Egypt Update: Muslim Brotherhood Declared Terrorist Organization (And Doesn't Seem Happy About It)

Egypt's ruling government threw kerosene on an already-raging fire this past Wednesday when it declared the Muslim Brotherhood to be a terrorist organization.

The impetus for the latest act of one-upmanship in the ongoing power struggle -- a court already banned participation in the Brotherhood back in September -- was a deadly car bombing on Tuesday that left 16 dead and more than 100 wounded.  Immediately after the attack, government officials tied the Muslim Brotherhood to the attack and claimed the organization had shown its "ugly face as a terrorist organization shedding blood and messing with Egypt's security."  The Brotherhood, meanwhile, condemned the terrorist attack and denied any involvement.

Egyptians survey the destruction in the aftermath of Tuesday's deadly terrorist attack (NYT).

On Wednesday, the al Qaeda-linked group Ansar Beit al-Maqdis -- which has been responsible for two notable terrorist attacks in recent months -- claimed responsibility for Tuesday's car bombing.  This was not exactly a surprise, given that security analysts had already noted that Ansar was likely behind the attack.

With Ansar Beit al-Maqdis' claim of responsibility, the Egyptian government shifted its line of attack against the Muslim Brotherhood by claiming there are links between the Muslim Brotherhood and Ansar Beit al-Maqdis.  Without addressing Ansar Beit al-Maqdis' claim of responsibility, moreover, the Egyptian government labeled the Muslim Brotherhood a terrorist organization and again blamed it for the terrorist attack:

Deputy Prime Minister Hossam Eissa announced the move, which will give the authorities more power to crack down on the Brotherhood.

He said that those who belonged to the group, financed it or promoted its activities would face punishment.

The decision was in response to Tuesday's suicide bombing of a police headquarters in Mansoura, in the Nile Delta, which killed 16 people and wounded more than 100, he said.

"Egypt was horrified from north to south by the hideous crime committed by the Muslim Brotherhood group. . . . This was in context of dangerous escalation to violence against Egypt and Egyptians and a clear declaration by the Muslim Brotherhood group that it still knows nothing but violence. It's not possible for Egypt the state nor Egypt the people to submit to the Muslim Brotherhood terrorism."

Egypt would notify Arab countries who had signed a 1998 anti-terrorism treaty of the decision, he added.

(BBC).

Additionally, although the deputy prime minister did not specifically mention Ansar Beit al-Maqdis, other government officials stepped in to claim a link between the groups:

Ansar Bayt Al-Maqdis, an Al-Qaeda inspired group based in the Sinai Peninsula, claimed responsibility for the Mansoura bombing. However an Egyptian security official, speaking to Asharq Al-Awsat on condition of anonymity, affirmed that the Muslim Brotherhood had formed an alliance with the Al-Qaeda-linked Ansar Bayt Al-Maqdis and another group, the Al-Furqan Brigade.

To date, however, the Muslim Brotherhood has denounced the attacks and no evidence of any supposed alliance has been forthcoming.

The designation of the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization will likely lead to the closure of Brotherhood-affiliated organizations that "provide health care and other services to rural and urban areas that lack infrastructure."  Additionally, the government swiftly moved to act upon the new label this past Thursday, arresting people for membership in the group:

Sixteen of the arrests were in the Nile Delta province of Sharkiya. The state news agency said those held were accused of "promoting the ideology of the Muslim Brotherhood group, distributing its leaflets, and inciting violence against the army and police". Security sources gave a country-wide total of 38 arrests on terrorism charges.

From now on, anyone taking part in Brotherhood protests will be jailed for five years, Interior Ministry spokesman Hany Abdel Latif told state TV. Jail terms for those accused under the terror law stretch up to life imprisonment. "The sentence could be death for those who lead this organization," he said.

Unsurprisingly, the Muslim Brotherhood has denounced the government's actions, stating on Twitter that the move is a "worthless decision from an illegal gov't without any evidence and will not change anything in reality."  The move has also intensified Brotherhood-led protests against the current regime.

The government's action may well be an effort to bolster support before the constitutional referendum scheduled next month.  Whatever the outcome of the referendum, however, protests and clashes between the Brotherhood and the interim government will likely continue.  The reason is that the two groups, both of which participated in the 2011 protests that ousted Hosni Mubarak, do not view the other as legitimate.  The Muslim Brotherhood won the first democratic elections in post-Mubarak Egypt, but its ineffectual governance led to massive protests and regime change by way of a coup.  The anti-Brotherhood elements, meanwhile, have consistently struggled to adapt to a political system of voting in lieu of protests.  Their current move of designating the Brotherhood as a terrorist organization reflects a desire to marginalize, rather than successfully compete against, its only viable competitor on the Egyptian political scene.  If anything, however, the government's thinly-veiled pretense only makes its own rule appear more illegitimate.  Like the Brotherhood's Morsi, the current government is discovering that ruling the fractured country is much more difficult than gaining power.

Diplomatic Row: Indian Diplomat's Arrest and Treatment Spark Outrage

News is quickly spreading of a female Indian diplomat's arrest, subsequent treatment, and the ensuing diplomatic fallout.

The diplomat in question is Devyani Khobragade, who up until recently was India's Deputy Consulate General in New York for Political, Economic, Commercial, and Women's Affairs.  According to the criminal complaint, in November 2012, Khobragade hired an Indian woman as her maid and nanny.  The complaint further alleges that Khobragade and the maid entered into an agreement for the maid to receive approximately 30,000 rupees per month for her services.  The complaint then alleges that Khobragade lied on the visa application for the maid and had the maid lie about her anticipated salary -- all due to the fact that the 30,000 rupee/month salary would not comply with New York's minimum wage laws.

Fast forward to last week, when Khobragade was arrested as she was dropping her daughter off at school.  What happened next has sparked outrage in India.  In Khobragade's own words:

Although I must admit that I broke down many times as the indignities of repeated handcuffing, stripping and cavity searches, swabbing, in a holdup with common criminals and drug addicts were all being imposed upon me despite my incessant assertions of immunity, I got the strength to regain composure and remain dignified thinking that I must represent all of my colleagues and my country with confidence and pride.

