Global Politics Archives | Strategic Intelligentia

After Afghanistan, Biden Needs to Re-Engage Central Asia

(National Interest) – In the aftermath of the ill-prepared and poorly executed exit from Afghanistan, the West must maintain a regional strategy that does not concede Central Asia’s critical trade routes and dynamic markets to foreign powers.

President Joe Biden’s Tuesday speech was supposed to restore confidence amongst allies who have witnessed America’s rapid retreat from the global stage. Biden spoke of a new “relentless diplomacy,” arguing that the United States—now “free” from Afghanistan—can finally prioritize the existential global threats of climate change, Covid-19, and terrorism. As if it was so easy.

But it is actions, not words, that carry weight in foreign affairs. A dedicated U.S. policy to rebuild its credibility and counterterrorism deterrence is needed. For those strategic goals, the United States needs to boost cooperation with our long-time partners in Central Asia to engender faith among friends and caution among adversaries.

However, after criticizing the previous U.S. administration for shirking its global responsibilities, Biden illogically justified the debacle of the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan and empowerment of the Taliban. In an August address, he stated that “our true strategic competitors—China and Russia—would love nothing more than the United States to continue to funnel billions of dollars in resources and attention into stabilizing Afghanistan indefinitely.” Nothing could be further from the truth, as Russia and China believe that by engaging Afghanistan in a bid to dominate Eurasia, they are better positioned to oppose U.S. primacy in global affairs, including Europe.

The European Union and the United States alike are seeking to mitigate this by setting the stage for the revival of the nineteenth-century “Great Game” between the British and Russian empires over Afghanistan. The competition over Central Asia’s geoeconomic and geostrategic potential is just beginning.

Countries do not have friends, only interests, Lord Palmerston observed. Historically, China and Russia opposed the Taliban. Today their strategy is to engage the Taliban to develop economic corridors in Afghanistan such as the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC) as part of Beijing’s Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), which are aimed at denying Western states access to Central and South Asia’s coveted transportation routes and markets. To this end, Beijing has offered the Taliban investments in energy and infrastructure projects, who in turn have never attacked Chinese infrastructure projects.

Read Full Article: National Interest

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

La débâcle en Afghanistan menace l’Asie centrale

(Le Globe France) – La Russie et la Chine ancrent leur partenariat stratégique en s’opposant conjointement à la primauté des États-Unis dans les affaires mondiales. Leur conviction mutuelle est que l’Asie centrale appartient à leurs sphères d’influence respectives. Le Pakistan, l’Iran et l’Inde ont leurs propres conceptions concurrentes en Afghanistan.

Mais ce sont les nations d’Asie centrale – Kazakhstan, Turkménistan, Ouzbékistan, Tadjikistan et Kirghizistan – qui pourraient détenir la clé de l’avenir de l’Afghanistan. En raison de leur proximité géographique, culturelle et économique, ces pays peuvent également s’attendre à être au centre du nouveau Grand Jeu entre la Chine, la Russie et l’Occident. Les États-Unis et l’Europe devraient élaborer une stratégie d’engagement moderne et flexible avec l’Asie centrale pour tenir les extrémistes à distance et garantir que leurs rivaux ne dominent pas le cœur critique de l’Eurasie.

Nursultan Nazarbayev s’exprimant lors de la réunion de l’Assemblée générale des Nations Unies sur l’extrémisme violent à New York, 2015
Le Kazakhstan doit constituer l’épine dorsale d’une telle stratégie.

Abritant le plus grand territoire, militaire et économique de la région, Nur-Sultan détient la clé pour toutes les puissances rivales cherchant à libérer le potentiel géoéconomique et géostratégique de l’Eurasie. Le premier président Noursoultan Nazarbaïev a lancé une stratégie de libéralisation du marché au début de l’indépendance en 1991. En 2020, le total des investissements étrangers directs du Kazakhstan s’élevait à 161 milliards de dollars, dont 30 milliards en provenance des États-Unis. Le Kazakhstan est classé par la Banque mondiale au 25e rang des 150 pays indexés où il est facile de faire des affaires. Cela est dû au fait que le Kazakhstan développe une économie post-industrielle basée sur les énergies renouvelables, l’agriculture à haute valeur ajoutée et les services, et que sa nouvelle classe managériale développe un secteur financier sophistiqué basé sur le Centre financier international d’Astana.

