Winter 2014 by American Foreign Policy Magazine

american foreign policy Winter 2014

Volume XIII, Issue II

From the Editor-in-Chief

Staff Editor-in-Chief Joe Margolies ’15

Dear Readers, As 2013 transitioned into 2014, followers of American foreign policy were left to reflect on an eventful year. In the past year, the world saw a power transition in China, nuclear negotiations with Iran, and protracted fighting in Syria, to name just a few. In this first issue of 2014, American Foreign Policy writers, many of them new to the staff, have addressed some of the pressing topics of the past year, as well as issues that will only pique our interest more as the new year wears on.

Publisher Joanne Im ’15 Managing Editors Rahul Subramanian ’15 Jamal Maddox ’16 Suchi Mandavilli ’14 Patricio Elizondo ’16 Anirudh Dasarathy ’16

Our first article, by new staff writer Jacob Donnelly, discusses potential causes for reform in the United Nations Human Rights Council, a body that he contends cannot uphold human rights around the world when many of its own members are rampant abusers of the very values they are charged to uphold. Aneesh Rai, another new staff writer, writes about India’s healthcare system. Despite uneven distribution, those with access to good healthcare get some of the best medical attention in the world. He proposes the expansion of a model that can affordably increase the reach of quality care to India’s poor, and indeed to those–wealthy and not–in other countries. In our cover article, Molly Reiner points to growing unrest in China as a sign of deepening divisions within its population. She discusses the difficulty China will face in addressing these issues if it continues to resist serious party reform. Telecommunications surveillance by the NSA and other world powers has also led to division and calls for reform, and Roberta Mayerle gives an overview of the spying that has come to light in the months since Edward Snowden released classified information. She puts a global perspective on the issue, pointing out that few hands are clean, and that we must address the balance between security and privacy soon. Andrew Tynes discusses another part of the world trying to juggle security concerns and human rights. Although he makes a somewhat controversial argument, harshly regarding the actions of the Israeli government in its relations with Palestine, his conclusion bears consideration by Israeli and Palestinian sympathizers alike. Without successful negotiations soon, moderates on both sides may find themselves subjected to uncontainable extremist violence. Finally, writer Alan Hatfield delves into the political forces threatening instability in Pakistan, and advises the United States to keep a sharp eye if it wishes to maintain an effective political ally. As always, you can read more American Foreign Policy on our blog, located at www.afpprinceton.com/blog.

Suchi Mandavilli Monica Chon Zach Ogle Joseph Sung David Zhao Patricio Elizondo Ali Hayat Tucker Jones Alex Costin Alice Catanzaro Andrew Tynes

Mia Rifai Sam Watters Kathryn Moore Patricio Elizondo Aneesh Rai Daniel Elkind

All correspondence may be directed to: American Foreign Policy, 3611 Frist Center, Princeton, NJ 08544 afp@princeton.edu www.afpprinceton.com

Lara Norgaard Lizzie Buehler Marni Morse Roberta Mayerle Sharon You

’17 ’17 ’17 ’16 ’17

Editors-in-Chief Emeriti Taman Narayan ’13

Adam Safadi ’14

American Foreign Policy is a student-written, student-run publication based at Princeton University. It was founded in the wake of September 11th to provide Princeton students with a forum to discuss the difficult problems and choices facing the United States in the world. American Foreign Policy magazine is sponsored by the Woodrow Wilson School of Public and International Affairs, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, the Liechtenstein Institute on Self-Determination, and the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions.

This publication strives to use all Creative Commons licensed images. Please contact AFP if you feel any rights have been infringed.

’15 ’15 ’15 ’16 ’17 ’17

Copy Editors Joe Margolies ’15 Joanne Im ’15

Sincerely, Joe Margolies Editor-in-Chief

No part of this publication should be construed to promote any pending legislation or to support any candidate for office. The opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the Woodrow Wilson School, the Princeton Institute for International and Regional Studies, the James Madison Program, Princeton University, or American Foreign Policy. AFP gladly accepts letters to the editor, article proposals, and donations, which are fully tax-deductible.

’17 ’17 ’17 ’17 ’17 ’17 ’16 ’17 ’17 ’17

Layout

David Zhao ‘15 Production Manager

This is my last issue as editor-in-chief of AFP, and I could not be happier with the progress we have made this year. I am excited to see what happens in the coming months as our new staff begins their work producing and improving our magazine.

Editors ’14 Aneesh Rai ’15 Ankit Sarkar ’15 Daniel Elkind ’15 Filip Milovanovic ’15 Hannie Everett ’16 Josh Roberts ’16 Roberta Mayerle ’16 Samuel Matzner ’17 Sharon You ’17 Vidushi Sharma ’17

Blog Editor

Kayla Lawrence ’15 AFP Advisory Board

Wolfgang Danspeckgruber: Director, Liechtenstein Institute for Self-Determination Robert P. George: Director, James Madison Program G. John Ikenberry: Albert G. Milbank Professor of Politics and International Affairs Cecilia Rouse: Dean, Woodrow Wilson School

American Foreign Policy

AFP Cover Story

A merican F oreign P olicy Winter 2014 Volume XIII, Issue II

ta b l e o f co n t e n ts

4 6

8 9

Hub-and-Spoke Healthcare in India Reconciling Quality and Affordability Aneesh Rai ’17 Finding a Way Forward Explosive Unrest in China Molly Reiner ’17

AFP Quiz

Anirudh Dasarathy ’16

Global Update

Big Brother is Watching Security and Surveillance Roberta Mayerle ’16

Photo Credits: The Telegraph, CNN

A New Approach to Human Rights Alternatives to the Human Rights Council Jacob Donnelly ’17

Joe Margolies ’15

Lessons from Oslo Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks Andrew Tynes ’17

In Context

The Enemy of My Enemy Pakistan’s Internal Power Struggle Alan Hatfield ’15

Deal or No Deal Treaties and Tribulations Around the Globe Joe Margolies ’15

Joe Margolies ’15

Winter 2014

Cover Image by Joe Margolies ‘15

U.S. Foreign Policy

A New Approach to Human Rights Alternatives to the Human Rights Council

ll victims of human rights abuses should be able to look to the Human Rights Council as a forum and a springboard for action.” So says Ban Ki-moon the UN Secretary-General. Nonetheless, such credibility is difficult to muster. Quick, name 13 African nations to which you would entrust your life and liberties. Although it may seem like an absurd question, this is the number of seats allotted to African states on the United Nations Council on Human Rights (HRC). Unfortunately, only 11 countries on the continent were ranked as “free” in terms of basic human rights by the 2013 Freedom in the World Index. None were categorized as full democracies by The Economist Group’s 2012 Democracy Index. Moreover, despite the fact that Africa’s population is only approximately three times that of the United States’, its member states contribute 53 more votes to the United Nations than the U.S.’s single vote. Put another way, if the UN were made to be a direct democracy that kept this scheme, the opinion of the average African individual would count for roughly 17 times than that of a U.S. citizen. And, of course, the irony of unelected and authoritarian governments using UN democracy to their own advantage is tremendous. I use the example of African states not to make the claim that the U.S. should focus its efforts on consolidating its power within the United Nations. Rather, I propose that the HRC as it stands is a morally and strategically illegitimate body from which the U.S. should withdraw. I also make suggestions about the form that these alternative options could assume. Take the election of the UN Human Rights Council’s 2014-16 temporary members in November. China and Russia, despite their records of egregious human rights violations, received