(BBC).  After Khobragade's bail was set at $250,000 and posted, India announced it was transferring Khobragade to its UN mission, where she would be granted full diplomatic immunity.  In the meantime, the Indian government responded to the perceived slight by refusing to meet a U.S. congressional delegation and removing security barricades outside the U.S. embassy in New Delhi.  Those road barriers were apparently an extra safety barrier specifically for the U.S. embassy -- in other words, in the spirit of diplomacy, India was giving the U.S. embassy favorable treatment.  Protesters in India also burned posters of U.S. flags and President Obama during a demonstration in Bhopal, India.

Khobragade intends to challenge the arrest on the grounds of diplomatic immunity.  The Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, or "VCCR," establishes the grounds for immunity.  Specifically, Article 43 notes that "Consular officers and consular employees shall not be amenable to the jurisdiction of the judicial or administrative authorities of the receiving State in respect of acts performed in the exercise of consular functions."  Khobragade's alleged criminal activities appear to fall outside the scope of those official duties; accordingly, this defense may not carry much weight.

A closer call than the full consular immunity is whether Khobragade should be subject to arrest and detention pending trial.  Article 41(1) states: "Consular officers shall not be liable to arrest or detention pending trial, except in the case of a grave crime and pursuant to a decision by the competent judicial authority."  The treaty does not go on to define a "grave crime," which could lead to a claim that the crime itself was not sufficiently "grave" to warrant Khobragade's arrest and detention.

Meanwhile, the actual treatment itself -- aside from its political shortsightedness -- may violate the VCCR.  Article 40 states: "The receiving State shall treat consular officers with due respect and shall take all appropriate steps to prevent any attack on their person, freedom or dignity."  Article 41(3) notes: "If criminal proceedings are instituted against a consular officer, he must appear before the competent authorities. Nevertheless, the proceedings shall be conducted with the respect due to him by reason of his official position."

The U.S. Marshals Service ("USMS") confirmed that Khobragade's treatment -- which included a strip/cavity search -- followed "standard arrestee intake procedures."  USMS also confirmed that Khobragade was placed in "general population" in accordance with how prisoners are typically handled.  Even if such treatment conforms to "standard arrestee intake procedures," it is doubtful that it conforms to the language of the VCCR requiring states to "prevent any attack on [one's] person, freedom or dignity."

In short, U.S. officials may have treated Khobragade similar to any person accused of a crime.  In doing so, however, the U.S. likely violated its treaty obligation that mandates a different standard of treatment for foreign diplomats.  The consequences of violating that treaty obligation will be political, as opposed to legal (legal action for VCCR violations is possible in more egregious violations -- such as failure to notify a country that its citizen was arrested --  even though that is itself a hotly contested issue).  Such consequences are already starting to take place, such as the snub of the U.S. congressional delegation and the decision to lift barricades outside the U.S. embassy.  Those barricades, it will be remembered, were placed near the embassy as additional security to specifically benefit the U.S. embassy.  If the U.S. hopes to continue receiving such courtesies, it may have to learn how to handle the arrest of high-ranking foreign diplomats in a more...diplomatic manner.  Of course, what may really get the United States' attention is India placing a freeze on the import of duty-free alcohol for U.S. diplomatic staff.

Update 12/19/13, 11:41am: An excellent analysis of whether Khobragade could be granted retroactive immunity may be found here.

Ukraine Protests Grow, Government Wavers, World Begins to Take Notice

Evidence of a split within the Ukrainian populace has not felt so clear as it does during the current protests in quite a while. Even government officials are failing to keep a coherent front, with differing claims of a complete lean toward Russia and a continued lead toward Europe. Moreover, pro-government protesters are being bused in from the East and South, which may only lead to further societal divisions. No matter - the faux protests are no match for the 200,000 rallying of their own accord.

Meanwhile, under all the protests, what comes next is still a question. Foreign Policy points out the waning influence of Russia's geopolitical energy strategies. This has been a concern for several years now, as Russian oil production has begun to collapse and its natural gas strength challenged by the early development of an international market (led by new technological development out of the United States).

Russia has not really developed a mixed economy, so were its geopolitical arsenal to weaken, it could become increasingly unpredictable politically. Has Ukraine become a battleground? Well, there's little other reason for current United States Congressmen to be addressing Ukrainians in Kiev, is there?

Ukraine, Overlooked, Underreported

It's interesting to read about the ongoing protest movement in Ukraine and then examine the lack of coverage in the United States. Throughout the 2000s, color revolutions were widely praised and reported on. They were viewed as clear indicators that democratic progress could not be halted and was organic to populations throughout the world. However, the 2010s brought out the Arab Spring, which has led to a more convoluted environment in the Middle East than anyone can truly outline. Moreover, those color revolutions, in many senses, only half-panned out - democracy, where it was itching to flourish, has stagnated.

In case you were wondering, this is going on in Ukraine:

    (source: Sergei Chuzavkov/AP via Guardian)

What is that, you may be asking? Those are opposition protesters toppling and destroying a statue of Lenin that has stood since 1946, a la the famous toppling of the statue of Saddam Hussein (more photos via the previous link). Shortly thereafter, a European Union (EU) flag was raised where the statue had stood. These protesters are not yet at "revolution status," but they sure are making a point.

That point is that Ukraine is a deeply divided country, politically, linguistically, and, to an extent, culturally, though outsiders often ignore this. Though Ukraine is one nation-state, it is surprisingly evenly cut in half between East and West.

One part of Ukraine wishes to align itself with Russia, which is gradually building up its own outsider-EU political superstructure via the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO) and the more recent Customs Union of Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Russia. Both historically, and in present day, Russia has wielded extraordinary influence over landlocked regions of Eurasia. Russia has served as an outlet to both West and East, and as a protector of limited sovereignty to those who follow it.

Meanwhile, the other part of Ukraine wants to continue its ongoing, lengthy process with the European Union. Eventually, this groups wishes to break free from Russia's grasp and join the European Union outright. This would greatly extend the borders of the European Union and the extent that those borders parallel Russia's.

And that's where the trouble started. Ukraine's president, Viktor Yanukovych, who has kept his opponent from the previous election Yulia Tymoshenko languishing in jail on largely dubious grounds, and his government elected to halt discussions with the EU and instead lean toward Russia. Part of the wedge is the jailing of Tymoshenko, which Western nations feel is unjust and illegal. The rest is a nation still feeling its way out of the shadows of the USSR, all these years later.

Perhaps this won't be a color revolution, but a real revolution, unlike those seen since the 1990s. 100,000 protesters can't be a quiet voice. Then again, this could all the same tear the country in half, an effect that has been brewing for decades.