En raison de son enclavement, le Kazakhstan a mené une politique étrangère « multivectorielle » réussie à égale distance de la Chine, des États-Unis, de la Russie et de l’UE. Cette politique a été formulée par Nazarbayev dès les années 1990. À cette fin, le Kazakhstan cherche à participer à la fois à la BRI de la Chine et à l’Union économique eurasienne (EAEU) dominée par Moscou qui comprend l’Arménie, la Biélorussie, le Kazakhstan et le Kirghizistan.

La Russie, pour sa part, poursuit une politique étrangère d’irrédentisme vis-à-vis de ses anciennes républiques. Moscou maintient des intérêts de sécurité en Asie centrale avec des bases militaires au Kazakhstan, au Kirghizistan et au Tadjikistan. L’initiative impérialiste économique de la Ceinture de la Chine (BRI) se poursuit à un rythme soutenu. Et les USA ? Malgré sa stratégie de défense nationale de 2018, passant de la contre-insurrection à la concurrence des grandes puissances, Washington a perdu sa présence en Afghanistan et limite les investissements régionaux. Une stratégie de « business as usual » cédera d’importantes routes commerciales riches en ressources naturelles aux hégémons de l’Eurasie.

Read Full Article: Le Globe France

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Asia Business GCC Politics Security

Afghanistan debacle threatens central Asia

(Eureporter) – As the dust settles behind America’s hasty retreat from Afghanistan, the Taliban now controls the country. The Afghan National Army (ANA) has collapsed. Former president Ashraf Ghani has fled. In a strategic failure, few could have anticipated the speed and ease with which Taliban forces entered Kabul, and fewer still will be able to predict what the future hold for Afghanistan, the region, and the world. For Europe, the U.S., and the great and regional powers: China, Russia, Pakistan, Iran, India, – the implications of this shift are enormous: Afghanistan has always been a critical piece of the Eurasian geopolitical puzzle, and now enters a new era of the Great Game

Both Russia and China anchor their strategic partnership by jointly opposing the US’s primacy in global affairs. Their mutual belief is that Central Asia belong to their respective spheres of influence. Pakistan, Iran, and India have their own competing designs in Afghanistan.

But it is the nations of Central Asia – Kazakhstan, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Tajikistan, and Kyrgyzstan – that may hold the key to Afghanistan’s future. Due to their geographic, cultural, and economic proximity, these countries can also expect to be the focus of the new Great Game between China, Russia, and the West. The United States and Europe should craft a modern and flexible strategy of engagement with Central Asia to keep extremists at bay and ensure that their rivals do not dominate the critical heartland of Eurasia.

Kazakhstan must form the backbone of any such strategy.

Home to the region’s largest territory, military, and economy, Nur-Sultan holds the key for all rivalling powers seeking to unlock Eurasia’s geoeconomic and geostrategic potential. First President Nursultan Nazarbayev began a market liberalization strategy at the outset of independence in 1991. By 2020, Kazakhstan’s total foreign direct investment stood at $161 billion, with $30 billion coming from the US. Kazakhstan is ranked by the World Bank as 25 out of 150 indexed countries that is easy to do business. This is due to Kazakhstan developing a post-industrial economy based on renewable energy, high value-added agriculture, and services, and its new managerial class is developing a sophisticated financial sector based on Astana International Financial Centre.

Due to being landlocked, Kazakhstan has pursued a successful ‘multi-vector’ foreign policy that is equidistant towards China, US, Russia, and the EU. This policy was formulated by Nazarbayev as early as the 1990s. To this end, Kazakhstan seeks to participate in both China’s BRI and the Moscow dominated Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU) that includes Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan.

