What is up with Russia?

With the Syrian conflict deepening and becoming more and more brutal by the day, while the Central African Republic holds its breath hoping for political solution out of the rebellion and Mali, along with France, fights its Islamist, Al-Qaeda aligned insurgents that have carried retaliation strikes in Algeria, 2013 certainly opened up with a bang, quite literally.

If anything, the common thread in all three examples above is the very point made by Lord Paddy Ashdown in this blog’s previous post: that the state of peace and war are no longer decided by two warring nations alone. They are decided by an interlocked combination of the foreign policies of big powers, the attitudes of neighboring states, the economic resources at stake, the countries’ economic situations as well as the state and strength of the civil society, resistance and terrorist networks alike in the concerned states.

In short, no state can decide to act alone, whether it is an island or a behemoth. If it does, it is doomed to fail and pay a harsh price, making the world a less safe place for all nations.

Unsurprisingly, we saw the return of Vladimir Putin to the presidency of Russia in 2012. While internally, the returning strongman forged himself a reputation for control in many aspects of his nation’s institutions, making him a target for reformer’s criticisms, externally he has promoted himself as a nostalgic of the Soviet superpower times. A lot of his foreign policy actions, just as well as non-actions since the year 2000 bore the stamp of this psyche, often acting as a counterweight to the United States, especially under the Bush presidency.

However, there has been a global power shift since the early days of the first Putin presidency which can be basically summed by two items: the waning of American power and the continual transfer of this said power to the East, where prosperity grows but uncertainty looms.  In this new universe, a Soviet-inspired foreign policy is not only inappropriate, it is inadequate, insufficient and above all, counterproductive.

Perhaps the best real life example is Russia’s reluctance to join other UN Security Council members in taking hard measures against Bashar Al-Assad’s regime in Syria, which is one of its long-standing partners. While initial reservations on Western or international meddling were understandable and even welcomed, Syria has since then turned from an autocratic regime violently repressing a rebellion to an outright murderous, war-crime committing, morally bankrupt state long past the point of no return. While the barbaric attacks continue on civilians to this day, Russia drags its feet.

Countries like the United States and Canada have expressed their frustration with Russia, begging them to come out of their shell and play a more constructive role on the international stage rather than isolating itself from the realities of the new multipolar world. In fact, Russia would likely benefit politically and economically from shifting its foreign policy towards rogue states from mild annoyance to true, multilateral engagement.

However, at this time, the former position seems to remain Putin’s preference, as there seems to be no plans for a follow-up meeting of the G20 Foreign Ministers in Russia this year. That is what the official program suggests. Nevertheless, it is to be hoped Putin will heed the call of Council of Councils, an initiative of the Council on Foreign Relations, whose own Stewart M. Patrick recommends the following in a memo to the Russian leadership:

[The G20] should create a permanent foreign ministers’ track to complement the finance ministers’ track. Here, Russia can build on the “informal” meeting of G20 foreign ministers hosted by Mexico in February 2012. Potential agenda items would include climate change, development cooperation, nuclear non-proliferation, counterterrorism, cybersecurity, and efforts to combat transnational crime. (Read more here).

Permitting a broader, multilateral dialogue under its leadership in the G20 and engaging proactively in finding solutions to conflicts within its sphere of influence will not dilute Russia’s power. If anything it will make it stronger and more reliable partner for the world community. That is something that is desirable for all, even Russia’s old foes, no matter what they claim.

Cooperating with other nations to tackle the hard security challenges of our time is not a sign of weakness, but a sign of political maturity; for victories are no longer counted by the armies one nation may muster, but rather by the allies it can gather.

"The Global Power Shift" by Paddy Ashdown

Today, a reader from Norway, Morten Skandfer has brought this TED lecture by Lord Paddy Ashdown to my attention. Ashdown truly nails a progressive, forward looking vision of the very near future in "The Global Power Shift, very much in line with the spirit of this blog. I highly recommend you watch it.

Communications failure

By a snowy early December afternoon, Mark and Anna, who have been dating for 5 years, take a stroll on Main Street to buy gifts for their parents. It’s a yearly ritual for Anna but for Mark, it is a painful routine. They come across the Guccho & Grimaldi store and in the display window, Anna’s eyes become fixated with the most beautiful pair of shoes she has ever seen. However, they have a hefty price tag. Mark is tapping his feet, hoping Anna won’t make him late to watch the Sunday night football game with his friends.

“They are so beautiful, I wish I could afford them… but I really can’t” she says out loud to herself, hoping that Mark would take notice, not say a thing and surprise her with the pair on Christmas morning.

“Save up every month and you’ll be able to afford them” says Mark, wanting to wrap up the torture session as fast as possible.