U.S. Role in Afghanistan Post-2014

In early October, prospects for a continued U.S. presence in Afghanistan post-2014 looked bleak.  If the U.S. and Afghanistan could not negotiate an agreement soon, the U.S. would have to begin arrangements for a complete withdrawal of troops by the end of 2014.  Hoping to salvage the situation, U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry traveled to Afghanistan.  In mid-October, Kerry and Afghan president Hamid Karzai negotiated the terms of a Bilateral Security Agreement (BSA) that would keep U.S. troops in Afghanistan post-2014.  The chief sticking point had been whether alleged crimes committed by U.S. soldiers would fall under U.S. or Afghan jurisdiction.  The BSA gave the U.S. jurisdiction over these alleged crimes, a term that Karzai had opposed.  When the BSA was signed, Karzai said that the decision regarding jurisdiction must be made not by him but, rather, by the loya jirga -- a council of approximately 3,000 Afghan elders.

Fast forward to last week.  First, just as the loya jirga convened, President Karzai developed a new position on the BSA -- indicating that it should not be signed until after Afghanistan's April 2014 presidential elections.    After four days of deliberations, the loya jirga responded by approving the BSA and recommending that Karzai promptly sign it.  Karzai refused, indicating that he would not sign it until after the April 2014 elections and after the U.S. brought peace: "Peace is our precondition.  America should bring us peace and then we will sign it."

U.S. National Security Adviser Susan Rice traveled to Afghanistan to speak with Karzai.  Karzai now has a fresh set of demands that were not part of the original BSA:

Karzai told Rice that he would sign only after the United States helps his government begin peace talks with the Taliban and agrees to release all 17 Afghan citizens being held in the Guantanamo Bay detention center in Cuba, according to Afghan and U.S. officials. 

In addition to those new demands, the Afghan leader reiterated that he will not sign if “another [U.S.] soldier steps foot into an Afghan home,” Karzai spokesman Aimal Faizi said. The United States has already promised to show “restraint” in “home entries” by U.S. troops and to carry them out only in conjunction with Afghan troops, but the tactic remains a part of U.S. operations against some insurgents here.

Rice responded by noting that if the BSA was not signed by the end of the year, the U.S. would have no choice but to prepare for the complete withdrawal of U.S. troops by the end of 2014.  The stakes were raised two days ago when, during a NATO strike against an insurgent, a two-year old was tragically killed and two women were injured.  The U.S. maintains that the strike targeted a mid-level Taliban commander traveling on a road, whereas Karzai and his administration maintain that the attack struck a residential home.  Both sides agree, however, that the civilians were killed during the attack.  Karzai noted that he would not sign the agreement if such "oppression" continued.

Putting aside Karzai's competing demands for the U.S. to provide peace and security while ensuring zero civilian casualties, the larger question is whether he will in fact sign the BSA by the end of the year.  Why, one might ask, can't the U.S. simply wait until April 2014 to find out whether Karzai will sign the BSA.  The answer, quite frankly, is that this is not feasible.  There are currently more than 86,000 NATO and affiliated troops in Afghanistan; 60,000 of these are American.  The logistics of transporting the troops; transporting, selling, or destroying the equipment; securing the bases; continuing to train Afghan forces; and myriad other issues, are simply staggering.  A succinct yet excellent account of the challenges posed by the logistics of the withdrawal from Afghanistan can be found here (the article, written in February 2013, anticipated that most troops would be withdrawn by the end of 2014).  In short, logistics alone -- setting politics aside for the moment -- dictate that the U.S. decide soon whether or not to withdraw troops.  While pundits may claim that the U.S. "should stay patient" and that waiting until after April to sign the BSA is acceptable, facts indicate otherwise.  If the U.S. is to keep troops in the country, for example, it cannot completely remove the infrastructure it currently has in place.

Of course, this post is simply reporting the situation with respect to ongoing negotiations as well as the pragmatic issue of logistical challenges.  Another question entirely is whether the benefits of a continued U.S. troop presence outweigh the costs in terms of lives lost (American, Afghan, and others), money, and anti-American sentiment.  That's a question we'll let you decide for yourselves.

Syrian peace talks scheduled, peace itself delayed

Amidst the surprising news from the Middle East this week was word that peace talks have been agreed upon by the two opposing sides in the Syrian civil war. Scheduled for late January in Geneva, this positive development is most certainly clouded by its more intricate details.

The first is the purported objective: transition. The opposition has consistently refused talks unless they included Syrian President Bashar al-Assad ceding power. Assad, meanwhile, has refused to cede power under any circumstances. In many ways, this is what the civil war has become all about. Although numerous reports mention that transitional government is a clear goal of the peace talks, it is curious whether both sides see that goal similarly. Assad's camp may view transition as inclusive of current government officials, while the opposition may believe it would completely exclude those currently in power. It would be unsurprising if this would become the main sticking point during the talks, if they actually take place that is.

The second is the question of who is capable of wholly leading the opposition, and, related, whether the opposition is cohesive enough to be led. More extremist groups, such as the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant (ISIL), continue to advance and take control of swathes of territory. Even less extremist groups do not accept the full authority of the political opposition, as clearly exemplified by this quote: Opposition political delegations do not have any power or influence on the Syrian street. On the whole, the Syrian National Council has foreign backing, but limited support within the opposition itself. At the same time, fighting continues in Syria, and its prevalence over the near future will be a testament to both cohesion and preparedness to peace. All of this makes one wonder: will the talks even take place?

There is little objective change in the civil war conditions of late. In fact, the United Nations seems to be spurring the peace talks based mostly on 'hope,' as opposed to more serious developments It is doubtful whether this is the best practice approach and leads to questions over whether the two opposing sides are even in agreement over what the purpose of the peace talks is. The world will know soon enough. In the meantime, it should hope.

From Albania to Norway, and everywhere in between

The saga of Syria's chemical weapons continues. It took ages to get Syria to admit to using banned weapons (though Syria never signed the ban) on its own population during the civil war. Now, with much work done, the question of how to dispose of and destroy the weapons remains unanswered.

It was originally thought that a neutral nation would allow the careful and systematic destruction of chemical weapons on its soil by a competent team of experts. Clearly, this assumption has proven naive. The NIMBY (not in my backyard) complex is extremely strong when it comes to sensitive topics such as chemical weapons. And with 1,300 tons of weapons to destroy, this is no simple or quick task.