Russia, for its part, continues a foreign policy of irredentism vis-à-vis its former republics. Moscow maintains security interests in Central Asia with military bases in Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan and Tajikistan. China’s economic imperialist Belt Road Initiative (BRI) continues apace. And the US? Despite its 2018 National Defense Strategy shifting emphasis from counterinsurgency to great power competition, Washington has forfeited its presence in Afghanistan and limits regional investment. A ‘business as usual’ strategy will cede important trade routes rich in natural resources to Eurasia’s hegemons.

Read Full Article: Eureporter

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Afghanistan Asia Business GCC Politics Security

Afghanistan-Debakel bedroht Zentralasien

(Der Globus Deutschland) – Sowohl Russland als auch China verankern ihre strategische Partnerschaft, indem sie sich gemeinsam dem Vorrang der USA in globalen Angelegenheiten widersetzen. Ihre gemeinsame Überzeugung ist, dass Zentralasien zu ihrem jeweiligen Einflussbereich gehört. Pakistan, Iran und Indien haben ihre eigenen konkurrierenden Designs in Afghanistan.

Aber es sind die Nationen Zentralasiens – Kasachstan, Turkmenistan, Usbekistan, Tadschikistan und Kirgisistan – die möglicherweise den Schlüssel zur Zukunft Afghanistans in sich tragen. Aufgrund ihrer geografischen, kulturellen und wirtschaftlichen Nähe können diese Länder auch im Mittelpunkt des neuen Großen Spiels zwischen China, Russland und dem Westen stehen. Die Vereinigten Staaten und Europa sollten eine moderne und flexible Strategie für das Engagement in Zentralasien entwickeln, um Extremisten in Schach zu halten und sicherzustellen, dass ihre Rivalen das kritische Kernland Eurasiens nicht dominieren.

Kasachstan muss das Rückgrat einer solchen Strategie bilden.

Als Heimat des größten Territoriums, Militärs und der größten Wirtschaft der Region hält Nur-Sultan den Schlüssel für alle rivalisierenden Mächte, die das geoökonomische und geostrategische Potenzial Eurasiens erschließen wollen. Der erste Präsident Nursultan Nasarbajew begann zu Beginn der Unabhängigkeit 1991 eine Marktliberalisierungsstrategie. Bis 2020 beliefen sich die gesamten ausländischen Direktinvestitionen Kasachstans auf 161 Milliarden US-Dollar, 30 Milliarden US-Dollar kamen aus den USA. Kasachstan wird von der Weltbank als 25 von 150 indizierten Ländern eingestuft, die einfach Geschäfte machen. Dies ist darauf zurückzuführen, dass Kasachstan eine postindustrielle Wirtschaft entwickelt, die auf erneuerbaren Energien, hochwertiger Landwirtschaft und Dienstleistungen basiert, und seine neue Führungsklasse einen hoch entwickelten Finanzsektor entwickelt, der auf Astana International Financial Centre.

Da Kasachstan ein Binnenland ist, hat es eine erfolgreiche „Multi-Vektor“-Außenpolitik verfolgt, die gleich weit von China, den USA, Russland und der EU entfernt ist. Diese Politik wurde bereits in den 1990er Jahren von Nasarbajew formuliert. Zu diesem Zweck möchte Kasachstan sowohl an Chinas BRI als auch an der von Moskau dominierten Eurasischen Wirtschaftsunion (EAEU) teilnehmen, die Armenien, Weißrussland, Kasachstan und Kirgisistan umfasst.

Russland seinerseits führt gegenüber seinen ehemaligen Republiken eine Außenpolitik des Irredentismus fort. Moskau behält Sicherheitsinteressen in Zentralasien mit Militärstützpunkten in Kasachstan, Kirgisistan und Tadschikistan. Chinas wirtschaftsimperialistische Belt Road Initiative (BRI) geht weiter. Und die USA? Trotz seiner Nationale Verteidigungsstrategie 2018 Durch die Verlagerung des Schwerpunkts von der Aufstandsbekämpfung auf den Großmachtwettbewerb hat Washington seine Präsenz in Afghanistan eingebüßt und schränkt regionale Investitionen ein. Eine „Business-as-usual“-Strategie wird den Hegemonen Eurasiens wichtige Handelsrouten, die reich an natürlichen Ressourcen sind, abtreten.