Jacob Donnelly ‘17

a whopping 176 votes in a body of 192. According to Amnesty International USA, in China, “Harassment, surveillance, house arrest, and imprisonment of human rights defenders are on the rise, and censorship of the Internet and other media has grown. Repression of minority groups . . . continues. . . China remains the leading executioner in the world.” Likewise, in Russia’s North Caucasus “reports of enforced disappearances, the killings of civilians and torture remain commonplace. Related

“How can countries who are human rights violators themselves be trusted to safeguard human rights?” to this violence have been ongoing efforts to silence voices of dissent. . . . The exercise of justice continues to be selective and even arbitrary in many cases.” For such parties to be not only legitimate contenders for but the recipients of Human Rights Council seats casts light on the bankruptcy of the HRC as a moral institution. Other parties, too, were horribly misguided choices. Vietnam, according to United for Human Rights, has imprisoned at least 75,000 drug addicts without treatment in forced labor camps, where some have faced physical and sexual abuse. As a proportion of its population, this would be as if the U.S. imprisoned without due process the entire city of Buffalo, New York, forced its residents to work in prison-like conditions for no pay. Cuba continues to prohibit most emigration, a human right under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and press censorship is exceedingly common. Meanwhile, countries like Denmark, which

American Foreign Policy

has ranked first in the Gallup World Poll in the “happiest country” category and first in income equality in 2010, sit on the sidelines. When countries like Denmark are excluded while the Castros have their say in human rights policy, the process of rights enforcement is stripped of legitimacy and needs serious reform . Yet, on November 13, Remigiusz Henczel, current president of the HRC, told the General Assembly that the body had made “significant progress” in furthering its mission, declaring that “In 2013, the Council adopted a total of 107 resolutions, decisions and President’s statements.” Many of these resolutions, according to the UN website, are non-binding, such as urging African states to combat the stigma of albinism and condemning “the elimination of early and forced marriages, the question of the death penalty, as well as the role of freedom of opinion and women’s empowerment.” While these sentiments are admirable, for publishing statements to be the benchmark of success as violent situations unravel in Syria and the Central African Republic is unacceptable. It asks for the oftrepeated promise “never again” to be thrown into the international community’s face once again. Just as Rwanda served on the UN Security Council during the Rwandan Genocide in 1994, the Assad-allied Kremlin is now poised to take a seat on the Human Rights Council (to say nothing of Russia’s permanent seat on the Security Council). Don’t be fooled: history is not repeating itself in this case by coincidence. Rather, the simple fact that only a minority of the world’s countries are designated as “free” by Freedom House ensures that a cast of dubious characters will police the world’s human rights abuses. How can countries who are human rights violators themselves be trusted to safeguard human rights? Combine that with slots set aside for geographic regions that exceed the number of free countries in that region and you have a recipe for apathy and indifference towards the brutal and completely unnecessary suffering of millions around the world. Admittedly, it may be impossible for the HRC to be reformed under the UN’s mostly egalitarian voting proce-

U.S. Foreign Policy

The U.N. Human Rights Council includes nations notable for their failure to uphold the rights that the council strives to protect. Image Courtesy of The United Nations in Geneva.

dures, with the notable exception of the Security Council. Nevertheless, if China and Russia are, as one commentator memorably put it, like “Tony Soprano presiding over the Senate subcommittee on organized crime,” the Obama administration is playing the part of Rob Ford: in complete denial about the reality of the situation. In light of black site prisons and extensive drone strikes, no one is suggesting that the U.S. hasn’t engaged in questionable practices as well. To its credit, however, the U.S. could organize a group of nations that respect human rights, as determined by an external organization. These countries would agree upon standards for human rights intervention and maintain their own independent peacekeeping force that would act in the predetermined manner unless a two-thirds vote of the membership overruled intervention— something approximating a NATO for human rights. This process could apply in situations like those that have occured in Rwanda or Darfur. This last supermajority provision is necessary to insulate the process of protecting human rights from both the distortions of the vote-to-population ratio (the “one state, one vote” system currently in use in the UN) as well as from undue short-term political pressure. Additionally, membership would be revised annually, with one-year suspensions doled out to countries that no longer meet the external group’s standards for up to five years, at which point the country must re-apply at a later date for

membership. No more tenured professor Vladimir Putin at the University of Global Power when it comes to the most basic of rights. Moreover, the United States should also take a long-term, seed-planting approach and build upon the Bush administration’s success in implementing the President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR), which helped 240,000 infants between 2003 and 2009 to be born without AIDS. If the United States and other countries were to em-

“The United States made a grave mistake after 1991 by assuming that it was not engaged in a worldwide war of ideas.” bark upon similar non-violent “direct intervention” programs in the realms of education, hospitals, science, technology, violence prevention, and infrastructure, such countries would be more persuadable to later arguments of the value of U.S. ideals, including both skepticism of concentrated power and the need to work together to maintain a civil and orderly society. This project need not necessarily be large-scale; rather, starting off by working with select “model countries” in different locations around the globe could become a catalyst for change throughout entire regions.

Winter 2014

The United States made a grave mistake after 1991 by assuming that it was not engaged in a worldwide war of ideas. Although the Soviet Union is defunct, authoritarianism is thriving as well as ever, and liberal democracies would be wrong to assume that fullblown ideological adversaries (not just minor saber-rattlers and petty criminals) no longer exist within the United Nations . Quite simply, the war of ideas is not over. The U.S. should take such steps as opening trade with Iran, wooing the brightest students from the most unstable countries, offering technical expertise and modest financial support to f ledgling societies trying to develop infrastructure, and sometimes engaging in old-fashioned propaganda, as it tries to do in North Korea in conjunction with South Korean radio stations. The recent election of such unequivocally shameful choices as China, Russia, Vietnam, and Cuba to the United Nations Human Rights Council should pose a poignant reminder that there exist countries who look to use the human rights protection process as a way to reduce the cost of politics and doing business rather than concerning themselves with the lamentable waste of human potential that they propagate day in and day out. Afp Jacob may be reached at jacobd@princeton.edu

Asia

Indian surgeons in a modern hospital in Delhi. Image courtesy of Flickr.

Hub-and-Spoke Healthcare in India Reconciling Quality and Affordability

ut of India’s population of 1.237 billion, less than a tenth can afford quality healthcare in the event of an illness. In fact, according to some estimates, only 1% can. These figures seem to speak for themselves – India spends only 3.9% of its GDP on healthcare, of which nearly 60% is financed by ‘out of pocket’ personal expenditures, meaning the government spends less than 2% of GDP on providing and maintaining healthcare. In the United States, by comparison, more than 17.5% of GDP was spent on healthcare in 2011. Per capita expenditure on healthcare in India is $141 when adjusted for purchasing power, as compared to $8,608 in the United States. The number of Indian physicians per 10,000 people is a dismal 6, especially when compared to America’s number of 24. 72% of the rural Indian population has access to just one-third of the country’s available hospital beds (also bleakly below the world average of 30 per 10,000 population, though exact estimates vary), and many of those living in remote areas often have to travel more than five kilometers to access an in-patient facility. It is clear that the Indian healthcare system is far from exemplary, and there is much work to be done; reform is sorely needed. But what many people do not appreciate, or are not even aware of, is that the system has produced certain facilities that are not only world-class in quality, but above and beyond other countries’ facilities in terms of afford-