Although a proponent of peaceful resolution in Syria and the destruction of the chemical weapons, Norway was first to say no. A flurry of other European nations have followed suit, including Germany, France, Albania, and, last but not least, Belgium. Neither Russia nor the U.S. are willing to do the dirty work (U.S. law, in fact, prohibits this). It seems, that no one may be willing.

Now, the weapons may be dismantled and destroyed at sea. This is a risky operation, though technically possible. It would involve significant precautions and security. More unsteady is the logistics of setting up this operation. Nonetheless, it may be the only option.

Sochi's Inevitable Conversation: Security

As each successive Olympic games approach, several threads dominate the conversation, and they largely stray from the athletics. The first is the overall cost of the games (as well as whether the return on that investment brings equal benefit to the host city and country). The second is the security of the games, and how much that security costs. This second conversation has seemingly been driving the first one over the last several Olympics.

Security has particularly been a sore point in recent games. The cost of security has been around or over $1 billion in Beijing in 2008, Vancouver in 2010, and London in 2012. Vancouver had initially budgeted under $200 million for the Olympics, while London budgeted around $500 million. None of those estimates were met and were in fact shattered when final tallies came in. In London, even with the massive security budget, actual security was inadequate, requiring the government to use military support. At over $50 billion, the Socihi Olympic games are projected to be the most expensive ever.. That figure may come with an asterisk though as up to $30 billion of that may have been stolen and diverted. Nonetheless, security can be expected to be a significant chunk of that budget, and that may not even include military operations meant to support the Sochi Olympics. Brazil is already working with Interpol to reinforce security for the 2016 Olympic games.

Sochi is an even more precarious position than previous hosts. Though the terrain is mountainous and challenging, Russia's most violent and unstable region is less than 400 miles away. Nonetheless, terrorist groups from Russia's Caucasus have struck across Russia in the past. Recent operations in the region are not winning any points with its oppressed populations. Russia has been waging a war in the region since the 1990's and it could be debated even earlier.

A recent suicide bombing of a bus in Volgograd illustrated that regional terrorists can strike well outside their home area of operations. Sochi, though it may feel a world way is very accessible. A new generation of suicide bombers, who, unlike previous Black Widows, lack the typical markings of loss and personal grievance, can be an even larger headache to identify for Russian authorities. It could just turn up that the connections of this particular suicide bomber have simply not yet been identified or are not as direct as in the past.

It seems that Russia recognizes the concern and the international stage. Planned security is extensive and makes any successful attack unlikely. There is little doubt though, that threats to Sochi are real. Will Russia thwart them? Will the anti-terrorism operations be successful? Most importantly, will Russia keep it all out of the public eye and leave the focus to its transformation of Sochi? Sochi is the culmination of Russia's about-face to the world. Failure is not an option.

Approaching High Noon in Sochi

Much controversy has been stirred over Russia's anti-gay law with the approaching 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi. The potential penalties and repercussions of Russia's new legal minefield are extensive. In a lot of senses, almost anything one does can get them arrested under these laws.

All of this makes what the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) did all the more impressive. On October 11, the USOC updated its non-discrimination policy to include sexual orientation. While the fact that the policy did not already have this statement is unfortunate, its impact could be broad. The International Olympic Committee (IOC) does not have such a clause but is investigating adding similar language to the IOC Charter. The USOC is pushing for this change.

Even Bode Miller has called the existing Russian laws embarrassing. This Bode Miller.

As can be imagined, such a policy would fly directly in the face of new Russian laws and would inject politics into the coming Olympics unlike any time in the recent past. A proposed boycott is unlikely as it produces little tangible result. Nonetheless, Sochi could be very interesting when it opens on February 7, 2014.

Disarming a nation's WMD: not as easy as first thought

Syria's "voluntary" acceptance to give up its chemical weapons arsenal in light of horrific video showing the effects of a gas attack on its own population is, by all means, an unprecedented solution. Even the United Nations admits to as much. It will take well into 2014, at best estimates, to complete the process; even though it is unclear how much WMD Syria even has. One major unknown is that both sides remain locked in a civil war, so there is a disarmament process within a country still at war. Giving up the chemical weapons is certainly a much brighter prospect than being ground zero for the next major international conflict, but in the end, does it solve the problems in Syria, or even help lead to their resolution?

Disarmament is a tricky process. Germany was, in many senses, disarmed between the world wars - that didn't end too well (World War II). The list of nations that have successfully dabbled (armed, not just researched), peaceably disarmed, and then integrated into  international community norms is short. You could make the case for South Africa, but its disarmament was tied to significant sanctions because of apartheid. It was apartheid's end that really brought South Africa within norms. You may say Libya; however, similar sanctions decimated the entire economy (and the energy industry in particular). In addition, Libya under Gaddafi still came toppling down years later. Three former Soviet states inherited WMD (Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Ukraine), but all returned them, having no ability to maintain them long-term and limited capacity to use them. Iraq? Well, that went south years later. No great example exists.

In many senses, Syria is a test case. What will be the effect on Assad's government? How will this affect the Syrian Civil War? What implications exist for the greater Middle East? These are all unknowns that rest on the progress of the chemical disarmament.

Previous Illexum Posts on Syria:

• Unthinkable? No. Unprecedented? No. Ignored. Yes. - Syria Today (September 5, 2013)
• UN good at counting; everything else - not so much (June 13, 2013)
• Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
• Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
• The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
• Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
• Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches? (August 2, 2012)

Counterterrorism Sunday

While the U.S. government is ostensibly shut down, its special forces engaged in two very aggressive counterterrorism operations this weekend.

First, in Libya, U.S. forces captured Anas al-Liby, an al Qaeda operative who has been on the FBI's Most Wanted Terrorists list since 2001 for his role in the 1998 embassy bombings in Kenya and Tanzania.  Specifically, he conducted surveillance in Nairobi, Kenya -- on the U.S. embassy and other potential targets -- in preparation for the ultimate attack on the U.S. embassy.  In 2000, al-Liby was indicted in the U.S. for his role in that bombing; the FBI offered a reward of up to $5 million for his capture.

Flash forward to this Saturday, when U.S. forces captured al-Liby in the early morning hours on the streets of Tripoli.  U.S. officials have stated that al-Liby is in a secure location and will ultimately face trial.  Some of the fallout has focused on the extent of Libyan knowledge or acceptance of the U.S. operation:

A senior American official said the Libyan government had been apprised of the operation and provided assistance, but it was unclear in what capacity. An assistant to the prime minister of the Libyan transitional government said the government had been unaware of any operation or of Abu Anas’s capture. Asked if American forces had ever conducted raids inside Libya or collaborated with Libyan forces, Mehmoud Abu Bahia, assistant to the defense minister, replied, “Absolutely not.”

