Paradise Lost

Before I dive into the meat and potatoes of this post I want to explain why I titled it Paradise Lost.  My working title was Trouble in Paradise, but that was the headline for this story in many of the major news outlets and I wanted to set this analysis apart from the crowd.  I settled on Paradise Lost in reference to John Milton’s 1667 poem by the same name.  The poem concerns the Biblical story of the banishment of Adam and Eve from the Garden of Eden.  In Milton’s own words the purpose of the poem is to, “justify the ways of God to men.”  Admittedly that was where my knowledge of the work ended.  But after reading a synopsis or two I think an interesting comparison can be drawn between Satan tempting Adam and Eve to eat from the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, and Former President Nasheed exposing corruption in the Maldives.  In both stories Satan/Nasheed could have safely remained the ruler of their respective domains, but they chose to brave the abyss to show Adam and Eve/the world the truth about good and evil, rather than allow them to remain oblivious.  Of course their motivations for acting were very different so this is where my comparison ends. 

In December I posted a link to the Top 5 International Documentaries of 2011.  If you haven’t already I highly recommend checking them out, especially The Island President, the story of then President Mohamed Nasheed and his struggle to raise awareness of the dangers of global climate change.  This story is captivating for two reasons: the first is that in 2008 Nasheed became the first democratically elected President of the Maldives, a small island nation in the Indian Ocean.  The second reason is that for the Maldives climate change doesn’t just mean more powerful storms or extreme temperatures.  Rising sea levels threaten to submerge the nation (highest elevation is eight feet) beneath the waves of the Indian Ocean, literally erasing it from the map. 

The reason I say “then President” is on February 7^th Mr. Nasheed resigned from office.  He succinctly chronicles the events leading up to his resignation in an Op-Ed piece he submitted to the New York Times.  To summarize its contents, Mr. Nasheed asserts that he was forced out of office at gun point after cracking down on a corrupt judicial system and Islamist Extremists using the freedom of expression guaranteed by the new Constitution to spread hate and intolerance.    

In addition to his Op-Ed piece, Mr. Nasheed was recently interviewed by Christiane Amanpour.  In the interview Mr. Nasheed asserts that, “What happens in the Maldives happens in the Middle East always two or three years later.”  This assertion foreshadows a similar upheaval in Libya, Tunisia, Yemen, and Egypt in 2014. 

Mr. Nasheed has been succeeded by his Vice President, Mohammed Waheed Hassan Manik.  After taking office the new government issued a warrant for the arrest of Mr. Nasheed on unspecified criminal charges and began to rebuild the President’s cabinet with individuals who held high offices during Mr. Guyoom’s dictatorship.  Initially President Waheed said Presidential elections would be held as scheduled in October 2013, however he has recently changed his stance and said elections would be held, “as early as considered feasible by all concerned.”  This was further solidified by Indian Foreign Secretary Ranjan Mathai who brokered an agreement between the two parties for early elections.

If the word of former President Nasheed is taken as the truth, this coup d’état represents a dangerous future for nations emerging from the Arab Spring with new governments.  However it is promising that both sides of this issue have thus far been able to work through their differences and agree on a course of action to resolve their dispute.  To quote current President Waheed Hassan, “this is an opportunity for us to regain the respect of the international community, but most importantly continue to build a safe, democratic, and prosperous Maldives for all our people.”  Clearly the truth of this statement can’t be over emphasized.


Assuming early elections are head in the next few months; the success of this brokered peace will be determined by how free and fair the election is, and the acceptance of the election results.  If the losing candidate and their supporters acknowledge that the election was free and fair, and that they accept their opponent as the peoples’ choice for President of the Maldives, than this will be a perfect case study for the peaceful resolution of contested Presidencies.  If however, civil unrest ensues or the election is not democratic, the Maldives would become the newest example of a country in chaos and unable to escape political strife.  

The Responsibility to Protect

It occurred to me that I have not raised as many morel and ethical questions as I set out to when I created this blog.  In continuing to analysis the crisis in Syria I think the justification given by Russia and China for their veto of a UN Resolution calling for President Assad to step down offers an excellent case study to consider the morality of intervening in the domestic affairs of a sovereign Nation. 

By design the UN Charter is not definitive on the issue.  In Chapter 1, Article 2(7) it states, “nothing should authorize intervention in matters essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state.” This definition is in line with the Treaty of Westphalia (1648), in which the concept of a state was established as the sole entity which can legally exert authority over a region.  Prior to this treaty Europe functioned in a state of nature, in which whatever government could exert authority over a region was justified in doing so.  