Anna turns around, hurt at Mark’s insentitivity, and gives him disappointed glance and walks away. Mark, puzzled and frustrated by her behavior, leaves in the other direction. Five minutes later, she calls him on his mobile. Mark shakes his head and declines to take the call, head to his friend’s place to watch the game, gets drunk and crashes there overnight, ignoring Anna’s multiple attempts to contact him and explain the situation. He definitely gave up on the idea to surprise her with the shoes for Christmas.

In the morning, both Anna and Mark picture themselves at each other’s throat.

There are many approaches, theories and schools of thought in international relations. Here are a few rough examples: realism holds that might is right, liberalism believes that trade and commerce between nations makes the world more free and more peaceful, socialism essentially views the world conflicts as duels between elites in which the common man is the cannon fodder, institutionalism believes that international organizations are key in solving matters which could lead to interstate conflict.

All of them bring a measure of truth to immensely complex issues.

The problem is that many authors, professors, diplomats who hold on to the creed of theory A or theory B will see, interpret and act through that lens only. So what happens if the nation of Pandora, whose leader believes in theory A of international relations, is involved in a tense resource dispute over dilithium with the nation of Absurdistan, whose leader lives and dies by theory B?

Enter my favourite theory: communication failure.

I believe communication failure comes way before all other ideologies in a context of conflict.

In a nutshell, the leader of Pandora will send signals to the nation of Absurdistan in the form of political, diplomatic, trade and military decisions in order to secure the dilithium deposits while try to avert war. Basically, to maximize gains with a minimal cost and deter Absurdistan by showing how far they are willing to go. Absurdistan, feeling entitled to the dilithium deposits also, does the same thing and sends out its signals too. A belligerent waltz ensues, until one sides fires the first shot or “chickens out”.

The problem is that this only works in a vacuum universe where opponents would play their cards with visible hands.

In the real world however, every nation is subject to diversion tactics, time wasting, misinformation, posturing, international pressures, regional realities, economic strength and a plethora of other “signal jammers” which almost always prevents one side from truly understanding the intentions of their opponents.

Between what a leader wants, what he says in public, what is received by other side and what is interpreted (both in terms of language and substance), there is so much room for misinterpretation. Basically, it is playing the “telephone game” in which the distorted message in the end may cause war.

That is why G20 Foreign Ministers’ group should continue meeting under Russian leadership in 2013: to hold informal, face-to-face dialogue to build trust, to coordinate priorities and responses to threatening interstate conflicts and avoid the pitfalls of communications failure. Diplomacy and world peace are best served by cool heads familiar with each other sitting down to discuss a way out, rather than by telegraphing grand threats of obliteration to often desperate states.

A somewhat good example of trying to overcome communication failure to avert war...

The Russian Gambit

As we soon enter the fall season, the talk of a strike, a conflict, even a war against Iran grows louder and louder.

While Israel is extremely worried and increases its military readiness and the United States timidly drag their feet into uncertainty, Iran keeps a steady course and presses on the accelerator.

In the past weeks stories have surfaced that Israel could launch a preemptive strike in September or October, ahead of the US election. This time, it might be for real, as the increase in intensity of the covert operations against Iranian nuclear interests in the past year might indicate.

It is clear now that the US and the EU are not capable of deescalating the tensions, and the UN Security Council resolutions are not diminishing Iranian resolve. Further attempts on their behalf at this point would likely be futile.

What can the world do to deescalate the conflict?

In my opinion there is one but option left: to call on Russia. Give Putin, Medvedev and Lavrov all the tools, the leverage, the latitude and the trust that is necessary to try and turn down the dial through the political back channels, for the sake of avoiding another bloody conflict in the Middle East.

Russia is a historical behemoth that has known all the plagues. Russians are no strangers to the ugliness of war, the fear of terrorism and political instability. It is a nation in which might is right, for better or for worse, but that can be an effective game changer if treated with respect and truly empowered to make a difference.

While some could argue that Russia’s efforts towards Iran have been counterproductive in the past, insisting with their diplomatic authorities that the last thing the world’s largest nation needs is a war over nuclear matters on its southern front, not too far from the Caucasus, could be a simple yet effective incentive.

Vladimir Putin’s return to the presidency, his will to assert Russia’s presence on the international stage and to restore the nation’s glory might worry some; however the West playing its cards right with Russia, with whom it shares a considerable culture, could help steer the country into becoming a proud yet truly responsible international actor, while bolstering their pride and help the West achieve is foreign policy goals.

It is time to give Russia an opportunity to shine, for all our sakes, before we venture past the point of no return. It is time to let Moscow lead one last diplomatic ballet, in order to avoid a belligerent mosh pit.

The Great Game

The hot-zones today. How many G20 countries can you count in their vicinity?

The current state of relations between the American and Russian governments will no doubt remind some of the Cold War. Sharp tongues, covert operations, proxy wars, threats of using force – it’s all there, albeit, in a much less intense fashion. It is also a complete waste of time.