Legally speaking -- with respect to international law, that is -- Libyan involvement matters.  If a host state grants permission for a foreign military action within its borders, there is no breach of its territorial sovereignty (scholarly articles discussing the connection between international law and military action with a host state's cooperation can be found here and here).  Of course, even if the Libyan government did permit and/or cooperate with the U.S. operation, the public denial would not be unprecedented.  Indeed, for years, Pakistan criticized U.S. drone strikes in that country; in 2011, however, its very public announcement regarding the CIA departing an air base implicitly acknowledged that the U.S. had been launching drone strikes from air bases inside Pakistan.  Thus, do not be surprised if time reveals Libyan knowledge and/or approval of the U.S. operation.

Second, in Somalia, a U.S. attack targeted the al Qaeda-affiliated al-Shabaab group.  Al-Shabaab, which controls substantial swaths of territory in Somalia, recently claimed responsibility for the terrorist attack and hostage-taking crisis at a Kenyan shopping mall.  Information continues to be released about that attack; indeed, just today, Kenyan officials released information about several of the militants.  Reports indicate that the U.S. operation this weekend was aborted early, and that the fate of the intended target remains unknown.

Ultimately, while the government shutdown and looming debt ceiling continue to dominate the news, the significance of these two attacks should not be underestimated.  Indeed, the capture of al-Liby on the streets of Tripoli may evoke comparisons to the now-infamous abduction of a terror suspect from the streets of Milan.  The chief difference, at least at this point, is that the U.S. intends to try al-Liby in court.  As far as what these attacks portend for U.S. foreign policy in northern Africa, it is far too early to tell.  If one were to ask whether this represents a "shift" to an African focus, I would simply reply: we've been there for awhile.

Meanwhile, in other nation-building news...

While the world remains focused on developments in the Syrian chemical weapon stockpile saga, the European Union unveiled an aid package of roughly $2.4 billion to the fragile Somali government -- dubbed a "new deal for Somalia."  The EU aid seeks to "sustain the gains made by the government and support the reconstruction of the country after two decades of civil war."  While the al Qaeda-linked al-Shabaab terrorist group still controls much of Somalia, key cities such as Mogadishu are in government control.  That government, which has been in power for one year, is buttressed by African Union and Ethiopian troops. Somali and affiliated forces have made important gains -- notably in port cities -- and the Somali president Hassan Mohamud hopes that the funds can prompt further progress:

For Mohamud, there were four key priorities among many -- security, legal reform, public finances and economic recovery. 

"The New Deal must deliver on the ground soon," he told delegates. After years of suffering, "expectations from our people are understandably high. We must not let them down."

As for U.S. involvement, much of it has been behind-the-scenes training of African Union troops.  Of course, there are also the untold number of covert drone strikes targeting al-Shabaab and other militants in Somalia.  The planned withdraw of Ethiopian troops from certain areas, meanwhile, raises fresh concerns about the African Union's ability to maintain Somali government control in large areas of land.

In short, while both sides are firmly entrenched and the civil war rages on, the Somali government currently has momentum; the EU aid package constitutes a large part of President Mohamud's efforts to maintain that momentum.  Stay tuned to see whether the coming months show any serious shifts in the country's balance of power.

Egypt Closing Tunnels to Gaza

The ouster of Egypt's Mohammed Morsi by military coup (or military action in support of popular democratic demand....) has led to an interesting and possibly volatile development in Gaza.

For the past six years, the Egypt-Gaza border crossing has ebbed and flowed from the border crossing blockade under Mubarak to a slightly freer flow of people under the interim military government and Morsi.  Even during Morsi's short-lived rule, however, the border crossing was limited.  For example, the Morsi government limited the border crossing to humanitarian efforts.

While the official border crossing has remained highly restrictive, the unofficial border crossing has thrived.  Specifically, a complex network of hundreds of tunnels connect Gaza to Egypt; these tunnels are the lifeblood of the Hamas-controlled territory's economy.  For example, fuel and building supplies (primarily steel, cement, and gravel) flow into Gaza through the tunnels.  Basic goods, such as flour, sugar, rice, and fish also enter Gaza primarily through the tunnels.  Of course, the human travel through the tunnels is also a simple way to skirt official attention.  Finally, of course, weapons flow through the tunnels.

Of course, all this has changed with Morsi's ouster (although, even during Morsi's rule, in February 2013 the military flooded numerous tunnels as a likely response to the use of those tunnels by militants fighting Egyptian forces in the Sinai).  First, the Egyptian military cracked down on tunnel traffic.  Now, by way of demolition and the potential establishment of a "buffer zone" no-man's land, Egypt may be closing off access to the tunnels for good.  While the weapons help support Hamas rule, it may in fact be the economic effects of the tunnels' closure that hurts Hamas the most.  Hamas taxes the goods flowing through the tunnels; these revenues constitute an estimated 40% of all government revenue and allow Hamas to keep 45,000 civil servants on the payroll.  The loss of these vital taxes could thus impede the ability of Hamas to secure support through the age-old political tactic: patronage.

Furthermore, the fuel and goods shortages have led to price spikes -- spikes that were, in fact, documented late in the Morsi regime, as that regime began the crackdown that has intensified in the wake of Morsi's ouster.  Whether the twofold revenue loss and price spikes will erode support for Hamas in Gaza, only time will tell.


Pictures from inside the tunnels:
http://content.time.com/time/photogallery/0,29307,1931308_1969736,00.html
http://www.wired.com/dangerroom/2009/01/pics-inside-the-2/

Unthinkable? No. Unprecedented? No. Ignored. Yes. - Syria Today

The disaster that is Syria continues to unfold and capture the world's attention. The United States, led by President Obama and Secretary of State John Kerry, have begun to use some of the harshest rhetoric of late in describing the calamity there in a bid to garner political support for military action against Syria. The trigger, late in coming, is the all-but certain use of chemical weapons. It is questionable whether the trigger may be too late.

