From "Afpak" to "AfPakWorld"

(Published @ The Diplomatic Courier. September 20, 2009)

Is the War on Terror expanding? The New York Times reported on June 11 that some al-Qaeda members were fleeing Pakistan for Somalia and Yemen. According to a U.S. counterterrorism official at the time, “There are indications that some al-Qaeda terrorists are starting to see the tribal areas of Pakistan as a tough place to be…It is likely that a small number have left the region as a result. Among these individuals, some have probably ended up in Somalia and Yemen, among other places.”

In response to the physical expansion of the al-Qaeda network, the U.S. has stepped up clandestine counterterrorism operations in Somalia especially. Most recently, the Associated Press reported on September 15th, 2009 that a U.S. Special Operations team captured Saleh Ali Saleh Nabhan, an al-Qaeda leader based in Somalia. The raid reportedly angered the top leaders of al-Shahab, a powerful Somali Islamic insurgent group with links to al-Qaeda, which afterword declared that there would be immediate retaliation. Two days later, members of al-Shahab infiltrated vehicles belonging to the United Nations and assassinated the second-in-command of the African Union’s peacekeeping force in Somalia, later declaring that the assassination was in direct response to the capture of Nabhan and the deaths of a few other al-Shahab members and civilians in the latest U.S. raid.

While not confirming the attack, Senator James Webb (D-VA) commented that "In concept, these were special ops troops coming off naval ships, taking out an element of al-Qaida and returning back to its original point of origin, which to me, if the target was appropriate, is an appropriate way to use force against international terrorism.” Conceptually, what Webb is saying makes sense. It sounds like a brief assault with minimal casualties, cost, or effort.

But will U.S. involvement in Somalia end with this latest U.S. raid, or is this the beginning of a broader front for U.S. engagement against terrorists in Somalia? Also according to the Associated Press, one U.S. official said that "the attack was launched by forces from multiple U.S. military branches and included Navy SEALs, at least two Army assault helicopters and the involvement of two U.S. warships in the region for months.” That is a lot of firepower for a single mission. A similar assault in May, 2008 led to the death of then-leader of al-Shahab Aden Hashi Ayro, except that it was led by U.S. warplanes and not warships.

Is it unreasonable to imagine that such an assault may also mark the beginning of an expanded War on Terror? Are warships really needed in addition to helicopters? Are the warships involved in combating pirates off of Somalia’s coast also doubling as mobile bases for an expanding U.S.-led assault on the al-Qaeda arm in Somalia? The greater degree of military involvement in Somalia could be indicative of strategic shifts in perspective at the highest levels of the U.S. government and perhaps a longer-term degree of American military re-posturing.

On the whole, whether al-Qaeda members are fleeing U.S.-led Predator drone strikes and Pakistani army-led raids along Pakistan’s western tribal areas—or whether they are simply expanding their base of operations to take advantage of Somalia and Yemen as progressively weak states—remains a mystery.

Terrorism analyst Murad Batal al-Shishani of the Jamestown Foundation documented recent statements by various al-Qaeda leaders (including Osama bin Laden) and concluded that Yemen and Somalia are both desirable as “safe-havens” for future al-Qaeda operations for primarily two reasons: (1) in the short-term, both territories have weak governments, functionally no rules on carrying weapons, and are already home to a number of al-Qaeda members and sympathizers; (2) in the long-term, even greater expansion of al-Qaeda to those territories would force an expansion of Obama’s War on Terror, further bleeding America of blood and treasure.

That al-Qaeda is currently carrying out step-by-step the strategy relayed by the leadership should worry Washington: what does al-Qaeda’s ability to simply “leave” a war-torn area and re-embed itself elsewhere mean for the long-term prospects of Obama’s version of the War on Terror?

In the war against al-Qaeda, did the strategic theatre known as “Afpak” just become “AfPakSom?”

Further complicating the strategic design of the War on Terror, former deputy chief of the counterterrorist center at the CIA from 1997 to 1999 Paul Pillar recently asserted in an op-ed that al-Qaeda has reached the point where “safe-havens” do not matter. He writes that “international terrorist groups have thrived by exploiting globalization and information technology, which has lessened their dependence on physical havens. By utilizing networks such as the Internet, terrorists’ organizations have become more network-like, not beholden to any one headquarters…al-Qaeda’s role in that threat is now less one of commander than of ideological lodestar, and for that role a haven is almost meaningless.”

So what exactly is the strategic scope of the current War on Terror: is it “AfPakSom” or “AfPakInternet?” How about “AfPakWorld.”

A Global Debt Clock

(Published @ The Compass @ RealClearWorld.com. September 20, 2009)


Global debt is exploding, and Harvard economist Kenneth Rogoff thinks that a new debt crisis is bound to follow the latest financial one.

