nothing else, the American government owes the use of soft power to the Iranian people, who were notoriously robbed of the democracy they now so much desire today.

Ahmadinejad is no Saddam Hussein.  Despite the best efforts of the United States to make him out as a lunatic and ruthless dictator, that is far from the case.  He is a master tactician and manages to maintain support in a country he arguably should not be running.  He brings up fair points that question America’s motives in the region and they need to be addressed because they are also the questions that the rest of the Middle East is asking.  Why can other countries, most notably Israel pursue nuclear technology while Iran is persecuted for doing so in a transparent manner?  Why does the United States pour billions of dollars into supporting Israel, per capita a very wealthy nation, while tens of millions of Americans are under the poverty line?  These questions among others deserve answers.  By ignoring them and those who are asking, the United States is not doing itself any favours.

If relations between Iran and the United States do not improve it cannot be for the lack of effort from the American side.  If war breaks out in the Middle East or if tensions continue between Israel and Iran, blame can rightfully be placed upon the unwilling United States.  The Bush administration alienated the Iranian government by placing it in his infamous “Axis of Evil” along with North Korea.  Obama has to invoke change on the issue and separate himself from his predecessor.  He must make it clear that the new American government is making conscious diplomatic efforts so that Ahmadinejad is left solely accountable for the state of Iran-US relations.

America has made pre-emptive war a staple in their foreign policy and now more than ever they need to institute pre-emptive diplomacy to prevent future relations from deteriorating in the first place.  Anti-Americanism is arguably the most serious threat to American national security and the spreading sentiment can only be (weakened) by a revelatory global diplomatic presence.  The United States has garnered enough blame for the Middle East’s laundry list of problems without providing even more basis for anti-Americanists to further their cause.

In 1961, American Henry Kissenger’s advocacy for US talks with the Soviet Union led to intense diplomatic talks.  His idea influenced future high level diplomacy and was officially termed “strategic dialogue”.  Essentially, the theory behind strategic dialogue is that governments sometimes need to put differences aside and initiate dialogue that is beneficial for both parties.  The United States and Iran both know there is an upside to better relations, but strategic dialogue needs to take place in order for that upside to be realized.

Iran represents far more than one leader or one government or even one people.  It represents the entire Middle East, namely the Islamic part of the region.  If America can find a way to get Iran and its Shiite inhabitants on its side, global leadership will become a far smoother process.  Whether looking at the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, defeating terrorism or halting the spread of anti-Americanism, Iran is the key.  Solve Iran and the rest will take care of itself.