Before touting the latest news, it is important to recognize that this chemical attack would be only the latest atrocity in a civil war that has dragged on and has been ignored. The Economist wrote an excellent piece on the disintegration of Syria as a nation-state and its impact on regional and international affairs back in February of 2013. For a conflict that has already lasted years, the question that certainly arises is: why now? what makes this so different?

Is this the unthinkable? No - there were chemical weapons atrocities throughout the twentieth century, and even during the Syrian Civil War reports as far back as early this year suggested chemical weapons use. In fact, a response in Syria would be the first of its kind, following the Chemical Weapons Convention (of which Syria is not a signatory).This latest attack was simply too public and too brazen to ignore is the line of thinking.

Is the scale of Syria Civil War unprecedented? This is certainly arguable. This is Homs this year:

                                          (Source: Daily Mail)

Meanwhile, this is Hama in 1982:

                                          (Source: Wikipedia)

Recent United Nations reports also point to an approximate two million refugees and massive camps in Jordan, Lebanon, and Turkey. An addition four million are internally displaced, though this gets much less news much like internally displaced persons get much fewer rights than refugees. While the scale in terms of the total population is much higher, the overall scale is not much different from the Democratic Republic of Congo civil war. This is an all-out war. Whoever wins, it will take decades to rebuild Syria.

What has happened, and what often happens in these situations, is that the entire conflict has largely been ignored from the foreign policy of Western nations. Countries and international institutions have noted their opinions, counted the dead, but not acted. The reality is that no one wants to repeat Iraq or Afghanistan. In fact, the US has likely eliminated any considerations of infantry use for the foreseeable future. It is unsurprising that a significant part of the US plan involves improving the Syrian resistance. In itself, this is problematic, with portions of the Syrian resistance being directly affiliates with al Qaeda. Meanwhile, Pentagon estimates suggest it would take 75,000 troops to control the ground in Syria.

None of this paints a pretty picture (nor is it meant to). Is action in Syria needed? Probably. Would it have been more useful months and months ago? Probably. The question now is most certainly - what kind of response will occur. Will it drive Assad out of power, or will it simply lead to a repeat of the two Gulf Wars?


Previous Illexum Posts on Syria:

• UN good at counting; everything else - not so much (June 13, 2013)
• Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)
• Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)
• The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)
• Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)
• Annan Resigns, Endgame Approaches? (August 2, 2012)

Unreliable Energy Focus: Liquefied Natural Gas & International Gas Markets

The first energy shock of the 21st century has most certainly been the Phoenix-like revitalization of United States energy production. An expected decline has morphed into an increase in production, turning the energy world on its heels. Previously, it was expected that the United States would not only continue to be dependent on foreign energy imports, but that those imports would increasingly dominate the economy and, to an extent, foreign policy. In fact, the turnaround has shown the United States is moving toward energy independence. Energy independence would allow one of the world's most powerful nations to operate with limited influence on foreign policy from countries who have hitherto sold it its energy.

More so, it may even allow it to undermine the resource-based economies of those nations. An aftershock is most certainly coming: liquefied natural gas (LNG). Unlike oil, which can be stored in barrels, put on vessels, and transported around the world easily, natural gas is not so portable. Natural gas pipelines are costly to maintain and can only traverse the land so far. Once the land ends, pipelines become even more difficult to develop and maintain. These limits to natural gas portability lead to closed markets and differences in gas prices around the world.

So far, most cost-effective method of transporting natural gas involves transforming it into a liquid, transporting it, and then regasifying it. In a nutshell, this is the LNG process. There are a limited number of LNG liquefaction and gasification plants in the world right now. However, an increasing number are being planned and built. In a sense, the glut in the market that is in the United States right now, has the very potential to undermine prices and energy market structures around the world. With a freer market, resource-intensive economies reliant on high-priced earth-based exports will have their influence on the foreign policy of other nations severely diminished.

Coup? What's a Coup?

...our month-long summer hibernation is over...

Coup: a sudden, violent, and illegal seizure of power from a government (Oxford Dictionary)

Coup: a change in government that is not in the nation's interest, when we decide that it's not, and not any sooner (United States government definition)

There is, of course, a formal definition likely somewhere buried in the government's glossary, but it's not quite relevant. It is clear in everyone's eyes that Egypt's change in government was a coup, whether or not the United States supported the change.

Since the overthrow, the United States has been on the "what do we do!?!" fence for what has seemed like an eternity. Formally labeling the change in government a coup leads to all sorts of ramifications, domestically and abroad. Namely, the US aid agreement with Egypt would likely be invalidated by the coup definition. This could complicate matters with the silent, but reciprocal aid given to Israel to avoid a perception of favoritism in the Middle East. Save for Afghanistan, Egypt and Israel are at the top of the list for United States military aid, and largely have been so since their 1979 peace treaty. At home, the government could be on the hook for the contracts that would terminate as a result of halting aid to Egypt - and the price is not cheap.

Quietly, over the past week, reports have leaked that aid to Egypt is not only under review, but may have already been suspended. Of course, this could be a technicality with a time lag - purchases already made for the fiscal year could be in the past and the looming cut so far in the future that it is still under discussion. Other funding tranches may simply not yet be due. Nonetheless, the positive side is sending a signal. The mess needs to be cleaned up and in an orderly fashion - not with civilians bleeding in the streets. Egypt may turn out, after all, to be a comparison against the change in regime in Iraq. What path is the one that leads toward a better future? Only time will tell.

News Roundup

...for those times when even a blog post can't be written...

• Cuba attempts to ship arms to North Korea, denies violating any international agreements: http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2013/jul/17/cuba-arms-north-korea-ship

• Barclays channels its inner Enron, is fined by US after attempting to manipulate energy markets: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2013/jul/17/us-energy-regulator-barclays-fine

• US and Russia agree that violence in Syria must end, arm opposing sides: http://finance.yahoo.com/news/us-russia-simultaneously-announce-intent-145729405.html

Egypt Mini-Update: Tacit US Support

It's no question that the United States was never a huge fan of Mohammed Morsi and his relationship to the Muslim Brotherhood. There was always an underlying fear within government policy circles and analysts alike that Morsi's rule was not aboveboard and was growing less and less democratic, both in the way it was conducted and the way it was founded. In a sense, it was felt that Morsi was given a chance, and then blew it.

It is surprising, however, that the United States may have bankrolled some anti-government organizations in Egypt. It almost seems as if the US is funding revolution by trial and error. However, it's important to note that this investigation has been sharply criticized. The channels of US funding have nearly always been a mystery.