Indirectly supporting the above thesis is a well-crafted and fascinating "Global Debt Clock" now maintained by The Economist. But before you check out the clock, glance over a recent piece by Joseph Stiglitz that smartly warns about the alluring, dangerous, and ultimately deceptive "fetishism" the world has on statistics.

(Cartoon Credit: The Korea Times)

The Future of Property and Prosperity

(Published @ The Diplomatic Courier. September 18, 2009)


In a global economy driven by industry, 75 percent of the world’s energy resources are controlled by governments and 12 percent of global wealth is owned by sovereign wealth funds—a version of government-led investment portfolios. On both fronts, government activity is expected to increase in the near- and long-term. Uncle Sam in America now sits on the Board of Directors for Citigroup, Bank of America, General Motors, and other brands of American capitalism known in households the world over. And, it is China, a country Communist in conscience, with car sales up 90 percent in August and expected yearly GDP growth of 8 percent.

But even in an era of big-government the individual and his or her property rights are still important, and it is helpful to understand how they are conceptualized and enforced today as a way of understanding where the global economy is headed. To do that, consider the respective philosophies of the last century’s greatest economic power, the U.S., and the next century’s most important economic players, China and India. In general and in order, India, the U.S., and China allocate the strongest and weakest land rights to tenants and that has impacted significantly the trajectory of their respective economies.

China’s Beijing is the world symbol for what “state-capitalism” can do. China’s stimulus package, largely focused on infrastructure development and job creation, is credited with making China perhaps the first country to emerge from the global recession. Sit through a four dimensional video tour of future Beijing in China’s glossy Urban Planning Commission building, and watch the farms and factories that once comprised Beijing be replaced by criss-crossing Metro lanes, massive metallic structures, and high-end fashion city parks. A taxi ride around the city reveals few flaws in urban-planning: roads are wide and bicycle lanes are clear; buildings fit appropriately wherever they are placed; garbage is off of the sidewalks. Yet, China’s method for developing Beijing so quickly is by issuing eviction notices wherever and whenever the government believes alternative development is preferable. Consequently, hutongs (tiny communities that used to form the basic architecture of pre-modern Beijing) are denounced dead with a simple white Chinese character for “get out!” written on the side. If the people choose not to leave, the tractor will still arrive, and that home will inevitably become host to a central government-led development endeavor. China’s approach has helped it become the world center for manufacturing as the government continues to accommodate foreign investors by developing appropriate infrastructure.

By comparison, the U.S. of the 20th Century was perhaps known best for its formalized system of individual ownership, with contracts forming the backbone of law and a philosophical understanding of property rights. Each individual, with a “net-worth” based on catalogued assets and a local bank nearby and available to store his or her liquid assets attained a degree of financial literacy that unquestionably impacted American culture. The financial recession, more specifically the housing bubble, can be explained in some ways as property rights gone wild, with any individual having access to leveraged liquid capital (credit) and any bank able to create new financial products based on complex configurations and interpretations of new ways to describe what is and is not “owned.” However, what separates India and China from the U.S. is the American Constitution’s Fifth Amendment, which states that no one can “be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.” The first part of the clause enshrines the right of property as a basic American right and the latter allows the government, through a policy known as “Eminent Domain,” to take private property for public use as long as “just compensation” is provided. The result is an environment that predictably protects property while allowing the government to step in and allow for the building of stores and factories in areas where people would otherwise suffer from slums and urban sprawl. Consequently, in terms of infrastructure, no American city can be compared to the heterogeneous, partially developed New Delhi, nor can it be compared to the homogeneous and almost fully-developed Beijing.

Stories abound of court houses cluttered with far too many claims and cases in India create a de facto framework of informal property rights. A landholder in Delhi, if he or she can produce a deed, may in fact have some kind of power with local police authorities, but far too much paperwork seems not enforceable as bribes and connections often undermine formalized protection of land rights. For years, one of Mumbai’s greatest challenges to development remained the property law that essentially allocated the renter, not the owner, with the choice of if and when to leave an area. As long as some payment was provided for in accordance with some original lease, no eviction was even formally possible. The result can be seen from North to South Mumbai, with areas like Bandra—home to film stars that live next to slum areas and the center of global Bollywood, Film City, being built around arrays of informal homes of the homeless that cannot be replaced. The inability for policy and law to protect formalized property claims can often explain the deleterious state of infrastructure development in India and the corresponding fact that telecommunications and software, industries that do not require proper roads or places, form the symbol of a triumphant elephant-size, 1.1 billion large Indian economy now expected to grow up to three percentage points beyond the World Bank initial estimate of four percent.

So while the U.S. economy continues to contract, the Chinese and Indian economies will lead the world out of the recession, but they will do so on completely different terms. Poor Indians will continue squatting, middle-class Americans will continue leveraging, and a powerful Chinese state will continue developing. In doing so, India will maintain growth beneath its potential and China will continue to demolish the people’s property; yet, much of the world’s wealth will still find home in the questionable though still most capable financial markets of America, the market still preferred for a reasonable protection of property rights.

