No Coup is Good Coup: Pakistan's 2013 Elections

In a country whose history is marred by military interference, ranging from bullying to outright takeover, the first peaceful democratic transition from one civilian government to another is about to take place. On May 11, 2013, Pakistan held general elections that resulted in two-time Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif’s Pakistan Muslim League taking at least 125/272 seats. The world’s fifth-largest democracy appears to be on the verge of finally deserving its title.

Thumbs up: A woman casts her ballot in Lahore. (AP Photo/K.M. Chaudary)

Since independence in 1947, there have been three successful and many more unsuccessful military coups in Pakistan. In its 66 years of independence, Pakistan has spent 33 years under military rule. Although elections have taken place in the interim, the public’s perception of military control over civilian governments has historically led to low voter turnout in elections. The previous election in 2008, which transferred power from the coup-initiated government of Gen. Pervez Musharraf, saw only a 44 percent turnout amid widespread reports of election fraud. Saturday’s election already has a projected 60 percent turnout, an increase that indicates a return of voter confidence that their voices would not go unheard.

PM-elect Nawaz Sharif’s victory has also boded well for Pakistan’s struggling economy. The Karachi stock exchange jumped to historic highs once Sharif’s win became apparent. He is viewed as a free market, pro-business politician that will focus his efforts on increasing Pakistani trade, especially with traditional enemy India. Sharif himself was toppled in a military coup led by Gen. Musharraf in 1999, spending several years in exile until returning to a more favorable political climate in 2007. Musharraf was forced into exile in turn at the end of his rule, and in a hugely symbolic case was arrested following his return in March 2013 and charged with corruption in one case, and also placed under house arrest for his role in Benazir Bhutto’s assassination in another.

The detention of the military’s old guard aside, Saturday’s election success came amid widespread pre-election violence and threats, which makes the high voter turn-out all the more impressive. Sixty-four people were killed in attacks on election day itself, while over 100 have died in pre-election violence. The son of former PM Yousef Raza Gilani, Ali Haider Gilani, was kidnapped in May, and the police chief of Balochistan’s home in Quetta was bombed. Despite these high-profile incidents of violence, even in the most dangerous districts voters would not be deterred from the polls.

Pakistan’s new government faces large and looming problems as it takes office: a destitute economy, a severe shortage of electricity, and ongoing homegrown terrorism. While on the first two issues Sharif has strong prospects for success, he has a lukewarm history of fighting terror. His power base derives from Punjab province, home to several terrorist organizations including Lakshar-e-Taiba, and he depends upon their constituents’ support in elections. Even with this obstacle to peace in Pakistan, the country still has a stronger democracy, more assertive and independent judiciary, freer media, more extensive youth engagement, and better relations with India than it has had in decades. Pakistan will depend on continued improvement in the years to come: American withdrawal from Afghanistan is right around the corner in 2014, and the chaos that will almost certainly ensue on Pakistan’s border will require Sharif’s government to uphold its promises of democracy more fervently than ever before. 

Nigeria's "Dirty War"

When counterinsurgency becomes too much counterinsurgency, it becomes a war - a dirty war that claims far too many innocent lives and leaves a legacy with the country it takes place in that is often difficult to erase. Such is the case with Argentina, whose "dirty war" in the 1970s led to over 10,000 civilians "disappearing", and such is the case right now in Nigeria. Boko Haram, the nefarious group of Islamic radicals who have targeted Nigeria since 2009 have finally struck a nerve with the Nigerian government, who is now fighting back just as hard, if not harder. The saddest part of all this is that neither group has benefited the Nigerian population at all - both of them are killing innocent civilians, and the fighting seems to be far from over.

The war between Boko Haram and the Nigerian military has claimed nearly 4,000 lives since 2009. The Islamic terrorist cell is an interesting study, as they are, unlike most terrorist organizations in their class, hell bent on attacking Westerners. In fact, the only purpose Boko Haram serves is to overthrow the Nigerian government, whom they perceive as being "false muslims"; the goal is to replace the government with one that will impose strict Sharia law.

The Nigerian military has been anything but productive in countering Boko Haram. Recently, extrajudicial killings have become the norm, and scores of dead bodies are being dumped at morgues all over the country every day - whether or not these individuals were part of the terrorist organization is never proven, but the military shoots and kills anyone deemed "suspicious" and experiences no repercussions from the government.

Unfortunately, this is the efficacy of terrorism at work. The military is very easily able to justify the recent slaughtering of civilians by claiming that Boko Haram members blend into their surrounding environment - a true statement. But while Boko Haram continues their bombing campaigns and moves forward with their terrorist agenda, it is apparent that, inadvertently or not, the military and Boko Haram are not waging a war on one another - they are joining forces and waging a war on the Nigerian population.

