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.