However  in Chapter VII, Article 39 the UN Charter authorizes the Security Council to, "determine the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Article 42 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security."  Article 41 and 42 outline the necessity of exhausting non-violent options before taking, "action by air, sea, or land forces as may be necessary to maintain or restore international peace and security."  This ambiguity allows future leaders to decide on a case-by-case basis whether state sovereignty or international peace and security should take precedent.

In the case of the UN Resolution voted on this past Saturday (2/4/12) the United States, Great Britain, France, and ten other members of the Security Council voted in favor of the Resolution, believing the conditions in the Syrian crisis fall under Chapter VII.  Conversely China and Russia vetoed the resolution, arguing the crisis is a domestic matter and falls under Chapter I, Article 2.  While there is a case to be made for both arguments, every day spent deliberating means another day of violence and death.  Therefore we have a moral imperative to outline a set of principles which can serve to spur a prompt and unified response under the direction of Chapter I or Chapter VII accordingly. 

For the sake of keeping this analysis focused I will assume no one will contest a principle stating in a case of blatant State sponsored genocide the UNSC should be required to act in accordance with Chapter VII.  Conversely a peaceful gathering of people protesting higher taxes doesn’t warrant the violation of a State’s sovereignty.  That said I will continue by analyzing the justifications given by the P5 members for their respective votes in an effort to highlight factors that would mandate UNSC action in accordance with Chapter I or Chapter VII. 

Why Russia vetoed:

On Monday (2/6/12) Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke in Moscow supporting his government’s veto of the resolution by arguing the resolution is one-sided against the Syrian government.  Mr. Lavrov justified this by citing the resolution as calling for the Syrian Government to end violent actions, without obligating groups opposing the regime (like the Free Syrian Army) to cease violent acts as well. 

Russia has opposed many of the sanctions and political efforts to isolate Syria, choosing instead to work with the Assad regime to try and impose a democratic transition.  This strategy was supported by arguing a sudden and violent change in Syria’s government would result in a volatile situation similar to that in Libya. 

Additionally, on Wednesday (2/8/12) Mr. Lavrov commented that both the Syrian regime and the opposition have instigated the armed conflict.  “On both sides there are people that aim at an armed confrontation, not a dialogue.”  Mr. Lavrov continued to say that President Assad wants his Vice President, Farouk al-Sharaa, to hold talks with opposition groups. 

Why China vetoed:

Like Russia, China has argued that it vetoed the UN Resolution to save lives and ensure stability in Syria.  According to Sun Zhe, international studies professors at Tsinghua University, Chinese officials view the actions of the Syrian Government as, “extremist”, but they do not want to see a repeat of Libya or Egypt. 

While the UNSC approved two resolutions in 2011 which authorized action, “by all means necessary” (Ivory Coast and Libya), it now seems that Russia and China are less comfortable with the idea of regime change.  For Russia this is because Syria is a close ally, and it therefore is inclined to stand by it.  For China these circumstances are slightly different.  For a Chinese perspective this resolution undoubtedly seems like an attempt by the UN to remove regimes which don’t agree with it.  This would be worrisome for China as doesn’t always agree with the opinion of the UN.

Britain, France, and the USA:

Conversely, the 13 members of the UNSC which voted for the resolution see Assad’s regime as a government which has been told stop, had sanctions imposed against it, and yet the violence persists.  After nearly a year of protests and death the only change has been Syria’s decent towards chaos.  In contradiction to Russia which is still trying to work with the President Assad to impose democratic reforms, Nations favoring the resolution believe the Syrian government has already shown its unwillingness change its behavior and policies and therefore intervention is the last resort. 

So where is the line between Chapter I and Chapter VII?  In December of 2001 the International Commission on Intervention and State Sovereignty (ICISS) met and produced The Responsibility to Protect report.  In the introduction the report succinctly states that, “sovereign states have a responsibility to protect their own citizens from avoidable catastrophe – from mass murder and rape, from starvation – but that when they are unwilling or unable to do so, that responsibility must be borne by the broader community of states.” (VIII) It is important to notice how closely this statement echoes the language in Chapter I and Chapter VII of the UN Charter.  Where the ICISS takes the next, crucial, step is it doesn’t allow the responsibility to protect to disappear in a gray middle ground between Chapter I and Chapter VII.  Rather it clearly states that once the sovereign state is “unwilling or unable” to uphold this responsibility, it must be picked up by the international community. 