Read Full Article: Der Globus Deutschland

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Afghanistan Asia Business GCC Politics Security

Afganistán: el Gran Juego, otra vez

(La Razón) – Mientras se moldea el polvo tras la precipitada retirada de Estados Unidos del territorio, los talibanes controlan ahora el país.

Mientras se moldea el polvo tras la precipitada retirada de Estados Unidos de Afganistán, los talibanes controlan ahora el país. El Ejército Nacional Afgano (ANA) se ha derrumbado. El ex presidente Ashraf Ghani ha huido. En un fracaso estratégico, pocos podrían haber previsto la rapidez y la facilidad con la que las fuerzas talibanes entraron en Kabul, y menos aún podrán predecir lo que depara el futuro para Afganistán, la región y el mundo. Para Europa, Estados Unidos y las grandes potencias regionales (China, Rusia, Pakistán, Irán, India), las implicaciones de este cambio son enormes. Afganistán siempre ha sido una pieza fundamental del rompecabezas geopolítico euroasiático, y ahora entra en una nueva era del Gran Juego.
Tanto Rusia como China afianzan su asociación estratégica oponiéndose conjuntamente a la primacía de Estados Unidos en los asuntos mundiales. Su creencia mutua es que Asia Central pertenece a sus respectivas esferas de influencia. Pakistán, Irán e India tienen sus propios designios competitivos en Afganistán.

Pero son las naciones de Asia Central -Kazajistán, Turkmenistán, Uzbekistán, Tayikistán y Kirguistán- las que pueden tener la clave del futuro de Afganistán. Debido a su proximidad geográfica, cultural y económica, estos países también pueden esperar ser el centro del nuevo Gran Juego entre China, Rusia y Occidente. Estados Unidos y Europa deben elaborar una estrategia moderna y flexible de compromiso con Asia Central para mantener a raya a los extremistas y garantizar que sus rivales no dominen el corazón crítico de Eurasia.

Kazajistán, columna vertebral de dicha estrategia. Hogar del mayor territorio, ejército y economía de la región, Nur-Sultan tiene la llave para todas las potencias rivales que buscan liberar el potencial geoeconómico y geoestratégico de Eurasia. El primer presidente, Nursultan Nazarbayev, inició una estrategia de liberalización del mercado al inicio de la independencia en 1991. En 2020, la inversión extranjera directa total de Kazajistán ascendía a 161.000 millones de dólares, de los cuales 30.000 millones procedían de Estados Unidos. El Banco Mundial sitúa a Kazajistán en el puesto 25 de los 150 países del índice de facilidad para hacer negocios. Esto se debe a que Kazajistán está desarrollando una economía postindustrial basada en las energías renovables, la agricultura de alto valor añadido y los servicios, y su nueva clase directiva está desarrollando un sofisticado sector financiero basado en el Centro Financiero Internacional de Astana.

Al no tener salida al mar, Kazajistán ha aplicado con éxito una política exterior “multivectorial” equidistante hacia China, Estados Unidos, Rusia y la UE. Esta política fue formulada por Nazarbayev ya en la década de los noventa. Para ello, Kazajistán pretende participar tanto en la BRI de China como en la Unión Económica Euroasiática (UEE), dominada por Moscú, que incluye a Armenia, Bielorrusia, Kazajistán y Kirguistán.

Read Full Article: La Razón

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Asia Business Economy GCC Politics

Joe Biden’s Middle East Strategy of Alienating Allies

(National Interest) – The United States’ hands-off approach towards Iran is directly contributing to the Iranian regime’s belief that it will not suffer any consequences for violating U.S. sanctions and advancing its destabilizing regional strategy.