The Change Japan Needs?

(Published @ The Compass @ RealClearWorld.com. September 3, 2009)


So Japan doesn't love the newly empowered Democratic Party of Japan.

Nonetheless, the DPJ is hitting the floor running: currently 1 trillion yen worth in projects are being considered for suspension, with the revenue instead being dedicated toward pro-demographic growth initiatives such as a child-raising allowance. Will such policies be enough to shore up Japan's deficit in "the ultimate resource"? Can the DPJ really support increasing the already seemingly insane debt-to-GDP ratio (200%)? Can the DPJ actually afford to abandon pro-market reforms?

Talk about Japan's economy is always frustrating, largely because Japan remains one of the absolutely most developed countries in the world. With a 5.4 percent unemployment rate, people really do wonder what the future of Japan is supposed to look like. What can it look like? Has Japan reached the final stage of economic development?

I certainly don't know, but I really do like the robots. Perhaps Japan and Steven Spielberg could collaborate on a sequel to A.I.: Artificial Intelligence.

A Syringe Half-full or Half-empty?

(Published @ The Compass @ RealClearWorld.com. September 3, 2009)


A small victory in the war on drugs? A sign of a significant strategic victory in Afghanistan? Really? Maybe.

Afghanistan exports over 90% of the world's heroin product and the opium market constitutes, by some estimates, about 50% of Afghanistan's GDP. Yet, recent news in The Economist may herald a welcome change:

OPIUM poppy cultivation in Afghanistan has fallen by a fifth since 2008 to 123,000 hectares, according to the UN's annual survey released on Wednesday September 2nd. The biggest reason for cheer is Helmand province, where cultivation has decreased dramatically from 103,590 hectares to 68,833 hectares. Opium production has dropped less, by 10% to 6,900 tonnes, because farmers are extracting more opium per bulb. This is still far above the annual global demand of 5,000 tonnes, and oversupply and lower market penetration in Europe have pushed opium prices to their lowest levels in ten years.

However, these new gains constitute a significant strategic victory only if at least three other conditions are met:
1) The war against Afghan cannabis production and the Taliban's illegal trade in gemstones and timber turns a corner.
2) Afghan drug cartels are decommissioned permanently.
3) New opium markets do not appear or simply reemerge elsewhere (i.e.Iraq and Myanmar).
If those conditions are not met, then it's tough to argue that the Taliban have been weakened in any significant way, let alone that a gain has been made in the war on drugs.

So Will it Be Cash or Carbon?

(Published @ The Compass @ RealClearWorld.com. September 2, 2009)


According to a new UN report,

"It will cost between $500 billion and $600 billion every year for the next 10
years to allow developing nations to grow using renewable energy resources,
instead of relying on dirty fuels that worsen global warming."

Ooph. The estimate is significantly higher than what anyone was expecting, and no country (perhaps excluding China) currently has the bucks to pay this type of tab. It's tough to imagine the U.S. or Europe selling this to their respective populations with job losses racking up month after month.

The solution? Richard Haass, Moises Naim, and Kemal Dervis seem to all be in relative agreement: at the climate change conference in Copenhagen in December, a treaty that places limits on carbon emissions for all countries is much less likely than an agreement between some major carbon emitters and some major powers to curb their own carbon emissions. A small something is better than nothing; I mean, that's a good place to start. Right or wrong?

(Photo Credit: Associated Press)

...But Smooth Talk Feels So Good

(Published @ The Compass @ RealClearWorld.com. September 2, 2009)

Last week, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Admiral Mike Mullen lambasted the Obama administration for basing diplomacy more on words instead of actions. "To put it simply, we need to worry a lot less about how to communicate our actions and much more about what our actions communicate," wrote Mullen.

Former U.S. undersecretary of state for public diplomacy and public affairs James K. Glassman now provides his own take:

The dangerous narrative in Muslim societies is that the United States and the West are out to destroy Islam. The way to counter that narrative is not to protest that the United States has clean hands and that if you really knew us you would love us -- but to change the subject entirely. The United States is the scapegoat, the animal on which all cares and hatreds are loaded. We only contribute to that way of thinking when we defend ourselves, or talk about ourselves at all. The accurate narrative, the one that strategic communications should promote, is that Muslim societies are today in the midst of profound change and upheaval.

There's clearly merit to both perspectives (Brookings Institute counter-terrorism expert Dan Byman certainly supports the Glassman analysis), but it seems naive to just dismiss the public diplomacy gains of the Obama administration. Videos like this of the United States President acknowledging Ramadan likely do wonders for the security of the U.S. beyond that which pundits or stats can acknowledge. Giving the world a little bit less of a reason to hate America, at little cost to U.S. blood and treasure, sounds like a good thing to me. In between politics and policy, there are people -- it's too bad that this is far too often forgotten.