With this I believe Syria has clearly and unquestionably failed in its responsibility to protect its citizens.  Combined with the unwillingness of President Assad’s regime to work with the international community to stop the violence I further believe an intervention in Syria is not only justified, but is morally necessary.  While I can acknowledge why Russia and China would be against this intervention, I believe I have clearly negated any moral justification for their vetoes of the UN resolution.   

I would like to close by presenting the guidelines for military intervention from the ICISS’s The Responsibility to Protect Report.  I believe these are self-explanatory but if there readers feel these principles need more clarification I will provide it at a later date.

• Right Authority – Who authorizes military action. (ICISS 32)
• Just Cause – “What kind of harm is sufficient to trigger a military intervention overriding the non-intervention principle.” (ICISS 32) This is generally characterized by large scale loss of life or ethnic cleansing.
• Right Intention – “To halt or avert human suffering.” (ICISS 35)  Should always be established through multilateralism.
• Last Resort – There must be reasonable grounds to say no other option would work. (ICISS 36)
• Proportional Means – The scale and duration of operations should be minimally necessary to end human rights violations. (ICISS 37)
• Reasonable Prospects – Must have a reasonable chance of success, can’t make the conflict last larger. (ICISS 37)

Nucs, Sanctions, and the Strait of Hormuz

As per usual, I’ll start by setting the stage before engaging in a critical analysis.  I’ve composed a timeline to highlight some recent interactions between Iran, the United States, and the rest of the world.  Of course there are hundreds of other factors at work, but for the sake of time, space, and my sanity I’ve tried to list only the most pertinent factors. 

1/29/02: In his State of the Union Address George W. Bush names Iran as a member of the axis of evil, stating, “Iran aggressively pursues these weapons [of mass destruction] and exports terror, while an unelected few repress the Iranian people's hope for freedom.” 

2010 & 2011: Iranian nuclear facilities at Natanz become infected with the Stuxnet computer virus, causing the destruction of centrifuges used to enrich uranium.  Iran’s nuclear program, once on the brink of producing enough enriched uranium for a nuclear reaction, is set back years.

Dec 11: The United States Congress approves sanctions against Iran targeting its economic and financial sectors.

12/27/11: Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi declares, "not a drop of oil will pass through the Strait of Hormuz" if Western countries followed through with threats of escalating sanctions.    

1/3/12: Iran warns that the USS Stennis shouldn’t reenter the Persian Gulf.  “We recommend to the American warship that passed through the Strait of Hormuz and went to Gulf of Oman not to return to the Persian Gulf,” said Maj. Gen. Ataollah Salehi, the commander in chief of the army, as reported by Iran’s official news agency, IRNA. “The Islamic Republic of Iran will not repeat its warning.”

1/4/12: In a written statement Pentagon Press Secretary George Little states, "The deployment of US military assets in the Persian Gulf region will continue as it has for decades."

1/6/12: The European Union agrees in principle to impose sanctions against Iranian oil, although a final decision will not be made before February.

1/6/12: The USS Stennis carrier battle group rescues 13 Iranian fishermen from Somali pirates in the Gulf of Oman.  The fishermen had been held captive for 40 days. 

1/7/12: Iran’s Foreign Minister thanks the US for saving the fishermen, while the Fars news agency described the rescue as a “Hollywood-style act of showmanship.”

1/9/12: The IAEA confirms that Iran opened a new nuclear enrichment facility called Fordo, located under a mountain in Northern Iran.  

1/10/12: A US Coast Guard cutter rescues six Iranians after their ship, the Dhow, took on water in the Persian Gulf.  They were transferred to the Iranian coast guard vessel Naji 7 after the sailors were given food, water, and blankets.  In the written account of the incident Naval Forces Central Command quotes Hakim Hamid-Awi, owner of the Dhow, as telling his rescuers, “Without your help, we were dead. Thank you for all that you did for us.”  This was the fifth time in 14 months US Naval forces have come to the aid of Iranians in distress. 

1/11/12: An Iranian nuclear scientist is killed in a drive-by bombing in Tehran.  The official response of the Iranian Government states they will not be dissuaded from their pursuit of peaceful nuclear energy.  However Hossein Shariatmadari, general director of the Kayhan newspaper (appointed to the position by Ayatollah Ali Khamenei), wrote an editorial emphasizing the need for Iran to retaliate against Israel, “These corrupted people are easily identifiable and readily within our reach.”

According to Tehran, this is the 4^th such killing in two years.  All of the assassinations have been blamed on Israel.  