At Vienna, the Biden administration is attempting to silo nuclear negotiations with Iran from escalating tensions between Iran and U.S. allies. To this end, the United States is treating the security concerns of its allies—Israel, UAE and Saudi Arabia as a separate parallel sphere from Iran’s nuclear ambitions and terrorist sponsorship. This has led the Biden administration to omit Iran from the State Department’s Annual Human Rights Report in March that listed the world’s human-rights violators. Similarly, the Biden administration has refrained from mentioning Iran’s involvement in the recent conflict between Israel and Hamas. Thus, the Biden administration is repeating the Obama administration’s approach towards the JCPOA that sought to compartmentalize Iran’s nuclear program from its sponsorship of regional instability. This appeasement towards Iran serves to embolden its strategy of regional destabilization while undermining the security of U.S. regional allies.

The Office for the Director of National Intelligence’s Annual Threat Assessment that was published on April 9, 2021, asserts that government officials  “expect that Iran will take risks that could escalate tensions and threaten U.S. and allied interests in the coming year.”  Iran’s maximalist strategy to heighten regional instability aims to leverage the United States to lift Iranian sanctions at the Vienna nuclear talks as a prerequisite for Tehran to resume compliance with the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).

This strategy has encouraged the Iranian regime to confront U.S. regional allies as was witnessed in the recent conflagration between Israel and Hamas.

Iran provides Hamas with the blueprint and technical capability for Hamas to manufacture rockets. Iranian military leaders recently praised Hamas’s strikes on Israel and pledged to continue arming and funding Hamas in its bid to destroy the Jewish state. To this end, Iran transfers finances, technological know-how to produce weapons to Hamas and Islamic Jihad. On May 15, 2021, Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps Commander Maj. Gen. Esmail Ghaani contacted Qatar-based Hamas leader Ismail Haniyeh and Islamic Jihad leader Ziyad al-Nakhalah. Ghaani expressed Iran’s support for Palestinian “resistance”. Similarly, Nasir al-Shammari, deputy leader of Hezbollah al-Nujaba in Iraq offered a willingness to transfer weapons to Hamas and participate in the fighting against Israel. Both Hamas’s Qassam Brigades and Islamic Jihad have noted the use of Iranian ordnance, including the Kornet ATGMs, Sejjil and Badr-3 missiles, in their bombardments of Israeli towns. Islamic Jihad leader Ziad al-Nakhala told the pro-Iran al-Mayadeen channel on Dec. 1, 2020, “All the conventional weapons reached Gaza via al-Hajj Qassem Soleimani, Hezbollah and Syria, and the entire resistance axis played a part in transporting them . . . There are training camps in Syria where our brothers in Hamas received special training to produce the rockets.”

Iranian defense minister Brig. Gen. Amir Hatami said Iran’s support for Hamas’s missile arsenal has created a “nightmare for the Zionists.” Thus, in the aftermath of the cessation of the recent conflict between Hamas and Israel, Fathi Hamad, a member of Hamas’s politburo, declared, “With the end of the Israeli regime’s latest aggression, the Palestinian resistance has resumed the process of rocket production.”

Read Full Article: National Interest

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Business Economy Joe Biden Politics USA

Fallout of Halting Weapons Sales to Saudi Arabia

(Defense News) – UK asserted that cluster bombs used in Saudi Arabia against Houthi rebels in Yemen were restricted to purely military targets, and that no civilians were targeted. Nonetheless, the outgoing Obama administration is halting a planned weapons sale of precision-guided munitions (PGMs) to Saudi Arabia due to its concerns over civilian casualties while paradoxically continuing to refuel Saudi-led coalition planes.

This is a reversal of the US Congress’s decision in November 2015, to sell smart bombs to Saudi Arabia to limit civilian casualties. Other sales included laser guided munitions such as Guided Bomb Unit (GBU 10) Paveway II, UAVs, JADAM and as well as air to ground precision guided missiles used on the American built Saudi F15 fleet.