Aneesh Rai ‘17

ability. Take Dr. Devi Shetty, for example. Dr. Shetty is a heart-surgeon-turned-businessman who has founded a chain of 21 medical centers around India. His goal is to make heart surgery affordable and available to millions of Indians. He finds ways to trim costs that ultimately make a huge impact on the final price. For example, with measures like buying cheaper scrubs and shunning air-conditioning and other needless luxuries, he’s cut the cost of artery-clearing coronary bypass surgery to $1,583, half of what it was 20 years ago, and he intends to get the price down to $800 within a decade. The same procedure costs a staggering $106,385 at Ohio’s Cleveland Clinic, according to data from the U.S. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. According to Dr. Shetty, medical prices today are unreasonably inflated because of “opportunistic pricing” and are “the outcome of inefficiency”, as he stated in an interview in his office in Bangalore, where he started the NH hospitals in 2001. Indeed, his ethos of not charging a penny more than needed reflects an attitude shared by several top-notch Indian hospitals. Two years ago, Vijay Govindarajan of Dartmouth University, and Ravi Ramamurti of Northeastern University, started a project to understand how some Indian hospitals are able to provide world-class healthcare at extremely low costs. They identified more than 40 hospitals with innovative strategies, and selected nine for an in-depth study, includ-

American Foreign Policy

ing the Apollo Hospitals Group’s flagship in Hyderabad, the NH Institute of Cardiac Sciences in Bangalore (founded by Dr. Shetty), HCG Hospital in Ahmadabad, the Aravind Eye Hospital in Madurai, and several others. Four out of the nine focus on a single specialty, and the other five are multispecialty institutions. Seven of the exemplars operate as academic centers and integrate education and clinical research with health care delivery. Seven are for-profit and two, not-forprofit. All nine, however, have medical outcomes as good as or better than the average U.S. hospital, and healthcare provided at a fraction of the cost. And this is not because the hospitals provide low-quality services. Five of the hospitals are accredited by either Joint Commission International (JCI), the international arm of the Joint Commission—an independent nonprofit that certifies the quality of more than 20,000 health care organizations in the U.S.—or its Indian equivalent, the National Accreditation Board for Hospitals & Healthcare Providers, which uses standards similar to those of JCI. A sixth is seeking accreditation and a seventh has chosen not to do so for fear that the process could stifle experimentation and curtail innovation. The other two are not big enough to seek accreditation yet. The two authors identified three major practices that allowed these Indian hospitals to cut costs while still improving their quality of care. It is common knowledge that India’s hospitals are disproportionately located in cities and urban centers rather than villages and remote pockets. However, this system has been manipulated to optimize efficiency and care provided. Some Indian hospitals

create their ‘hubs’ in major metropolis areas, and open smaller centers and clinics in villages. These ‘spokes’ in rural areas then feed into the main hospitals, which save on costs by concentrating the most expensive equipment and expertise in the hubs. The hub-and-spoke design is facilitated through the use of technology — such as telemedicine, which enables the remote delivery of health care over the phone — allowing doctors in the hubs to effectively and efficiently serve patients seeking care at the spokes. Physicians can, for instance, read medical images remotely and discuss the findings with their patients. A hub-and-spoke architecture also helps create large volumes. By reducing the barriers to treatment, NH now carries out more open-heart surgeries and Aravind does more eye surgeries than any other hospitals in the world. In turn, this has increased physician productivity: At NH, each surgeon performs from 400 to 600 procedures a year, compared with 100 to 200 by U.S. surgeons. Similarly, Aravind doctors each perform from 1,000 to 1,400 eye surgeries a year, compared with an average of 400 by doctors in the United States. The shortage of doctors is a nation-wide issue with no signs of immediate improvement. Instead, hospitals have had to innovate and find ways to increase productivity. For example, some hospitals try to maximize the medical procedures performed by the available doctors. Routine tasks and simpler medical jobs are now transferred to nurse practitioners, nurses, and paramedic workers. For example, Aravind has trained village girls to become ophthalmic paramedics; they constitute 64% of Aravind’s workforce and perform tasks such as admitting patients, maintaining medical records, and assisting doctors. This leaves the complicated procedures to be handled primarily by doctors. This system allows doctors to be extremely productive – performing up to five or six surgeries an hour. The system also bolsters employment opportunities, and basically provides a win-win situation for everyone, especially patients. In the face of too many patients with too few doctors, and standing contrary in an age where many doctors seek to maximize the volume of procedures performed rather than patients treated, several Indian hospitals have developed a workaround system to marshal their resources to deliver maximum value for minimum cost. Surgical products are sterilized and safely reused, instead of being disposed of after a

Asia

single use, as is the norm in hospitals around the world. Local devices are often developed to substitute expensive, imported equipment. Some hospitals routinely reuse medical devices sold as single-use products—such as $160 steel clamps employed during beatingheart surgeries, which CARE Hospitals and NH sterilize and reuse 50 to 80 times. “If no hospital in the world throws away their needle holders, forceps, and scissors, which are drenched in blood after every operation, why throw out the clamps?” asks Dr. Shetty, NH’s founder and chairman. In addition, instead of a fee-for-service model for compensating doctors, which promotes an incentive to pile on needless tests

“The hub-and-spoke design is facilitated through the use of technology ... allowing doctors in the hubs to effectively and efficiently serve patients seeking care at the spokes.” and procedures and medications, doctors at Indian hospitals are paid fixed salaries. Other hospitals employ team-based compensation, which discourages doctors from recommending unnecessary tests or procedures. The vast benefits of this simultaneously economical and effective system are striking enough to attract overseas patients as well. These ‘medical tourists’ find that they can save vast amounts of money without compromising the quality of healthcare by flying to India to have their procedures performed. In 2009, Karlyn Zimbelman, a farmer’s wife from Conrad, Montana, found that she needed a hip replacement surgery that would cost $40,000 in the United States. Paying such a colossal amount would’ve been a financial death sentence for her family. Instead, she searched for alternatives, and eventually found that the same surgery, with travel and other costs added, would cost about $16,500 in New Delhi. What must be understood is that, although there is much that needs to be done with regard to Indian medical care, the solution, at its core, is already developed; it just needs to be expanded and applied across the

Winter 2014

country. India simply needs to capitalize on and develop the innovative healthcare system it has generated. At present, only 13,000 hospitals are estimated to have ‘adequate’ facilities, but in the world’s second most populous country, this is hardly a figure to brag about. There are other factors to consider as well. Making a population healthier does not consist of simply building more hospitals, but also entails mobilizing social change. India still bears 21% of the world’s global burden of disease, and millions of people die every year of causes that could have been prevented. Diseases like diarrhea, dengue, measles, typhoid and malaria often proliferate because of poor sanitary practices. And poor sanitary practices stem from a lack of basic medical education, which plagues a vast majority of the population. In addition, many Indians suffer from malnutrition, poor living conditions, a lack of safe drinking water, and limited access to preventive and curative health services, all of which are signs, symptoms, and perpetuating causes of poverty. To truly move to a better and healthier India, the nation will have to focus on programs to reduce poverty, and increase the availability of resources to the underprivileged. This will require actions from both the public and private sectors. The government must spend more on healthcare, and it needs to spend it effectively, so that the money finds its way into programs for the poor, and doesn’t end up lining the pockets of bureaucrats. The private sector too will play an important role – many startups have already taken the initiative in providing cheap medical care. Examples are Skanray, a startup out of Mysore that provides low-cost medical devices (primarily X-ray machines), and Sucre Blue, a nonprofit that employs diabetic women within communities and trains them to diagnose, screen and follow-up with patients at-risk for or diagnosed with the disease. Though the situation in India is far from exemplary, it is not without redemption. The very problems that afflict the healthcare system led to the creation of a microcosm of hospitals that strike a perfect balance between affordability and efficacy. The ideas and procedures applied by these hospitals to be replicated across the board, which will help not only India, but anyone in the world who faces the problem of finding affordable, quality healthcare. Afp Aneesh may be reached at aneeshr@princeton.edu