1/14/12: The United States completes the deployment of 15,000 troops to Kuwait, mostly combat units.  Their stated mission is to provide security in the region.  According to 1st Lt. Kelly McManus, spokeswoman for 1st BCT, 1st Cavalry Division, “We will operate with our standard equipment and in doing so provide a force that is both immediately available and augments a joint team that stands as a strong deterrent against those who wish to harm the U.S. and/or its allies.” 

 

With this groundwork laid we can begin to analysis the situation and attempt to determine how these events will play out.  Despite my hopes of keeping this timeline more succinct I feel more detail would only further illuminate the situation. 

Israel: Given that Iran regularly threatens to wipe Israel off the map, the Israelis have every right to be apprehensive about a nuclear Iran.  While Iran has had missiles capable of reaching Israel for years, it hasn’t had the capacity to cause significant destruction.  However if Iran develops nuclear warheads this threat will no longer be empty words.  Given this it is little wonder, or secret, that Israel and the United States developed and deployed the Stuxnet virus to derail Iran’s nuclear development.  

Regarding the four Iranian nuclear scientists killed over the last two years, while it can’t be confirmed that Israel was responsible for their deaths, it is not a baseless assumption either.  Prior to the advent of the Stuxnet virus several members of Israel’s cabinet wanted to bomb Iranian uranium enrichment facilities.  Given this prior willingness to target the workplace of the scientists it isn’t much of a stretch to believe Israel would be willing to bomb the scientists themselves.  Assuming Israel is responsible for these assassinations, they would undoubtedly justify the killings by arguing killing four scientists and preventing Iran from possessing nuclear capabilities will save the lives of thousands of Israelis. 

Russia: In 2010 Russia supported the passage of four sets of UN sanctions against Iran.  This came after the United States reduced plans to build a missile defense system in Poland. The official purpose of the missile system was to protect Europe from the growing threat of an Iranian missile attack, though Russia perceived the system as targeting it.  Additionally Russia cancelled plans to sell ground-to-air missiles to Iran in 2010 and the new START treaty was signed by President Obama and ratified by Congress in February 2011.  Recently however Russia has called increasing sanctions against Iran as a violation of International law.  This change comes as talks between Washington and Moscow on missile defense have broken down.  

Looking forward both counties will hold Presidential elections this year.  If a Republican takes the Oval Office or Vladimir Putin returns to the Russian Presidency it is unlikely relations between the United States and Russia will improve.  This tension will limit the ability of the United States to appeal to the UN to legitimize further sanctions, or even military action, against Iran as Russia is a P5 member of the UNSC. 

United States: Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz shows the sanctions levied against it are working as they forced Iran to make a diplomatic error in threating to close the Strait of Hormuz.  Furthermore saving Iranian sailors in distress increases the United States’ persona as a benevolent humanitarian.  Despite Iran’s warning that the USS Stennis should not return to the Persian Gulf, the United States can easily make the case that the carrier group must patrol the region to protect commercial ships from pirates.  This argument is strengthened and justified by the fact that it was the USS Stennis carrier group which rescued 13 Iranian sailors a week ago. 

In essence the United States has done a masterful job of forcing Iran into a diplomatic corner, and in an effort to relieve some of the pressure Iran only dug itself into a hole.  Now the United States only has to stick to its guns and send the USS Stennis back into the Gulf.  The combination of this and continuing to rally more Nations to impose sanctions against Iran will force Tehran’s hand, resulting in one of three outcomes.  If Iran closes the Strait of Hormuz because the United States and its allies refuse to drop their sanctions, the US and its allies will be justified in using military force to ensure the international waters are safe and open for commerce.  The second possible outcome is while the USS Stennis carrier group returns to the Persian Gulf (with the official purpose of protecting all vessels from pirates) Iran attacks the group.  Again this would justify the United States in attacking Iran.  In both of these situations Iran is the military aggressor.  In addition both would undoubtedly result in destruction of Iran’s nuclear enrichment facilities.  As was stated in the timeline, the United States recently deployed 15,000 soldiers to Kuwait.  The stated purpose of this subtle show of strength is for the troops to act as a deterrent against those who would harm the US and/or its allies.  Of course the third possibility is Iran neither closes the Strait nor harasses the USS Stennis.  In this case Iran will be viewed as a rogue nation unwilling to cooperate within the international system and unwilling/unable to follow through with its threats.  This will cause nations to not heed future threats made by Iran.

Iran: Iran is between a rock and a hard place. On the one hand having nuclear capabilities (whether for energy, healthcare, or military purposes) would establish Iran as a regional hegemon.  Conversely, the sanctions have crippled Iran’s economy and only the abandonment of its nuclear program will lift them. 