More telling is the story of the F-16s. In 2012, the US agreed on donating F-16s to Egypt as part of an aid package. That's right - not a typo - donating and aid package and F-16s. Some in Congress sought to derail the delivery, but that attempt failed. And now, the US is ready to deliver the first of these fighter jets, amid a military coup, growing unrest, and another revolution. What could be more timely?

Egypt: Of Protests and Ultimatums

Slightly over a year ago, Muslim Brotherhood candidate Mohammed Morsi won Egypt's first post-revolution presidential election.  Almost 11 months ago, Morsi consolidated power with a power move that questioned whether his nascent rule would last.  5 months ago, regime opponents marched in the streets to express disappointment with Morsi's rule to date.

This past Sunday, protesters took to the streets once more to call for Morsi's resignation.  Seven individuals died protest-related clashes and violence, while scores more were wounded.  The Egyptian military then upped the ante yesterday by issuing Morsi a 48-hour ultimatum to get the situation under control; Morsi has thus far refused the military's demands.  An excellent take on the entire situation, from the streets of Cairo, can be found here.

Put succinctly, nobody is quite sure what Egypt will look like by the end of this week.  Whatever emerges out of Egypt, however, one thing is near-certain: this will be the year of missed opportunities and regrets, on all sides.  Morsi, for example, issued an edict in November 2012, shielding his decisions from court review until the passage of a new constitution -- a move many perceived as illegitimate and power-grabbing.  The opposition, in turn, walked out of the constitution-drafting assembly, only to next complain about the lack of their inclusion.  Soon thereafter, the opposition showed staggering ineptitude and indecisiveness, waiting until the week before the constitutional referendum to decide whether it would even participate in the referendum. The military has largely stayed on the sidelines -- that is, of course, until yesterday's ultimatum.  From Morsi's inability to grasp the scope of the populace's discontent to the opposition's ineffectual attempts at political process in general, the common thread throughout Egypt is misunderstanding and miscommunication.  One can only hope that these are growing pains, rather than a hint of descent into turmoil.

Recommended Reading: Airline Hijackings

Just came across this article (which is really an exerpt from a book) and wanted to share: http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2013/06/love-and-terror-in-the-golden-age-of-hijacking.

The article (and book) goes into detail about how the US worked to stem the wave of hijackings in the late 1960's and early 1970's. A fairly interesting read about how one problem was addressed in the beginning.

A Firm Stance by the Military

The army has a bit of a problem in relations between male and female soldiers. It isn't the US army, which has its own share of problems, it's the Australian army. And the line they've taken, from the top down, is very firm. If you haven't had a chance to watch this short address, it is recommended you do. Then imagine how a similar speech could play out in the US.

Pakistan's Quagmire an International Concern

Another day, another disquieting incident in Pakistan, home of possibly the world's most dangerous nuclear weapons program. Militants attacked a bus of students from a women's university, and then proceeded to attack the hospital where survivors were being treated. Although this attack garnered little attention outside of minor news blurbs, it included all the facets that Western nations are concerned about: homegrown terrorism, suicide bombers, a coordinated attack, and significant civilian casualties. Responsibility for the attack was claimed by Lashkar-e-Jhangvi, a group with links to al-Qaeda.

As with each attack, international concerns about the security of Pakistan's nuclear arsenal surface. Can Pakistan, a country with deep internal divisions, keep itself together? This attack, on the very fundamental elements of reform Pakistan has struggled with - women's rights - comes on the heels of and as a test to the newly elected government of Nawaz Sharif.

Sharif, a political mainstay of Pakistani politics (this is his third term), has a slew of election promises to uphold. While improving the economy will be quite a challenge on the heels of an accelerating US withdrawal from neighboring Afghanistan, ending drone strikes in a country that reels from the majority of American targets will be an even more daunting task. Pakistan has been the center of US operations and there is little evidence to suggest that even as the physical American presence on the ground decreases, the threat of the US military will as well.

Attacks like the one this past week are exactly why. A country with fundamentalist, militant opposition, an active military, and nuclear weapons, is a dangerous mix. And concerns nations far removed from the subcontinental neighborhood. It wouldn't be such bad idea if these stories made more than a dent in the international news blotter.

UN good at counting; everything else - not so much

A new report from the United Nations (UN) human rights commission indicates that the death toll of the Syrian Civil War stands at nearly 93,000 (Full report here). This is not the first time the UN has released a report on the Syrian death toll. The list only includes those whose names and locations of death are known, thereby all-but guaranteeing that the actual toll of the war is much higher. The UN seems to be great at compiling sources and counting reports of deaths. It is not unimaginable that a team of graduate students could likely do the job (and there are databases of civil war deaths and civilian deaths of wars - example here).

The biggest missing piece is action, or even a call to action. The UN was created to (emphasis ours):

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

That is Article 1, Section 1 of the United Nations Charter. That is the first thing that was considered - the basis of all else. It's spirit is not being upheld. That is not to say how many articles of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights are being outright ignored - to which, surprisingly, Syria voted in favor of.

In fact, the current UN report concludes most irreverently:

"Examining reported killings is an important step in understanding violence in Syria. But it is only a first step. Further analysis is necessary to answer substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict."

It seems to completely gloss over the fact that this is not a historical conflict where historical data is being examined - this is happening now - today. The next step is not to answer "substantive questions about patterns of violence during this conflict." The next step is to use this evidence to encourage a stand against the violence and bringing the conflict to an end.

Previous Illexum posts on Syria:

Foreign Arms in Syria (June 2, 2013)

Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)

To Do What Feels Necessary (May 4, 2013)

The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)

Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet (January 31, 2013)

Unreliable Energy Focus: Subsea Operations & the Dream of Flatness

This article is the first (of hopefully many) that will focus on the international energy sector. Without a consistent publication schedule, they will be titled, for the time being "Unreliable Energy Focus."

                                          (source: Bloomberg Businessweek)

Floating oil platforms, subject to weather and waves, are expensive and soon could be a thing of the past, if the energy industry is taken for its word in a recent article in Bloomberg Businessweek. In fact, the industry wants to put nearly all the technology currently on the ocean's surface on the sea floor, sans humans. Subsea operations would be entirely mechanical and largely automated.

While the image above may look like fantasy, putting machinery down on the abyssal plain, able to withstand the extreme pressure and temperatures, is already happening, though not on the scale desired by the energy industry. The energy (largely oil, some gas) is currently pumped up, albeit inefficiently, often miles to the surface where it is processed.