Asia

Finding a Way Forward Explosive Unrest in China Molly Reiner ’17

n late October and early November of last year, two attacks disrupted the façade of domestic tranquility in the People’s Republic of China. The car explosion that rocked Beijing’s Tiananmen Square on October 28 and the attack on a Communist Party building in China’s Shanxi Province on November 6 were both deadly, drawing world attention to the issue of growing unrest in the economic superpower. The attacks were reportedly carried out by two different factions of oppressed populations in the People’s Republic. General instability should set off alarm bells for both the Chinese government and the world at large, seeing as China has such an increasingly important role in the international community. Moreover, violent and deadly instability from more than one area of the Chinese population should precipitate real questions as to the effectiveness of Communist Party rule, as a general climate of unrest immediately threatens the basis of Communist Party power and, subsequently, long term stability in China. The Chinese government must seek answers to these questions before unrest overthrows its power. Exactly how unrelated were these two incidents? While one was motivated primarily by economic disparity, the other was a reaction to CCP oppression of ethnicities other than the dominant Han. Responsibility for the Tiananmen bombing was recently claimed by an Islamist group from Turkestan, China’s far northwestern Xinjiang Province, populated by a group of ethnic Turkic Muslims called Uighurs. Uighurs have been consistently denied freedom of religion by the Chinese government. Hajj journeys are limited, fasting on Ramadan is strictly regulated, and Imams are heavily supervised by the state in a province known for pushback against Communist Party authority. On the other hand, a 41-year-old man perpetrated the incident in Shanxi on his own. State-run news organization Xinhua claimed that the

man, Feng Zhijun, a native of the city of Taiyuan in which the bomb was detonated, was unspecific about his motivations for the attack, saying only he wished to exact “revenge on society.” However, one can deduce more direct causes: massive wealth discrepancies, for example, or the failure of the Communist Party to solve the poverty problems pervasive throughout the Chinese landscape. These bombings, separated by only a few days, shed a bright light on the unrest brewing among different sectors of the Chinese population. In fact, the large difference between the motivations behind

“...The motivations behind each attack [speak] for the... injustice felt by Chinese society under PRC rule.” each attack speaks for the broad spectrum of injustice felt by Chinese society under PRC rule. Economic stagnation is only one piece of the complicated puzzle that threatens the infrastructure of the Party’s iron grip on power. GDP growth has slowed significantly. In October, GDP reports showed growth of only 7.8% over the year, and this number calls for concern. Though the first three quarters of 2013 exhibited 7.7% growth, this year was the slowest of the past 23, signaling a massive economic deceleration that has consequences beyond the world markets. Within China, this slowdown means the wide income gap between city-dwellers and inhabitants of the countryside will be even more difficult to close than it was under the double-digit growth that caused the gap’s formation. For men like Feng Zhijun, such economic woes are cause for revolt.

American Foreign Policy

These economic problems are only just beginning to resurface in Chinese society. However, financial shortcomings have been a significant problem for the PRC government in recent memory. The 1989 Tiananmen Square protests and subsequent violent government-orchestrated massacre were spurred in large part by the lack of opportunity on the job market, as well as massive corruption and related inequality, problems that look very familiar to observers and members of Chinese society today. The demands of the 1989 protesters, who listed grievances similar to those of Feng Zhijun, should be even more concerning to the Communist rulers than the deteriorating state of the economy. They demanded democracy, an overhaul of the Chinese governmental system and uprooting of power obviously unacceptable to the Communist Party ruling apparatus. The eerie similarity between the economic problems of today and of 1989 should be frightening enough to elicit Party change from either the economic or political freedom end. The likelihood of significant changes in either of these areas of Chinese society, however, is slim. The most recent meeting of the CCP central ruling group, headed by new President Xi Jinping, resulted in a communiqué that only faintly smells of reform, advocating oxymoronically for both a loosening of government power on the markets alongside a strengthening of the CCP role in economic practices. With mention of greater market power, some may feel optimistic. However, these small concessions to a more capitalist-inclined economy are lost in the maintenance of a strong party line without any inclination that the government is willing to relinquish any significant amount of sway in economic issues. A Wall Street Journal article written by Bob Davis from November 12 describing the most recent CCP meeting paraphrases the contradicting policies, describing the state’s desire to “encourage, support and guide” the private sector, while at the same time reaffirming “the leading role of the state-owned economy.” In light of the increasingly severe economic problems facing Chinese society, how the Party will institute policies combining these two opposite ideologies is purposely unclear. It seems that Feng Zhijun’s demands, a voice out of many yelling in protest against CCP policies, will not be met by internal party reform alone. Unrest caused by economic problems

Asia

AFP Quiz Multiple Choice Monthly Anirudh Dasarathy ‘16 1. An “attempted coup” against President Salva Kiir escalated into conflict in which country last year? A. South Sudan B. Ethiopia C. Mali D. Tanzania

Tiananmen Square being evacuated after car explosion. Image courtesy of Mirror.

alone would be more than enough to fill the plate of the PRC government. However, government policy toward minority populations in China is another major source of protest throughout the PRC. CCP policies in Xinjiang are nothing short of shocking. One of many examples is a new movement entitled “Project Beauty,” which pushes

“China is engaged in a bit of naval brinksmanship with Japan...and is otherwise involved in foreign affairs... An internal uprising would greatly damage international legitimacy.” men and women to reject traditional Islamic garb, namely headscarves for women and beards for men. Officials will stop people on the street, interrogate them about their attire choices, and employ propaganda in order to elicit a change. A Uighur woman, quoted in the International Business Times on November 27th, stated that “the [propaganda] movie doesn’t change a lot of people’s minds.” Xinjiang province is not a stranger to violent clashes between Han Chinese and Uighur Muslims, and the spread of such violence to a place as central as Tiananmen Square will bring the already severe problem to an even more central position in CCP discourse. Additionally, support for such Islamist movements from

countries or small groups from places such as Turkey or even Pakistan, an historic ally of the People’s Republic, could prove dangerous for China’s foreign policy standing and legitimacy. It is increasingly obvious that internal unrest is brewing and growing stronger within Chinese society. Questions remain: how will the CCP deal with it? Will they be able to repress a revolt with impunity in the same manner as 1989? Now that China has taken a spot among world superpowers, internal issues are not the sole concern of the government. As we have recently seen, China is engaged in a bit of naval brinksmanship with Japan in the South China Sea over the disputed Diaoyu islands, and is otherwise involved in foreign affairs and global trade. An internal uprising would greatly damage international legitimacy. In the same vein, a brutal crackdown on protesters would have an equally damaging role to CCP power. It seems the only relatively viable option to resolve these domestic issues is Party reform, a goal that seems far away and impossible to achieve in light of recent leadership discussion. It remains to be seen to what extent discontent must reach in order to precipitate a government response, and furthermore, what specifically this response will entail. With America and the world dependending on a stable and growing Chinese economy, the answers to these questions are of undeniable import. Afp

Molly may be reached at mreiner@princeton.edu

Winter 2014

2. The ICC prosecutor pushed for the adjournment of the trial of which leader accused of organizing ethnic violence after his country’s 2007 election? A. Slobodan Milosevic B. Uhuru Kenyatta C. Sinafasi Makelo D. Joseph Kony 3. According to which report did MI6 turn a “blind eye” to the torture of Guantanamo Bay detainees? A. Claremont Report B. Jones Report C. Morgenthau Report D. Gibson Report 4. In which country did Prime Minister Nicolas Tiangaye say that presidential elections would be held in 2014 after significant violence? A. Rwanda B. Niger C. Central African Republic D. Georgia 5. The Prime Minister of what country voiced opposition in late 2013 to a drones project that could fly for 24hour bursts? A. United Kingdom B. France C. Germany D. Canada

Answers on page 17

A: Edward Snowden reveals that

a spy agency in CANADA illegally spied on airport travelers by accessing information exchanged through free wi-fi hotspots.