Fortunately for Iran whether it chooses to continue or abandon its nuclear program it will not be in uncharted diplomatic waters.  Iraq was developing weapons of mass destruction prior to the Gulf War, after which they were forbidden from continuing the work.  In 2003 when the United States had ‘proof’ that Iraq was developing WMD’s again Iraq denied it.  Capturing these weapons became the pretense for the Iraq War, resulting in the execution of Iraqi President Saddam Hussein.  The second example is North Korea, which has nuclear weapons and suffers from numerous sanctions.  For years North Korea has agreed to abandon its nuclear program in exchange for humanitarian aid.  Despite repeated military actions against South Korea, (see ‘Outstanding Leader’ and the Future of North Korea post) Pyongyang is able to avoid a full scale military response by the US, South Korea, and Japan because Seoul and Tokyo are within range of North Korea’s nuclear missiles.   

Hypothetically, as a leader with little regard for the welfare of my people I would opt to follow the example of North Korea as that is the option in which I remain in power.  However there is a big difference between Iran and North Korea, that being Iran doesn’t have nuclear weapons yet.  Because of this Nations opposing Iran have some pretense and justification to destroy Iran’s nuclear facilities without the risk of a nuclear backlash against Tel Aviv.  To survive the next few years and develop nuclear capabilities Tehran needs to tread lightly and make every effort to minimize the effect, or visibility, of the sanctions.  However this strategy is no longer possible due to Iran’s threat to close the Strait of Hormuz and against the USS Stennis.  With these threats Nations not previously involved in the sanctions would suffer from the economic effects of preventing one fifth of the world’s oil from flowing freely. 

Will Iran actually close the Strait?  Despite my urge to argue no, Iran has already proven that it follows different logic than I do.  In addition to my remarks in the previous paragraph I also believe making such a hostile threat only shows how weak and desperate Iran is.  As Sun Tzu notes, ‘when you are strong make yourself appear weak, when you are weak appear strong.’ By this logic Iran should be doing everything possible to hide the effects the sanctions are having on its economy and casually act as though the sanctions are insignificant.  Instead Iran has threatened to close an international waterway.  If Iran fails to follow through on this it will further show how weak they are.  If Iran does close the strait or take action against the USS Stennis it will prompt the United States to follow through on its promise to take military action to keep the strait open or defend itself.  Either way Iran will not win.

'Outstanding Leader' and the Future of North Korea

When I started this blog I kidded to myself that it would be less than a month before something happened in North Korea that would prompt me to write a post.  I did not anticipate that it would be the death of ‘dear leader’ Kim Jong-Il.  What is clear is the chips are up in the air.  Little is known about the inner workings of Pyongyang and the personalities of the officials at the top.  In reacting to these recent events it is important to analyze a single action as possibly being caused by one or more of several causes.  This process would be shown clearest with a large tree diagram on a white board, but I am limited by my media so a blog post will have to suffice.

To start, there are several key differences between the upbringing of ‘outstanding leader’ Kim Jong-Un and his father.  Most notably is that Kim Jong-Un was educated in Switzerland, giving him firsthand experience living and functioning in a Western society.  Kim Jong-Il and Il-Sung were educated in North Korea. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/who-is-kim-jong-un-really/2011/12/20/gIQAaytB7O_story_1.html

Also important is that Kim Jong-Il spent 10 years working his way up the North Korean political and military ladder under the guidance of his father Kim Il-Sung.  Jong-Un only appeared in North Korean politics just over a year ago. 

http://english.chosun.com/site/data/html_dir/2010/03/17/2010031700811.html

A second factor to take note of is the transformation of the North Korean political structure.  Kim Il-Sung and Kim Jong-Il ruled the country as dictators, yet in his final months Kim Jong-Il made preparations to create a collective rule.  This Politburo will be composed of Jung-Un, his uncle Jang Song-Taek, and representatives of the military.   

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/21/us-korea-north-exclusive-idUSTRE7BK0FX20111221

The extent to which differences in their respective upbringings will differentiate son from father are as much a political debt as it is question of nature versus nurture.  I am not a biologist or developmental psychologist, but I believe differences as major as these will surely shape Kim Jong-Un into a different, even if only slightly, man than his father.  Given how Kim Jong-Il managed his country and conducted foreign policy I believe it is fair to say most world leaders would be willing to roll the dice and hope Kim Jong-Un is warmer to the World and kinder to his people than his father and grandfather before him. 