Last June, when it hosted the G20 summit in Los Cabos, the Mexican government did not convene a follow-up meeting of the G20 Foreign Ministers, even though it had been tentatively put forward after their first informal gathering last February. It is unfortunate because it could have been used to discuss frankly, openly and face to face the current challenges to international security that are posed by North Korea, Iran and most recently, Syria.

While hoping for some kind of major agreement on upcoming steps in all three scenarios might have been far-fetched, the world could have used some sense of unity in the broadest sense from the G20 nations’ chief diplomats. Instead, we are privy to yet another “Great Game” between the US-Russia and China troika, played out in diplomatic circles, through covert operations, weapons shipments and UN Security Council vetoes, while our world becomes increasingly dangerous.

Syria is the last remaining “active” fire of the Arab Spring and is quickly catching up to Libya in terms of bloodbath. However, because of the country’s strategic location – at the very heart of the least stable region of the globe – the conflict has been at the very centre of a tug o’ war between the US and Western nations and the Russia/China strategic alliance.

Certainly, Bashar Al-Assad bears most of the blame for the extreme escalation of the conflict. But Russia and China, fearing a repeat of the “over-interpretation” of UNSC resolution 1970 on Libya have consistently vetoed any bold proposal against Syria. Russians went as far as attempting to deliver Mi25 attack helicopters and missiles to Al-Assad’s regime earlier this summer, and are likely politically flexing their muscles by deploying amphibious assault ships and hundreds of marines in their naval base at Tartus shortly.

On the other hand, news broke this past week that the US President Barack Obama authorized clandestine support to the rebels by the CIA through humanitarian, logistical, communications and financial help which likely explains the growing progress they have made in the recent weeks. Official sources claim no arms are being sent by the US; this may or may not be true. And of course, financial help begs the question: what is stopping the recipients of US funds from acquiring weapons with that money? What is truly worrying about the Syrian rebels is the growing legions of foreign fighters affiliated to Al-Qaeda joining their side. In the advent of a rebel victory, what will happen to them? Could US help be in fact diverted to help a new generation of Al-Qaeda terrorists?

While East and West throw an encore of the Cold War, Iran coldly calculates its next move with its nuclear program, sending its Basij and financing Hezbollah to support the fledging Al-Assad. When Damascus finally falls, no real distraction will remain in the Middle East, and all eyes will look to Teheran. What some call the “Syrian Uprising” is but a prelude to the next chapter: a confrontation with Iran.

Old problems, new developments

Two months away from a potential follow-up meeting of the G20 Foreign Ministers in Mexico, international security issues are all over the radar.

Iran’s nuclear programme and the heated rhetoric of its leadership continued to heighten the tensions in the past weeks. With increased talk of preventive Israeli strikes on the horizon, naval deployments near Iran’s maritime border, negative feedback from the International Atomic Energy Agency’s reports and potential new Security Council sanctions, it seems that things had reached a significant, perhaps boiling point. However yesterday in Istanbul, the P5+1 (US, UK, France, China, Russia, Germany) and Iran broke a 14-month deadlock and reached an agreement on a framework for talks and a date for upcoming negotiations. It is a positive step, but concrete and measurable results will have to be taken quickly by both sides for a significant de-escalation to bear fruit. Russia’s role in this is key and its bridging approach with Iran must be supported.

Teheran can thank the belligerent and reckless leadership in Pyongyang for diverting international attention from its own nuclear activities. It is now very clear that there will not be any reforms, no glasnost any time soon for the leadership of Kim Jong Un, which is still very much in its assertive phase. The face of the leader may have changed, but the military elitist system remains very much in place and it has taken a life of its own under an inexperienced and untested youth. The senseless and illogical botching of the recent US food aid deal over the failed launch of a long-range missile suggests that there may be trouble in the hermit kingdom. As I elaborated in my paper Pre-Emptive Peace, I fundamentally believe that the top of the pyramid of the leadership in North Korea is akin to the incomplete top floors of Pyongyang’s iconic Ryugyong Hotel: chaotic, incoherent and full of holes. It started in the dawning years of the sickly Kim Jong Il and under Un, it is now practically open season: rival old-timer generals vying for power and position in a decaying nation through various acts of faith in contradiction, try to cater the favour of the Dear Leader. Kim Jong Un’s appointment of 70 new generals and the public admission of the launch failure a few days ago is likely a response to his current advisors’ shortcomings (who will likely be severely punished for the pathetic spectacle of the exploding rocket).

South Korean analysts now believe that a new nuclear test by North Korea is a strong possibility, to rally their wounded pride. Should this occur, the international community should twist in the final screws by imposing the toughest sanctions possible and sever all ties with North Korea. Furthermore, China should be actively talked into getting on board, not only to deter Pyongyang from further provocations, but to remind them that they have crossed the line and that they will no longer be supported as an embarrassing client-state.