B: Unable to dissuade civilians

from taking the law into their own hands, law enforcement personnel in MEXICO integrate vigilante participants into task forces charged with removing drug cartels from the state of Michoacán.

G: Elections begin in EL SALVADOR, H: Voters in COSTA RICA take to seeing political clash over policies dealing with the country’s high rates of poverty and crime. The election is likely to end in a runoff due to strong independent candidates.

the polls to decide the preseidential race among four primary contenders, including a heavily left-wing candidate who, if elected, would be the first such president in Costa Rican history.

American Foreign Policy

C: Thousands of people in Ma-

drid, SPAIN protest a new law greatly restricting the right to abortion in the case of rape or risk to the mother’s health.

I: President Obama of the UNITED STATES pledges to listen to the telecommunications of “friends and allies” only when a compelling national security reason presents itself, and never for commercial reasons.

D: Two bombs go off in two weeks in E: Workers from Doctors With-

LEBANON, lengthening the string of out Borders evacuate hospitals in car bombings in Beirut and surrounding SOUTH SUDAN, citing a high poregions in recent months. tential for violence despite a ceasefire reached in January.

J: Over 80 pro-Morsi protesters ar-

rested last July in EGYPT are acquitted and released. Protestors included media workers such as journalists and cameramen.

F: LITHUANIA offers medical

treatment to any protesters injured during mass demonstrations against the government of Ukraine and its ties with Russia.

K: Members of the parliament of L: Protests erupt during a general TANZANIA controversially vote to award themselves $98,000 each from the national treasury upon completion of their terms.

Winter 2014

election in THAILAND, disrupting over 10% of polling places. Protesters claimed a need for reform before elections could continue fairly. Source:The BBC, The Guardian, The Economist

U.S. Foreign Policy

Big Brother is Watching Security and Surveillance

f you want to keep a secret, you must also hide it from yourself.” These words from George Orwell’s 1949 dystopia novel Nineteen Eighty-Four retain a startling timeliness in light of Edward Snowden’s recent revelations about the NSA. In an interview made before the former NSA contractor left Hong Kong for Russia, he claimed to be “just another guy”. Nonetheless, his leak of information has fundamentally changed American foreign policy, and has stirred an unprecedented debate on privacy. It all started on June 6th, 2013 when the British journalist Glenn Greenwald first published reports from Snowden in The Guardian revealing that the NSA had been collecting telephone records of millions of Verizon customers. Subsequent disclosures in the Washington Post, Der Spiegel, and Le Monde further galvanized public opinion around the world by unveiling the magnitude and scope of American surveillance machinery. Besides the telecommunications espionage, the National Security Agency, aided by large American corporations, had collected and stored information on millions of foreign citizens’ internet activity. The top-secret PRISM and XKeyStore programs enabled the NSA to access citizens’ phone conversations, browsing histories, internet searches, e-mails, and other online communications in real-time, rendering citizens all but transparent to intelligence organizations. Unsurprisingly, the disclosures of the NSA’s activities reflected poorly on America’s image abroad. Not only China frenzied as Snowden’s disclosures of American hacking activity in China came out. Inter-American relations were also progressively strained by a misfortunate strain of events. On July 3rd, a number of Western European states denied airspace to Bolivian president Evo Morales because of a suspicion that his plane was carrying Mr. Snowden on board. Calling it a clear “case of state terrorism”, Morales sharply condemned “North American imperialism”, accusing the US of pressurizing European governments into humiliating actions against his government. A wave of indignation reverberated

Roberta Mayerle ‘16 throughout Latin America as most governments in the region vented their outrage over the deviation of Morales’ plane. Argentinian president Cristina Fernández spoke of a “colonialism that we thought we had totally overcome”. Both Nicaragua and Venezuela reacted by offering Mr. Snowden asylum. He finally accepted the one-year asylum offered by Russia on August 1st after an interim of two months at Moscow’s airport. Russia’s move was denounced in the US as an extreme disappointment while much of the rest of the world sighed with relief. As more information came to light about the NSA’s cyber-espionage, more countries joined in condemning the American agency’s spying activities. The U.S. increasingly took a defensive position as information came out that 38 embassies in the U.S. had

“The justification for an enlarged surveillance program was made particularly easy for the NSA after 9/11. ” been targets of American cyber-espionage, including the those of Japan, Italy, France, and Greece, all close allies of the U.S. French president François Hollande spearheaded demands that the U.S. “immediately stop” the spying activities, and Brazilian president Dilma Rousseff cancelled a visit to Washington in protest of spying on Brazilian citizens and industries. A number of opposition parties in various European countries have demanded asylum for Snowden in their respective countries; one of the few issues on which the French nationalist party FN and the German Green Party had a common stance. Disappointment was particularly deep in Germany after further disclosures of secret documents in Der Spiegel ignited monthslong deliberations in the parliament and the social media. “Breach of trust” became

American Foreign Policy

a popular phrase. The feelings of betrayal are understandable. A feeling of disenchantment now hangs over the “medal of freedom” chancellor Angela Merkel handed Barack in 2011 and even James Taylor’s exclusive performance of “You’ve got a friend” at a state dinner with Merkel in the White House. The unfolding of events did not help either, giving German-American relations an almost comical taste. Soon after the first publications on the NSA, Obama tried to soothe the Europeans by announcing that, if he wanted to know what was going on in Europe, he would just pick up the phone and call Angela Merkel, taking pains to make the point that no NSA action could drive a wedge between the two “partners”. Just a few days later, information leaked that the NSA was tapping Angela Merkel’s personal phone. Though there was much talk of whether Obama actually knew about the tap, it only reinforced German resentment. As it further turned out, Germany is one of the most closely watched countries by the NSA. It thus comes with little surprise that a survey conducted by the public broadcaster ARD and the newspaper Die Welt found that only 35% of Germans considered the US to be a trustworthy partner anymore – a sharp contrast with the 75% backing of Barack Obama in 2012. Hans-Christian Ströbele, a member of the Green opposition party in the German parliament has been particularly forthcoming in assailing the NSA for its spying activities. Making his point that “We Germans owe Mr. Snowden thanks and appreciation”, he has also been advocating that Snowden testify in front of the German parliament – after meeting with him personally in Russia. Many Germans concur with him. As it turns out, according to a recent survey no less than 60% see Snowden as a hero. Despite myriad demands for apologies, the US firmly defended its contentious intelligence-gathering programs for months. Popular NSA director General Keith Alexander affirmed that it was only thanks to these programs that 54 terrorist attacks around the world have been thwarted. “We save lives with data” has been his most appealing argument against the allegations that the NSA has been going too far. At the same time, several senators voiced their concern about Snowden’s betrayal, claiming that information leakage plays into the hands of Al Qaeda and other enemies. While criticism of the U.S. has mounted with Snowden’s revelations, former director of the NSA Michael Hayden has remained steadfast in insistence