There are two possible motivations for the new North Korean political structure.  The first is that Kim Jong-Il decided the new political structure would better serve the needs of the North Korean people.  This is clearly disproved by the nature of Jong-Il’s rule.  I don’t believe it is necessary to go into further detail on this point. 

Rather than being motivated by genuine concern for the welfare of the North Korean people, I believe Kim Jong-Il was not confident his son could effectively maintain and exercise authority over the military and Nation as a whole.  With this end game in mind, there are three possible reasons for the new political order: 

1.      Despite its public support for the new leader, the military was reluctant to accept the untested 20-something as supreme commander.  This situation would mean the implementation of the Politburo was designed as a means of power sharing to buy the loyalty of the military.

2.      Kim Jong-Un is too inexperienced to rule the country effectively himself.  This would mean the Politburo was set up to help the young Kim manage the affairs of state.

3.      Kim Jong-Il feared that his brother-in-law Jang Song-Taek would try to take power from, or influence the decisions of, Jong-Un.  In this case the Politburo would ensure Kim Jong-Un a degree of authority with less resist of being undermined or removed from power.    

If my first theory is the case and top North Korean military officials were reluctant to accept the authority of Kim Jong-Un, their relationship will likely come to a flashpoint before it solidifies.  Kim Jong-Il spent ten years earning the respect of the North Korean brass before he assumed authority over them.  Jong-Un was promoted straight to the rank of 4-star general in September of 2010, prior to which he held no offices or titles.  It is expecting a lot to expect generals who fought together in the Korean War to pledge allegiance to someone so young. 

This is made unlikely due to the continued prominence of Jang Song-Taek, who was second in command behind Kim Jong-Il.  Any military official with hesitations about the ‘outstanding leader’ would likely take comfort in the presence of Song-Taek, or fear taking action against the young Kim for the same reason.  

If theory two is correct than the Politburo was established to ensure the capacity of the Government to exercise authority.  As was mentioned earlier, Jong-Un has barely one year of experience in North Korean politics.  It is logical that there is a long learning curve for politics in Pyongyang.  Therefore it is plausible that Kim Jong-Il established the Politburo to mentor his son and show him the ropes of dictating.  This would allow Kim Jong-Un to learn how to conduct North Korean politics.  While the Politburo could have been an unofficial or shadow organization, if it was discovered it would discredit the authority Kim Jong-Un. 

In the case of the third theory being true, Kim Jong-Il established the Politburo to protect his son’s rule from Jang Song-Taek.  Until 2004 many suspected that Jang might succeed Kim Jong-Il, however he disappeared from late 2004 to March 2006, when he was seen again with his brother-in-law on a trip to China.  Kim Jong-Il may have feared that his brother-in-law would try to seize power from Kim Jong-Un, or manipulate his nephew from behind the throne. 

In essence, each of these justifications supports the conclusion that Kim Jong-Il sought to ensure North Korea was managed much the same way as it has been for fifty years.  The trick is determining the factors that provoked Kim Jong-Il into implementing this radical change to the North Korean government. 

Determining how an individual or government will act is one of the most difficult tasks in politics.  This is only made more difficult when the entity being analyzed doesn’t view the world with the same ideology or from the same position.  Consider the secrecy with which North Korea conducts its affairs and it will be very difficult to anticipate how North Korea will act.  Add to this the new political structure, and the best that can be done is view each action as the result of several possible causes.  Only then can an educated analysis of North Korean policies be made and their policy actions anticipated. 

An update on the conflict in/regarding Syria

It was a busy weekend in the world.  The biggest story is undoubtedly the death of North Korean leader Kim Jong Il.  I’ll comment on that soon, but first I would like to react to recent events in Syria which will probably go unnoticed.

On Friday December 16th Russia deployed the Admiral Kutznetsov carrier and strike group to the Syrian port of Tartus.  Once there the carrier and strike group will conduct military drills with Syrian forces.  Russia has also supplied Syria with 72 shore-to-sea missiles and Syria has deployed 21 Scuds to the Turkish border, five of which are reportedly armed with chemical warheads.  Additionally Syrian Vice President Farouk A-Shara travelled to Moscow as US Secretary of Defense Panetta arrived in Ankara.  