There are, nonetheless, a number of technical and environmental factors to be considered that are being overlooked by the business case. To start, the abyssal plain is flat and largely featureless, but it is not "tabletop flat" and it is not entirely lifeless. To put it gently, humanity knows very little about the abyssal plain, and even less so about the natural processes that occur there. Putting major machinery there could disrupt fragile chains that we know nothing about (not that we haven't done that before).

Additionally, without humans, what is the plan for maintenance, repair, and damage control? It seems that the whole system would be built on sensors and robots that could fail and produce far-reaching issues. Deepwater Horizon happened not so long ago and the long-term effects of that spill are still unknown. In a sense, is the system setup to handle a black swan event?

It was in 1961 that the first pressure control valves were places on the seafloor by Royal Dutch Shell. Even though technology moves ever faster, putting everything on the seafloor and moving to entirely subsea operations so quickly is unlikely - it has been a long and gradual process since 1961. Moreover, an evaluation of the potential environmental impact needs to be conducted. The short-term benefits should not trump long-term concerns. After addressing these issues, it may be time to move forward, but it would be a failure if we kid ourselves about this being easy.

Foreign Arms in Syria

As the civil war rages on in Syria, foreign countries continue to wade in the murky waters of arms deals to government and rebel forces.

Russia, for one, is providing advanced anti-aircraft missiles to Syria.  Despite initial reports that the missiles had already arrived, Russian sources indicated that the missiles -- part of a 2010 arms deal -- wouldn't arrive in Syria for months.  Those same sources said, however, that delivery could be expedited based on conditions on the ground in Syria or changing positions/activities of Western governments.

On Monday, meanwhile, the EU ended its arms embargo on Syria, opening the door for countries like Britain and France to arm the rebels.  Canada's foreign minister responded to the news negatively, claiming that more arms flowing into Syria will only cause further bloodshed.

To make matters even worse, news came out Friday that the developer of Russia's MiG fighters will ink a deal to ship at least 10 fighter jets to Syria.  While details are sketchy, one can only hope that such a deal does not come to pass.

In short, while there does not appear to be any move toward direct military intervention by foreign governments, all indications seem to point to a weapons influx in the near future.  This of course brings us back to the question: who are we arming?  According to numerous accounts, the most organized and effective faction of the Syrian rebels is Jabhat al-Nusra -- a group with ties to al-Qaeda in Iraq.  The U.S. State Department designated Jabhat al-Nusra as a terrorist organization in December 2012, and the UN just added the group to its sanctions blacklist.

Therefore, those states looking to arm the Syrian rebels have some issues to address:

-Providing arms to Jabhat al-Nusra would violate the UN sanctions.

-Providing arms to other Syrian groups would likely be less effective, not to mention the fact that the arms could well end up in the hands of Jabhat al-Nusra fighters.  Indeed, reports indicate that entire units of Free Syria Army soldiers have defected to Jabhat al-Nusra.

-Providing arms could provoke an arms race between Western powers and Russia to equip their respective sides.

-Providing arms could be the first step in the road to direct military intervention.

An arms escalation could further derail peace talks.  A U.S.-Russia conference planned for early June to discuss Syria, for example, will not be taking place in light of the recent arms developments.  With a weapons influx seemingly imminent, peace in Syria appears as elusive as ever.

Previous posts on Syria:

Can't Trust Anyone (in Syria) (May 19, 2013)

To Do What Feels Necessary (May 4, 2013)

The Chorus Grows Louder: Syria & WMD (April 28, 2013)

Raise Your Hand if You Saw Chemical Weapons (March 21, 2013)

Israel Bombs Syria, Everyone Stays Quiet (January 31, 2013)

Is Canadian Oil Dirty?

While vociferous debate has sprung up in the United States over the proposed Keystone XL pipeline, a different kind of debate is brewing, starting in the European Union. The big question being being asked in Brussels is whether fuel should be taxed based on the level of pollution it produces as a byproduct. Moreover, how severe should that penalty be?

Although the tar sands may hold 170bn barrels of oil, getting it out is tricky, complex, and messy. The operation in Canada's back country is already considered by many to be an ecological and environmental disaster of historic proportions:

Prominent scientists even warn that the impact of tar sands oil production on climate change could outstrip nearly all other known contributors.

The European Union is on the verge of classifying fuel that comes from Canada's wild tar sands as dirtier than other types, thereby making it more expensive over time. Canada is pleading with the EU and even going through intermediaries in the United Kingdom to water down the proposal or scrap it altogether, even though Canada currently exports no oil to Europe.  Canada has gone so far as to threaten to take its case to the WTO.

The fear is not of Europe itself, but a precedent-setting international domino effect. Canada, the country of great environmental beauty, may actually end up on the wrong side of the climate change debate. This could spell the end not only of Canada's resource-intensive economy, but also the economic driver that has held Canada high during the recently leaner economic times elsewhere. It is, in a sense, an existential crisis that Canada has drummed up, all on its own.

Cautious Optimism Amidst Elections and Violence in Pakistan

With former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif winning last week's elections, the future of the country remains unclear.

On the one hand, Sharif's succession to power will mark the rare democratic transfer of power in Pakistan.  Furthermore, Sharif ran a campaign promising economic revitalization in a country desperate for electricity and the resources to rebuild a struggling (possibly crumbling) economy.  Sharif's election also raises the specter of military détente and improved relations with India.

On the other hand, violent militant attacks continue to plague Pakistan.  On election day alone, more than 30 people were killed and more than 200 wounded by militant bombings and attacks.  Then, on the eve of a run-off election in her district, the vice president of the Tehreek-e-Insaf party (PTI, the party headed by former cricket player/celebrity Imran Khan), was murdered execution-style.  The idea of a major party's second-in-command being brutally murdered would be almost unfathomable in western democracies, yet it barely registers as a major news item.  The brazenness of such an attack on a party leader, moreover, may be a more ominous sign of Pakistan's stability than the scattered violence.

Incoming PM Sharif has a lot on his plate, yet one can only hope that a focus on economic revitalization will help promote stability in the country and the region at large.  Economic revitalization is not and should not be a separate issue from Indian relations; indeed, India appears ready to engage in cross-border transmission and pipeline projects that would go a long way toward easing Pakistan's crippling energy problems.  Given the large stakes, Mr. Sharif would do well to move swiftly.