U.S. Foreign Policy

Protests have erupted in the U.S. and Europe over NSA surveillance. Here protestors picket outside telecommunications giant AT&T, which fed data to the NSA. Image courtesy of Flickr.

that “every nation acts in its own interest” and that “they are all doing it”. While public outrage in many countries around the world has left leaders with little choice other than to censure the spying activities of the NSA, it is indeed not difficult to qualify their criticism as oblivious of their own spying activities, if not outright hypocritical. Spying, disguising, and deceiving are certainly not exclusively American traits. In the 1990s France made headlines for bugging seats on Air France planes with the intention of eavesdropping on business leaders from the U.S.. Germany’s hands, too, are far from clean. The country gave the NSA particular access to a wide range of information about its citizens that even its own intelligence service is not allowed to touch. The European “Safe Harbor Agreement” of 2000 explicitly grants American technology companies the right to compile data about their European clients’ internet activity. When members of the European parliament or the European Commission–most notably the Justice minister Viviane Reding– condemn the NSA, the public is left wondering why such an agreement could possibly have been signed without much public attention in the first place. The argument for security is a strong one. In view of the cyber-war as “the way wars will be fought tomorrow”, countries need to stay ahead of the competition whenever possible to forestall any possible attacks. Events

like the 2007 cyber-attack on the government, banks, and hospitals of Estonia draw a bleak picture of the future. The justification for an enlarged surveillance program was made particularly easy for the NSA after 9/11. Since then, the American security apparatus has been trying to compensate for its failures. The “war on terror” and fear and anxiety about an “Islamist threat” have made American public opinion on security and defense particularly malleable. It has also allowed the NSA to pursue its goal to “dramatically increase mastery of the global network”, as a leaked secret report of the agency’s mission for 2012-2016 states. But the question that is not being asked is whether all the sacrifices made for the protection of this “security” are really worth it. The diplomatic games being played as a result of Snowden’s unraveling may be found to be phony, and Snowden’s disclosures may certainly be damaging for America’s reputation abroad. His very settling in Russia, a country certainly more oppressive in terms of freedom of expression than the United States, is quite ironic. These issues, though have only been diverting attention from the true issue at stake. The question is not whether Snowden is a hero or a traitor, or whether his actions were legal or illegal. Instead, the question is whether we, the citizens, want our governments to collect this massive amount of information about

Winter 2014

us or not. With the telephone program, the NSA is able to collect information not only about overseas citizens, but about every single call made in the U.S.. You might argue that citizens who do no wrong have nothing to fear, but consider this: if the government has the ability to find out anything at any time, why would it not use the information in its own interest? It could restrain the free flow of information in the media to shut down any critical voice. It could even resort to controlling public opinion when a new law is being passed, or prevent labor unions from protesting. Do we want a police state disguised as a democracy? What kind of democracy is this in which the executive has complete power over the legislative branch? Montesquieu would certainly turn in his grave. Snowden’s true merit is as a wake-up call for the public all over the world. It is easy to condemn other countries for spying activities without looking at our own graveyard. Awareness of what our governments and intelligence services are doing is the first step; controlling what they are able to do is the next. Do we really want Big Brother watching us? It is in our hands. Afp. Roberta may be reached at rmayerle@princeton.edu

Middle East

Lessons from Oslo Israeli-Palestinian Peace Talks

n September, the world marked the 20th anniversary of the Oslo Accords, the most recent significant attempt at lasting peace between the Israelis and the Palestinians. As we note the occasion and Secretary of State Kerry urges further negotiations to accommodate strained relations, the international community must use both past lessons and emerging issues to reach conclusions about the present and ever worsening conditions of the region. Oslo was, by all accounts, a failure. The Accords, signed in 1993, established a framework by which the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) would renounce violence and recognize the state of Israel’s right to exist, and in return, the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) would withdraw from the Gaza Strip and West Bank and would permit a system of self-government that came to fruition as the Palestinian Authority. The two parties would reconvene no later than May 1996 to agree on the most divisive tangible conditions of peace, namely Israeli settlement in the Palestinian territories, the status of Jerusalem, and general security concerns. By May of 2000, however, a survey by Tel Aviv University found that only 32% of Israelis believed

Andrew Tynes ‘17 that the agreement would lead to lasting peace, a number that dropped to an unfortunate 18% by 2004. In September of 2000, the Al-Aqsa Intifada would begin in response to perceived Israeli aggression and the shortcomings of reality would come to take the lives of over 5000 people and push the possibilities of lasting peace even further back. Israel would do well to heed the warnings of past and present and accept peace before driving Palestine to more desperate and less diplomatic outlets. The frustrations of lacking final status negotiations have both the misfortune of time and absence of foresight to blame. To the chagrin of Israel’s far right, Prime Minister Yitzhak Rabin, President Shimon Peres, and PLO Chairman Yasser Arafat received the Nobel Peace Prize in 1994 for their work on the Oslo Accords, which presented a foundation for the first regional peace since the era of the British Mandate. Rabin was assassinated in 1995 by an Israeli extremist, leading Peres to call for elections in the following year to provide a mandate for Rabin’s central initiative: the peace process. Peres led by huge margins in the months leading to the election, but suicide bombings organized by

The West Bank Barrier has become a canvas upon which dissenters paint images of protest against Israeli expansion. Image courtesy of Flickr.

American Foreign Policy

Hamas in Jerusalem and mobilization of the Orthodox Jewish community led to a slim victory for conservative Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. Netanyahu was highly skeptical of the provisions in the Oslo Accords, responding in 2001 to cynicism that he would follow through with the promises of his predecessors that, “I’m going to interpret the accords in such a way that would allow me to put an end to this galloping forward to the ‘67 borders. How did we do it? Nobody said what defined military zones were. Defined military zones are security zones; as far as I’m concerned, the entire Jordan Valley is a defined military zone. Go argue.” Although Netanyahu was ousted in the 1999 elections after a string of corruption scandals, the timing of his presence in Israeli politics and his hawkish attitudes led to a significant and intentional slowdown in peace talks, arguably beyond salvaging. The most realistic path to peace is one that would end the expansion of Israeli settlements and the West Bank Barrier, bitterly referred to by some Palestinian and peace advocates as the “Apartheid Wall.” Whereas settlement expansion and continued construction of the barrier has given cause for urgency on the part of the Palestinians, the Israeli government feels no such immediate and pressing concern. Particularly with Prime Minister Netanyahu as head of government once again, the power elite in Israel have only to gain from postponing and triangulating during peace talks in order to buy themselves more time for expansion and exploitation, merely to cry foul when Palestine turns to the international community. By completion, the security crossing is expected to bring 8.5% of modern West Bank territory to the Israeli side, violating the 1967 border. Both the International Court of Justice and the UN have expressed that the Barrier and Israeli settlements are abuses of international law, but Israel faces few if any consequences from these bodies with the overpowering presence of the United States, an ardent defender of Israel, on the world stage. As of last year, over 600,000 Israelis have migrated to East Jerusalem and the West Bank, with increasing rates that did not fall or even plateau in the mid-1990s while awaiting the final status agreements promised by Oslo. If these violations go unchallenged, there is little incentive for Israeli negotiators to come to final status agreements or for Palestine to put any faith in a system of negotiations encouraged by the United States or other third parties. Settlements are of greater cause for concern than would immediately seem apparent, as a source of both stalled peace talks and strangulation of the Palestinian economy. Once Israelis fill the territory set aside by the IDF, they engage in violence and property destruction against their