On December 15th Human Rights Watch released a report entitled, "By All Means Necessary!" In the report HRW provides the testimony of Syrian Army defectors who give the name and rank of the officers who gave the order to Syrian soldiers to 'shoot to kill' unarmed protesters. 
http://www.hrw.org/news/2011/12/15/syria-shoot-kill-commanders-named


Also relevant is that American Special Forces leaving Iraq have been diverted to Jordan to take positions against Syrian tanks along the shared border.  Three months ago Syrian President Assad warned Jordan’s King Abdullah II against granting asylum to Syrian deserters and allowing arms to pass to opposition forces, King Abdullah II has not ceased either activity.  http://www.debka.com/article/21577/

Finally Syria and the Arab League have just agreed on a plan to allow Arab observers into the country.  The Arab League suspended Syria’s membership in the group and imposed diplomatic and economic sanctions a month ago.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/20/us-syria-arabs-elaraby-idUSTRE7BJ1H520111220

Clearly there are three main pairings of players in this broader international conflict; Syria and Russia, NATO and Jordan, and the United Nations and Arab League.  Although Russia recently put forward a UN Resolution condemning the violence by both Syrian government forces and their opposition, supplying Syria with missiles and sending a carrier group to conduct military drills is clearly a commitment to defend Syrian sovereignty and the Assad regime. 

Conversely NATO (primarily Turkey and the U.S.) and Jordan who in varying capacities support the Free Syrian Army, the ambitions of Syrian protesters, and want President Assad to step down from power.  Like Russia and Syria, these nations have made a point of showing that if necessary they are ready and able to take military action. 

Caught in the middle are the United Nations and Arab League.  The UN has released numerous reports chronicling the horrific events transpiring in Syria.  Likewise a month ago the AL suspended Syria’s membership because of the actions it was taking against protesters opposing President Assad.  So although these organizations are idealistically aligned with NATO and Jordan, they will not consent to military action to end the conflict. 

While the UN General Assembly and 14 members of the Security Council may agree to support a no-fly zone over Syria, Russia will not.  Its military commitment to Syria clearly shows that it will oppose (with force if necessary) and foreign plans for a humanitarian intervention.  The first and most likely method Russia will employ to prevent international action will be to use its veto power as a P-5 Nation.  This will prevent the UN from passing a resolution similar to UN Resolution 1973, which approved of the no-fly zone over Libya.  Without such a resolution any international intervention in Syria would be lacking official UN support and will therefore be less popular with some foreign leaders who would condone an intervention for acting against the will of the UN.  http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/19/us-syria-un-idUSTRE7BI1LB20111219

With regards to the Arab League, its recent relations with Syria are among the strongest the organization has ever criticized one of its members.  On Monday December 19th Syria agreed to an Arab League plan to have 150 observers monitor events on the ground.  Secretary-General Nabil Elaraby announced that all of the 150 observers should be in Syria by the end of December.  It is important to note that in early November the Syrian government agreed to an AL plan to end fighting, release prisoners, and open a dialogue with the opposition, yet it was not until a recent round of AL imposed economic sanctions and travel restrictions that Syria has come back to the table and decided to move forward with this agreement.

Several things are clear from these recent events.  The first and foremost is that international pressure on Syria to cease killing unarmed civilians is mounting.  As a result increasingly severe sanctions have been imposed against Syria, which in turn are causing changes in Syria’s behavior. 

Second, as the world polarizes over these recent events, Russia, Syria, Turkey, Jordan, and the United States have drawn lines in the sand (and water) with carrier strike groups, tank formations, and Special Forces.  So as contentious grows, the major players have solidified their positions, increasing the likelihood of an international conflict. 

With little gray area left, whatever happens regarding Syria will likely happen soon.  Of course my hope is that President Assad steps down as peacefully as former President Ben Ali of Tunisia or even Mubarak of Egypt.  However Assad has already done more to hold on to power than either of these disposed leaders.  With international pressure continuing to mount the odds that this conflict ends calmly seems scarce, if not fictitious. 

coming soon...

New developments in Syria including:

• Russian military aid
• American troops in Jordan
• Arab League observers

The Future of North Korea

• 11/23/10 Artillery strike on Yeonpyeong
• Stay calm, carry on?

National Defense Authorization Act

• indefinite detention of US citizens accused of terrorism
• I.D. was used during McCarthyism
• Role of the 6th Amendment

Barbara Walters interview of President Assad

Recently Barbara Walters interviewed Syrian President Bashar al-Assad regarding the protests in Syria.