Iran is monitoring the North Korean situation very closely, and its choice of whether or not to develop a nuclear arsenal to face off with the international community will depend on how Teheran perceives the risks and gains of a standoff like the one in the Korean peninsula.

All of this being considered, I expect the G20 Foreign Ministers to discuss these pressing international security matters should they decide to meet in Mexico in June. All of the world’s strength, world powers and emerging economies alike must be focused on coordination for global peace and security, and it is nations like Russia, China, Brazil, Turkey and Mexico who will be true game changers. 

Los Cabos review and the way forward

It has been a month since the first G20 Foreign Ministers meeting in Los Cabos, Mexico. I have been wanting to write a “review” of the informal gathering but due to lack of time, I had to delay it until now. The good thing about this delay is that many articles have been written since late February on this subject, some of which will be referenced here.

A trial run

The gathering in Los Cabos last month was so informal, that the word “informal” had to be part of the official title of the meeting.

There are a few reasons for this, the first being that not all the decision-makers could make it to the meeting, so the crowd was a mix of Ministers, Secretaries and high-level deputies.

As I am unaware of exactly how Mexico managed to convince the bigger powers to attend the meeting and the timeframe related to its organization, I suspect it was short enough notice for some G20 nations to be caught off guard, and it also explains why there was no official communiqué as the meeting was more of a trial run.

Whether some states’ highest diplomats had previous engagements elsewhere, whether they in fact doubted the possibility of positive outcome of a Foreign Ministers gathering or whether they simply wanted to test the waters with through their deputies… these are all possible explanations to this sudden and somewhat low-key expansion of the G20.

However the presence of US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, German Foreign Minister Guido Westerwelle and European Union foreign policy chief Catherine Ashton, should be viewed as a sign of genuine interest in broadening the G20’s responsibilities.

A conservative agenda suddenly widened

The topics on the agenda were “green growth, poverty, job creation for people around the world, anti-corruption, global development, and global governance”, writes UK Human Rights Minister Jeremy Browne in the Huffington Post. These are topics related macro-economics, quite in the spirit of the G20’s foundation, but they remain nonetheless quite conservative. While it seemed the G20 would come shy of discussing global security matters, US State Secretary made a bold move when she declared in her opening remarks at the meeting:

“I also look forward to speaking with many of you as this conference proceeds about how best to support the legitimate aspirations and humanitarian needs of the Syrian people despite the current deadlock at the United Nations Security Council, and about how the international community can persuade Iran to meet its obligations.”

This was particularly surprising coming from the United States. I absolutely commend Secretary Clinton for broadening the dialogue and hope that progress was made behind the scenes in Los Cabos.

The management of war and peace is one of the oldest functions of the state, and it is one that is jealously guarded by a state’s leaders, and a few close allies. Opening high-level dialogue on war and peace with countries in a different hemisphere, who may not be economic superpowers or shining beacons of democracy is one of the boldest foreign policy moves in recent years, and in my opinion, it is the right one.

Where it needs to go

The G20 Foreign Ministers will reconvene in Mexico on June 19 and 20. I believe this would be a good opportunity to officially make the global security dossier a G20 “jurisdiction”, especially in the light of rising tensions with Iran and the weird waltz with North Korea. The G20’s geographical and geopolitical representation as well as the influence of its emerging powers makes it a more suitable organisation than the G8 to tackle global security matters.

As Stewart Patrick from the Council on Foreign Relations writes:

“The forum provides a chance for the United States to erode the bloc mentalities that often thwart cooperation within the UN, forge new diplomatic alignments spanning developing and developed countries, and negotiate breakthroughs on longstanding global bottlenecks—solutions that can be taken up and implemented by more formal organizations, from the UN to the World Trade Organization to the International Atomic Energy Agency. Of course, the G20 will not provide a magic bullet to solve the most complex challenges, like growing tensions with Iran, for example. Still, the G20 offers a more fluid environment for the United States to seek political buy-in from a more diverse swath of the world’s most important players. Clinton and Espinoza were right to seize this opportunity.”

In that sense, the G20 should be a useful permanent platform for expanded dialogue on nuclear proliferation, as the five permanent members of the UNSC and countries sharing historical, cultural and geographical ties with the Iranian and North Korean nations also constitute the organisation’s membership. Foreign Ministers – having flexibility and authority – could come together on a common approach towards Iran and North Korea. Its high-level environment and its geopolitical representation would make it a potent organisation to address nuclear proliferation.

The Foreign Ministers’ G20 should not intend to be a substitute for the UN Security Council, nor for groups like the Six-Party talks. Its role should be to send the overarching positive signals of political will to technical discussions tables and organisations dealing with nuclear proliferation, or other security matters. That is what I believe the Mexican government should aim to establish come June.