Palestinian neighbors upwards of 300 times every year. Hundreds of assaults have taken place across the West Bank just in the past few years, with severity and frequency increasing exponentially each year to the dismay of peace proponents, moderates, and religious leaders. Over the course of settlement expansion, 33 times the area of Central Park in olive tree fields has been burnt, cut, poisoned, or otherwise rendered useless. Olive harvest is a significant industry in the West Bank, and a combination of settler aggression and separation due to the West Bank Barrier has affected 80,000 families in the area. Although the Israeli government claims to denounce these acts of violence, theft, and destruction, the IDF and security forces make little to no effort to investigate the vast majority of complaints filed by Palestinians. To the dismay of both Palestinians and moderate Israelis, these atrocities have often forced an escalation of violence for both parties. Ironically, the risks of postponing a two-state solution and peaceful resolution to the conflict are greatest for the Israelis. The difficulties imposed by the settlers create feelings of resentment, and high youth unemployment exacerbated by property damage leads to violent backlash and support for fundamentalist organizations like Hamas. We have witnessed this just in the past few years with the Arab Spring, and more extreme solutions are increasingly likely if future Israeli governments remain intransigent. A Third Intifada is not an outcome that anyone but weapons manufacturers and radicals desire. From a strategic perspective, domestic demographic shifts, populist libertarian streaks, and increased international pressure may culminate in a cutback or withdrawal of U.S. support for Israel, giving the state significantly less leverage than it maintains at the present. As time has elapsed, lack of progress in reaching a two-state solution has led to renewed interest of a bi-national state that threatens the Jewish identity of the state of Israel to the distress of conservatives. The Palestinians are quickly approaching a point at which they have little to lose and the opportunity cost for violent retaliation to the IDF is too low to justify the negotiating table. Oslo taught us the importance of reaching immediate final status terms and the consequences of delaying an end to the occupation. While Israel gains in the short term through resource deprivation and settlement expansion, they plant the seeds of a vicious retribution for which no peace advocate strives. Afp

Middle East

In Context

Compiled by Joe Margolies ’15 “We still believe more transparency is needed so everyone can better understand how surveillance laws work and decide whether or not they serve the public interest.” Richard Salgado, Google’s legal director for law enforcement and information security, discussing company policy on disclosure of government requests for user information. Google has expressed interest in quickly disclosing precise data on NSA requests.

“We are not going to a bidding competition of who pays more for a signature from Ukraine because we believe that this is the path that most Ukrainians prefer.”

José Manuel Barroso, president of the European Commission, expressing a lack of direct competition with Russia to forge close economic ties with Ukraine.

“The political commitment to really root out corruption seems to be missing.”

E.U. Commissioner Cecilia Malmstrom, expressing disappointment with shocking levels of coruption, especially bribery, across the European Union.

“This is not a mosque for prayers but a base for recruiting Muslim youths to engage in terrorist activities.” Henry Ondieki, a senior officer with the Mombassa Police in Kenya, describing a location in which terrorists from the militant group al-Shabab allegedly distriubted materials to recruit new members.

“I’ve met so many fabulous people here - some of them are doctors, some are engineers, there are all sorts. They have so much to contribute, but right now they need us to help them.”

Gil Clasby, a British expatriate living in Bulgaria, speaking on the situation of Syrian refugees who have crossed through Turkey and into Bulgaria to escape the violence that has arisen through conflict in an embattled Syria.

Andrew may be reached at atynes@princeton.edu

Sources: The BBC, The New York Times, The Guardian

Winter 2014

U.S. Foreign Policy

The Enemy of My Enemy Pakistan’s Internal Power Struggle

he old adage goes “the enemy of my enemy is my friend.” It describes in painstaking simplicity the logic of strategic alliances borne more out of convenience than ideological consensus. In the case of Pakistan, where the military has historically functioned as the single most powerful and cohesive national institution, this age-old logic is turning into a potential nightmare. Cracks are beginning to show, as the election and political ambitions of current Prime Minster Nawaz Sharif threaten the already eroded cohesion of the military and invite a host of radical anti-state militant groups into the political fold. The fate of the country’s domestic stability seemingly stands upon the ability of Pakistan’s strongest institution to maintain ideological and political cohesion in the face of an accelerating security crisis pitting the state against a host of Frankenstein groups it helped create during the Cold War. When President Obama announced the return of 34,000 American troops from Afghanistan in February of this year, an era was seemingly coming to an end. The Bush administration’s military forays into the Muslim World still linger as open wounds to American public consciousness in a perpetual state of ambiguity that only time and the further release of documents can clarify into real history. Yet, even as 2014 draws near, the inability of U.S. military leaders to come to solid agreements with the Karzai administration concerning future security stand as both a blow to American rhetoric ensuring the return of young Americans from hellish combat conditions overseas and a revelation to the unfinished business of the U.S. in the region. Yet, with every mention of Afghanistan and the ever-present Taliban, the specter of the country’s eastern neighbor and the supposedly closest U.S. ally in the region, Pakistan, looms large. A relationship forged in the midst of Cold War geopolitics, the U.S.-Pakistan alliance has suffered tremendously, if not

Alan Hatfield ‘15

been completely destroyed by the War in Afghanistan. Regional militant groups created, trained, funded, or endorsed by the American and Pakistani military establishments in the 1980s have survived and evolved over the succeeding three decades into a Pandora’s box for both the region and American involvement there. Although the irony is not lost on any of the players involved, the changing politics of the region, and specifically Pakistan, make the prospect of the end of an American occupation that produced stability and cordial relations with the Af-Pak governments seemingly impossible. In reality, the War in Afghanistan has set a worrisome process in motion, in which both Afghanistan and Pakistan seem set to face huge challenges to their domestic stability in the near future. The June 2013 election of Nawaz Sharif as Pakistani prime minister has been called a victory for democratic transition in the country, but in essence brings to light the fragile condition of a country tearing at the seams under the pressure of military and political instability. Sharif, of the Paskistani Muslim League, represents a backlash in Paksitani politics against the traditional dominance of the military and security institutions, institutions that have remained the chief avenue by which the U.S. is able to continue its operations in the region. The prime minister, advocating cooperation with the numerous and growing non-state actors in the country, has set the stage for a battle over the realignment of Pakistani security policy between the long-subjugated civil government and the military. At a time when “insurgency” and ideology have severely curtailed the cohesion and stability of the military, historically the country’s strongest single institution, Sharif ’s intended policy realignments invite significant risk into Pakistan’s current state of affairs. The emerging power struggle between the two sides has the potential of a catastrophic ending. Should the civil administration succeed in establishing

American Foreign Policy

its political dominance over the military (and especially its powerful intelligence wing the ISI), yet fail in its overtures to domestic non-state actors, Pakistan may very well find itself a bleak situation, yet another victim of America’s haughty