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/newsmakers/abc-exclusive-defiant-assad-denies-ordering-bloody-crackdown-111944523.html

As you are probably aware the Syrian government is using deadly force against Syrian citizens opposed to the current regime. This has been confirmed by journalists, the UN, and Syrian citizens. This use of force by the Syrian government further legitimizes the grievances of the protesters. Like Gandhi and MLK before them, the Syrian protesters have solicited the oppressive authority they are opposing into showing its true colors, legitimizing the plight of the protesters and winning them significant international support.  While sanctions are good, it is clear that immediate action is necessary to prevent further loss of life. After a government has killed 5,000 of its own citizens, the question changes from if it will kill its own citizens, to how many more will it kill.

Once a government has killed thousands of its own citizens, been told to stop or else, and continued to kill, military intervention is necessary.  The trick is then what degree of military force must be used to achieve what end game?  Are we simply stopping the killing, or supporting the protesters in removing President Assad from power.  Will there be boots on the ground?  Who needs to do it, the UN, NATO, a coalition?  Recent events in Libya offer a few standards which may be of help.  NATO, the UAE, and others became involved in the Libyan Civil War after the TNC had established itself as a government in Benghazi and the two sides of the conflict were engaging in traditional battles.  Even then it was not until the tide of war was against the TNC who were without an air force that the no-fly zone was established.  While the TNC had been meeting with foreign leaders pleading for military assistance, they never wanted foreign boots on the ground; international military involvement would only be accepted in the form of air support.  Furthermore UN Security Council Resolution 1973 clearly stated the endgame was to use all means necessary short of occupation to prevent the loss of civilian life. 
I believe the TNC showed great wisdom in explicitly saying no the foreign boots on the ground.  While NATO air support was crucial for evening the battle and crippling Gadhafi’s military, the war was still won on the ground by Libyans on the front line of the conflict.  Much like French military aid and naval intervention in the American Revolutionary War was crucial to the United States’ victory, without stealing glory from the U.S. 

The difference in Syria is there is no legitimate government entity opposing President Assad like the TNC opposed Colonel Gadhafi or the founding fathers opposed King George III.  This is significant because it means there is no unified body opposing the current regime which could be supported by an intervention.  So if military intervention is necessary to prevent further loss of life, but it is not clear who the UN should support, what end game should the UN seek?  Killing President Assad could be accomplished with a SEAL team in a night, but that would only throw Syria into further chaos.  Rather I propose that a no-fly zone be implemented with the clear and sole mission of eliminating forces actively engaged in killing civilians.  Further evolution of foreign engagement in the Syrian conflict would have to remain dependent on events on the ground.  If the initial degree of involvement relieved some pressure on the Syrian protesters and they were able to form an opposition government, probably seated in Homs or near the Turkish border, perhaps then a similar UN Resolution 1973 would be implemented, then loosely interpreted to justify removing President al-Assad. 


But back to the interview, last week the UN issued a report saying Syrian protesters have been tortured, raped, and beaten. In response to Ms. Walters' question regarding this report President Assad replied, “We did not see these documents from the United Nations… who says the United Nations is a credible organization?” Well President Assad, people and organizations concerned with their perception make a point of avoiding association with non-credible or legitimate organizations. So because Syria is a member of the UN it legitimizes the organization, yet President Assad continues to play this fact of as, "a game you play."

Regarding images of a 13 year old boy who was arrested for writing anti-Assad graffiti and whose body was returned to his family bearing scars and bruises, presumably from being tortured. President Assad, "I met with his father, the father of that child and he said that he wasn't tortured as he appeared in the media." This came right after he questioned the legitimacy of the photos described by Ms. Walters depicting Syrians shot, beaten, and raped by their own military. So President Assad believes we shouldn't believe Barbara Walters' word or the legitimacy of these photos, but when he says something is so, that is how it is.

A final gem from the interview. President Assad, "We don't kill our people… no government in the world kills its people, unless it's led by a crazy person,"

I have two points to make in response to this:
1. If terrorists are shooting/killing/raping the protesters like President Assad claims, wouldn't/shouldn't the government move in and shoot the terrorists? Rather Assad says the government isn't shooting anyone.
2. President Assad defines a country that kills its own people as being led by a crazy person, which I agree with.  Assad is the leader of Syria; Syria is killing its own people... so Assad is crazy? I suppose we are what we do, assuming President Assad did order or approve the use of violence and deadly force to put down the protesters (which is crazy), than Assad is in fact crazy.

To sum up, President Assad seems like a leader confronted by Barbara Walters and the reality of the actions he has taken to maintain power in the face of popular opposition.  I can only hope that those who are in positions of power and authority around the world realize that every day stronger action is not taken means another five, dozen, or even a hundred Syrians whose death could have been prevented.