For Saudi Arabia, avoiding collateral damage is central to effectively countering the Houthis. Brigadier General Ahmad Asiri, a spokesperson for Saudi Arabia’s Ministry of Defense expressed that Saudi Arabia’s strategy in Yemen is imitating the US-led coalition’s strategy in Mosul and Riqqa of avoiding civilian casualties by relying upon local intelligence while relying upon air power rather than ground troops. This however creates a problem as Yemen’s National Army intelligence that Saudi Arabia relies upon is poor. To avoid civilian casualties Saudi Arabia and the UAE are in need of a greater intelligence network on the ground. This requires Saudi Arabia to reverse its doctrine that relies heavily upon airpower and commit to greater ground troops.

Human Shields

It is not only Saudi Arabia’s usage of air power that has contributed to civilian casualties. Houthi rebels along with units loyal to Saleh have launched rockets and shells from residential areas and constituting human rights violations. On November 10 2016, General Al-Asiri asserted that Houthi militias held up 34 humanitarian aid ships carrying urgent medical assistance for over six months. The UN Security Council’s established Panel of Experts on Yemen reported to the UN Security Council that in the Taiz province, the Houthis had violated international humanitarian law by concealing fighters and equipment in or close to civilians in Al Mukha in the Taiz Governorate “with the deliberate aim of avoiding attack”. Houthi-Saleh forces in Aden and Taiz were documented attacking “medical facilities, schools and other civilian infrastructure, and using snipers positioned atop buildings to target people seeking safety, medical care or food.”

A Human Rights Watch report in January 2016, similarly accused Houthi forces of placing its armed fighters in a school for the blind in Sanaa, saying this placed vulnerable children “at grave risk”. Echoing this, Brigadier General Ahmed Asiri revealed that on Nov 9, 2016, Saudi Arabia killed 30 Al Qaeda operatives in the Eastern side of Al Mukalla where numerous Al Qaeda operatives had embedded themselves in the densely populated areas.

For this reason in 2014, when Saudi Arabia’s King Abdullah condemned the war in Gaza, he but did not criticize Israel’s military operations against Hamas’s usage of human shields. Israel has accused Iran’s proxy Hamas from storing and firing rockets from schools, hospitals and mosques in order to raise the prospects of collateral damage. Iran’s Al Quds force along with Hezbollah are training Houthi militias to conduct the same tactics in densely populated areas.

Military Assistance

In early 2016, the U.S. military significantly reduced the number of US military personnel coordinating with the Saudi-led coalition’s air campaign resulting in increased likelihood of the usage of cluster bombings which would increase civilian casualties. Such measures also provides Iran the initiative to increase its support to the Houthis with impunity.

Both the US and UK can assist Saudi Arabia to dramatically lower civilian casualties in Yemen by increasing its intelligence cooperation with Saudi Arabia combined with offering precision guided munitions and pilot training. Reversing Houthi advances and Iranian involvement in Yemen can only be achieved with increased UK and US involvement leading to a greater humanitarian outcome.

Read Full Article: Defense News

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Economy GCC Middle-East Politics Saudia Arabia

U.S Counter-Terrorism Strategy

(Janes Islamic Affairs Analyst) – Having extended its strategy to the broader Muslim community, the US government’s approach to counterterrorism has become inconsistent. Barak Seener examines the consequences of some of the US administration’s foreign and domestic policy decisions.

The current United States administration’s approach to counterterrorism has been inconsistent. On the one hand, following its domestic policy review in December 2009, the White House extended its Afghan strategy to the broader Muslim world in order to “intensify regional diplomacy to enable a political process to promote peace and stability”. However, this move coincided with an increased number of unmanned aerial vehicle (UAV) attacks against Al-Qaeda’s and its affiliates’ leadership in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen. President Barack Obama’s administration also ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan and reduced its armed forces in Iraq. The government engagement with the Middle East is marked by numerous strategies ranging from more frequent UAV attacks to increased intelligence sharing with states in the Middle East, and diplomatic engagement with Iran.