“Over the past decade, annual fatalities from terrorist violence have increased from 189 in 2003 to 5,242 in 2013, hitting a peak of 11,704 in 2009.” “Global War on Terror.” Pakistan’s current woes are telling of a bafflingly complex relationship with militant Islam. Independence in 1947 solidified Pakistan’s Islamic national character, while also establishing India as a fixed existential threat. For most of the country’s history, the Kashmir conflict with India and the race for nuclear weapons gave Pakistani nationalism a sense of purpose while at the same time confirming the relevance and role of Pakistan’s military in defending the nation and its interests. Not to mention the multiple periods of military rule that have left successive civilian governments loathe to challenge top generals’ authority, the military and its ISI intelligence wing have undoubtedly had the final word on foreign policy decisions in Pakistan over the course of its 66 years of existence. The Soviet invasion of Afghanistan saw a marked turning point in Pakistan’s regional strategic interests, the military extending shelter and assistance to a host of Mujahideen groups operating out of the country’s Pashtun-dominated northwest. The same period saw a major convergence of Pakistani and American Cold War interests, the C.I.A. funding the Pakistani ISI to in turn fund and train Mujahideen groups that espoused both anti-Soviet and orthodox Islamist ideology. Then military head Zia ul-Haq had initiated a program of Islamisation to reverse the policies of relatively

U.S. Foreign Policy

Pakistani military commander Raheel Sharif (left) shaking hands with his predecessor at a ceremony recognizing the transition in power. Image Courtesy of Visual News Pakistan.

secular socialist Zulfikar Bhutto, who Zia had overthrown in a 1977 coup. By the early 1980s, a politico-military alliance with Islamist Mujahideen groups seemed convenient from both a strategic and ideological perspective. Pakistani military leaders were undoubtedly relieved with the Soviet withdrawal in 1989. Despite the end of the war, the 1990s saw the continuation of the Paksitani military’s relationship, primarily via the ISI, with militant Islamic groups operating on both sides of the porous AfghanPakistani border through Pashtunistan. Throughout the chaos of the Afghan Civil War and the Afghan Taliban’s rise to power, Pakistani support to militant groups was seen as an exercise of regional realpolitik without serious ramifications for Pakistani stability domestically. With continued funding from the CIA and the overthrow of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif in 1997, the military seemed to stand on solid ground, launching a 1997 invasion of Indian Kashmir that demonstrated the sense of security military leaders felt about the country’s west. After 2001, the infusion of NATO, mostly American, troops in Afghanistan completely changed the calculus of non-state actors in the region as the next decade saw a monstrous increase in violence throughout Pakistan. Over the past decade, annual fatalities from terrorist violence have increased from 189

in 2003 to 5,242 in 2013, hitting a peak of 11,704 in 2009. Over the course of the late 2000s, the Pakistani army responded with a series of offensives, most notably in the Swat Valley, to corner and defeat the continued operations of the numerous militant groups that maintain de facto autonomy in much of Pakistan’s Afghanistan-bordering provinces. Simultaneously, the consolidation of militant groups, such as that which led to the late 2007 creation of Tehrik-i-Taliban Pakistan, continues to threaten not only the country’s military leaders, but average citizens as well. Fast-forward to 2013 and PM Nawaz Sharif ’s appointment of Raheel Sharif as Pakistani Army Chief. The appointment holds the potential for Sharif to play a bigger role in military decision-making via the allegedly loyal Raheel. The retirement of General Ashfaq Parvez Kayani from that post saw the departure of a quiet, yet iron-fisted army head whose policy stance consistently threw Pakistani forces after non-state militant groups in an effort to finally defeat or expel them, without the possibility of political cooptation. An attempt on Kayani’s life several years ago brought a suicide bomber within several hundred feet of his office, signaling an alarming presence of Islamist sympathizers within military ranks. Should the army lose its ability

Winter 2014

to withstand the pull of both Islamist ideology and the ambitions of the PM Sharif for the role of the civilian government, the fate of Pakistan’s security might necessarily lie in the hands of government negotiators. Seeing the track record of groups over the past 10 years, in which almost every major agreement made with Pakistani security forces has been broken, what Pakistan needs is a diplomatic miracle, one that is far from sure to be delivered by Sharif ’s negotiation efforts. The results might essentially see the end of a long and dangerous love affair with Cold War proxy strategy and the descent of an American “ally” into political or military chaos. Mission Accomplished. Afp Alan may be reached at ajhatfie@princeton.edu

AFP Quiz Answers Multiple Choice Monthly 1. A 2. B 3. D 4. C 5. A

Talking Points In this Section

Deal or No Deal Treaties and Tribulations around the Globe

Compiled by Joe Margolies ’15

n recent weeks, opposing factions around the world have sat down at the negotiating table to confront their differences. Each has faced a different level of success, and all are likely to keep making the news for the foreseeable future. The following is a brief profile of several of these efforts in conflict resolution. None of these negotiations exist in a vacuum; each one has gained the attention of the international community, and will continue to do so.

Iran

Atoms of Progress

Syria

The Battle for Peace

South Sudan

A Welcome Ceasefire

The P5+1 Nations Met with Iran to broker a deal in November of 2013. Image Courtesy of the U.N. in Geneva.

Iran After a preliminary agreement last November followed a series of failed negotiations, Iran seems to be on the right track to limiting its nuclear capacity to the satisfaction of many Western powers. Although the P5+1 and Iran reached a broad agreement, many of the logistics have been left to further development as the year progresses. Implementation began in late January and includes the lifting of economic sanctions against Iran in exchange for the blending down of their weaponsgrade uranium isotopes. It remains to be seen whether all parties will adhere to the deal, and how smoothly further developments will progress.

U.N. and Arab League special envoy to Syria Lakhdar Brahimi has been integral to recent Peace talks. Image courtesy of the U.N.

Syria In the past three yeras, over 100,000 deaths have resulted from clashes between the Syrian government and opposition forces. In January, representatives from both sides met in Geneva to discuss a potential end ot hostilities. Although minor ceasefire agreements in select cities have been forged, the weeklong talks were largely unproductive. U.N. envoy Lakhdar Brahimi, however, has capitalized on “common ground” found between the two factions, and hopes that they will come to a more solid agreement when the reconvene in February. Government representatives accuse the opposition of immaturity and belligerance, and the opposition forces accuse the regime of not taking seriously the prospect of power transition.

American Foreign Policy

Talking Points South Sudan In late January, South Sudanese rebel forces reached a ceasefire agreement with the nationâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s government during negotiations in Ethiopia. Fighting between the two factions over the course of about one month resulted in over 500,000 displaced South Sudanese citizens. Although rebel leaders have pledged themselves to the ceasefire, government representatives worry that the decentralized groups that make up the opposition forces will not all adhere to the agreement made on their behalf. Both the U.S. and the U.K. have come out in support of the agreement, encouraging government and opposition groups to remain peaceful. U.N. peacekeeping troops remain in the region.

A woman washes her child in a crowded refugee camp in South Sudan. Image courtesy of The U.N. Human Rights Council.

Learn more about issues relevant to American foreign policy on our blog, located at afpprinceton.com/blog.

Acknowledgement

American Foreign Policy magazine thanks the James Madison Program in American Ideals and Institutions at Princeton University for its generous sponsorship. The Program is dedicated to examining the application of basic legal and ethical principles to contemporary problems and offers numerous opportunities for student engagement, including sponsoring conferences, seminars, lectures, and colloquia throughout the year. The Programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Undergraduate Fellows Forum provides opportunities for Princeton undergraduates to interact with Madison Program Fellows and speakers. For more information on events and how to get involved please visit the Programâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s website. http://web.princeton.edu/sites/jmadison/

Winter 2014

Tired of Finger Pointing?

Frame it Better in AFP! www.afpprinceton.com