Moreover, the US government adopted a unique feature of engaging with local actors, despite the latter’s extremist Islamist ideology. This applies to the Taliban in Afghanistan, Hizbullah in Lebanon, and the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt.
The US, caught by surprise by the Arab Spring, found itself drawing spurious distinctions between political and terrorist wings of extremist organisations. This approach was aggravated by cuts in defence expenditure. As a result, policymakers preferred to politically co-opt rather than confront Islamist organisations. Co-opting Islamist organisations abroad has its roots in the flawed counter-narrative to domestic Islamism that the US and the United Kingdom propound.

Read Full Article: US CT Strategy

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Counter-Terrorism Egypt U.S

US Approach Towards the Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood

(ICT) – Presented at the International Institute for Counter-Terrorism (ICT) Twelfth World Summit on Counter-Terrorism, Herzliya, Israel 10-13 September 2012

Have there ever been examples of despots and autocrats being moderated by being incentivised to do so by the international community? Can you think of any? The tides of tyranny have never been reversed by financial incentives.

On the contrary this has merely emboldened them and hardened their insatiable desire to maximise power. The Obama administration is in the process of emboldening the Muslim Brotherhood by finalising a $1-billion bailout for the Muslim Brotherhood, almost a third of its total burden. The Obama administration is also working with the (IMF) to secure a $5-billion loan for the regime. On top of that, U.S. officials are in the process of creating multiple funds and programs worth almost $500 million to help U.S. and Egyptian businesses connected with the regime. This would be in addition to the regular “security” and “foreign aid” packages. The State Department is also preparing to lead a delegation of dozens of U.S. companies to encourage investment in Egypt. The Obama administration was offering almost $500 million in loans and guarantees to Egyptian businesses.

Note these measures are not being advanced with an independent secular civil society, but with the regime. As such, the Obama administration is repeating the mistaken approach of successive US administrations. That is conducting a top-down approach that empowered autocrats at the expense of investing in a secular liberal civil-society. The Muslim Brotherhood’s slogan is ‘Islam is the Answer.’ Thus the Muslim Brotherhood’s supreme leader, Muhammed Badi in Sept 2010 exhorted in a sermon that Muslims ‘need to understand that the improvement and change that the Muslim nation seeks can only be attained through jihad and sacrifice and by raising a jihadi generation that pursues death, just as the enemies pursue life.’ Well let’s see whether the Koran alone has the ability to raise the Muslim world out of social and economic stagnation. Turkey has already cheated by combining Mohammed with Adam Smith. So much for the Koran superseding everything including the state. However, the US is enabling Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood to cheat and not make ideological compromises by offering it freebies.

On the contrary, the US has stoked the fires of despotism in Egypt that has entailed alleviating the Muslim Brotherhood of the responsibility of fostering good governance and a coherent economic plan. Martin Kramer has expressed, ‘The Brotherhood has a so-called “Renaissance” plan for the overhaul of the Egyptian economy. I won’t pretend to judge its feasibility. Could modernization of tax collection double or triple tax revenues? Can Egypt double the number of arriving tourists, even while contemplating limits on alcohol and bikinis? Can a renovation of the Suez Canal raise transit revenues from $6 billion a year to $100 billion? Can Egypt’s economy surpass the economies of Turkey and Malaysia within seven years? These are all claims made at various times by the economic thinkers of the Muslim Brotherhood, who trumpet Egypt’s supposed potential for self-sufficiency.’ Plan B, Kramer outlines is a shakedown in what is termed as ‘Reparations’ from the West for its geo-strategic position. Martin Kramer was so right in his prescient assessment of the Muslim Brotherhood’s shakedown of the West which we already see in motion.

Read Full Article: ICT

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Conflict Counter-Terrorism Egypt Middle-East U.S

Beyond the bid The PA’s move towards statehood

(Janes Intelligence Review) – Although the Palestinian Authority’s application for full statehood to the UN General Assembly was celebrated vociferously in Gaza and the West Bank, little is expected to change. Barak Seener examines the strategy behind the bid and Israel’s reaction.
On 23 September, Palestinian Authority (PA) President Mahmoud Abbas for- mally presented the PA’s application for full statehood to the UN General Assembly. This bid, which was greeted by celebrations in Gaza and the West Bank, followed months of speculation about whether Abbas would make the bid and how it might be received.

Abbas’ move came despite last-ditch efforts by Israel and the United States to prevent the formal application, with the US warning that such action could serve to undermine the long-running peace process. However, with the bid now having entered a protracted evalua- tion process at the UN, the focus has shifted back to events on the ground. In particular, the 18 October release of Israeli Defence Forces (IDF) soldier Gilad Shalit – who had been held by Hamas since June 2006 – in exchange for Palestinian prisoners has drawn a clear line of comparison between the approaches of Hamas and Abbas’ Fatah, and raised questions about which may prove more effective.

Underlying these different approaches is the long-term disjunction in terms of perception of the aims of the various actors in the peace process. While the common understanding, and generally that of various Western interlocutors in the process, is that the conflict centres on territory and nationalism, this is only part of the issue. If it were simply about territory, the peace process might have been resolved decades ago. Instead, a complex web of ideology and identity, often even within the PA, continues to drive efforts at dialogue. It is these two separate cur- rents within the negotiating process that have led to the dual-track approaches of Hamas and Fatah, and which will dictate the evolution of the peace process.

Ideological backdrop

Despite the ongoing emphasis on the need for Israel and the PA to return to negotiations, the long history of such talks suggests that dialogue is less a means to resolve the conflict than a flawed attempt to manage it. At root, the aim of resolving the conflict founders on the incompatibility of issues of ideology and nationality, rather than territory, as illustrated by the long- standing issue of recognition. It had been a long time coming when Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu recognised a potential Palestinian state in a June 2009 speech at Bar-Ilan University. In recognising a two-state solution, Netanyahu opened himself up to vehement criticism from within his own Likud party, as well as his right-wing and religious coalition partners. Conversely, Abbas has said to the international community, “Do not order us to recognise a Jewish state.

We will not accept it.” Netanyahu must also contend with coalition partners, some of whom are religious nationalists who refer to the Jewish legal prohibition on ceding any territory of the land of Israel. The non-negotiable approach to the conflict is expressed in the Palestinian Liberation Organisation’s phased approach of 1974, which was to establish an “independent combatant national authority” over any territory that is “liberated” from Israeli rule through the “armed struggle” (seen by Israel and the international community as terrorism). (Article 2 of the constitution). Articles 4 and 8 respectively establish a sequence of destroying Israel using a Palestinian national territory as a springboard for operations leading the provocation to war that could attract the surrounding Arab states to attack Israel.

Negotiations have often contributed to the ongoing stalemate. The PA Minister for Jerusalem Affairs Feisal Husseini called the Oslo Accords, signed in 1993 and establishing a definitive framework for negotiation, a Trojan Horse. In an interview given to Egypt’s Al-Arabi newspaper in 2001, Husseini said: “Had the US and Israel not [thought], before Oslo, that all that was left of the Palestinian national movement and the Pan-Arab movement was a wooden horse called Arafat or the PLO, they would never have opened their fortified gates and let it inside their walls… The Oslo Accords were a Trojan Horse; the strategic goal is the liberation of Palestine from the [Jordan] river to the [Mediterranean] sea.” It is this approach that frames both Abbas’ decision to bid for Pales- tinian statehood and Hamas’ prisoner exchange agreement, although the two appear very differ- ent on the surface.

Read Full Article: JIR_Palestine

Barak Seener is the CEO of Strategic Intelligentia and a former Middle East Fellow at the Royal United Services Institute (RUSI). He is on Twitter at @BarakSeener.

Conflict Counter-Terrorism Israel Palestine