Counterinsurgency is something I'm often a major proponent of. With counterinsurgency, there are usually less civilian casualties than in conventional warfare, and by understanding the culture of a particular community, it is significantly easier to permeate that community and root out the insurgency without a whole lot of bullets being used. Counterinsurgency, when used right, has almost always been a markedly better tactic than simply dropping thousands of troops on the ground and waging full-scale war against an insurgent group.

However, there is such a thing as too much counterinsurgency. Nigeria is clearly tired of the incessant violence that is unwarranted and brought on by Boko Haram. It goes without saying that they have killed far too many innocent civilians in their attempt at a backwards government which would only further stymie development and would openly persecute females and gays. However, Nigeria's lack of patience and inability to successfully execute a counterinsurgency is cause for concern. Argentina is still reliving the nightmare of its 1970s - it would be a shame to see Nigeria go down the same path.

Hezbollah's Fatal Mistake?

Israel’s headline-grabbing airstrike on a Syrian convoy garnered much attention this week, with some asking if this signaled a greater external presence in the ongoing conflict. It distinctly does not, since Israel’s main target is not in fact Bashar al-Asad’s government, but rather Hezbollah in Lebanon. The strike this week did, however, shine a light on the degree to which the Lebanese political party and militant wing have become embroiled in the Syrian conflict next door, as well as highlight the precarious position Hezbollah finds itself in as a result of its pro-Asad position.

Hezbollah supporters rally with both Hezbollah flags and pro-government Syrian flags (courtesy Bilal Hussein / AP)

In other Arab countries, a Pew research poll in June 2012 found an overwhelming percentage of residents from all religious backgrounds support the fall of the Asad regime. In Lebanon, a delicate sectarian balance coupled with complicated ties to Syria and Asad has resulted in a more nuanced picture. While overall 53 percent of Lebanese supported the Asad stepping down, when broken down by sect, 67 percent of Christians and 80 percent of Sunnis supported the fall of the regime, while only 3 percent of Shias said they supported the end of Asad’s rule. Additionally, 96 percent of Lebanese Shias had “favorable” views of Asad. This support goes beyond religion and is deeply rooted in Shia Alawite-dominated Syria’s historical support for Lebanon’s Shia population, which is much larger proportionally than in other Levantine countries.

Hezbollah has supported Asad since the beginning of Syria’s civil war more than two years ago, but due to popular condemnation of the regime it attempted to distance itself from direct actions to aid the Syrian government. Elected officials in the political branch of Hezbollah advocated for a policy of “dissociation” with Asad’s government to appease the large numbers of Lebanese who denounce his regime and the atrocities being visited upon the Syrian population. Yet rumors of Hezbollah’s militant fighters being filtered into Syria are no longer just rumor: just this Tuesday, the Syrian opposition “reported that rebels had killed 15 Hezbollah fighters in Qusair[1].” In summer 2012, reports surfaced of a group of 5,000 Hezbollah fighters being sent to Syria, earning the approbation of Lebanese and international observers alike.

Hezbollah-backed Shi'ite Lebanese fighters cross into Syria (courtesy Bilal Hussein / AP)

Israel’s recent airstrike on a convoy of Syrian weapons supposedly heading for Hezbollah therefore does not reflect a political will for deeper involvement in the deadly conflict, but a sincere fear of the direct arming of Hezbollah with Syria’s arsenal, including chemical and biological weapons. While Israel cannot stop the Syrian conflict nor keep Hezbollah from supplying it with fighters, it can prevent weapons from flowing freely to Lebanon and raising the likelihood of not only another Israeli-Lebanese war, but also an Israeli-Syrian one.

This (barely) covert support for Asad has had serious political consequences for Hezbollah domestically. Lebanon had been ruled by a March 8 coalition made up of Hezbollah and several other parties, in opposition to the Sunni and Christian-led March 14 movement. Prime Miniter Najib Mikati resigned from the government in March, citing the ongoing domestic crisis in Lebanon that has resulted from the Syria conflict as one of the primary reasons behind his decision to step down. Violence has rocked the country over the last two years as pro- and anti-Asad Lebanese as well as Syrian refugees and migrants engage in street battles, especially in northern Lebanon where the civil war’s effects are particularly acute.

Daddy's boy: Bashar al-Asad pictured with Hassan Nasrallah and his father, Hafez al-Asad (courtesy REUTERS/Ali Hashisho)

While Israel’s airstrike and involvement in any Arab war will be controversial and play on pre-existing anti-Israel sentiments in the region, reactions are not nearly negative enough to counter the bad publicity Hezbollah is suffering at home and abroad for its support of Asad’s regime. The leader of Hezbollah Hassan Nasrallah remains loyal to the Hezbollah-Iran-Syria axis that has served his party well for years. As the Syrian civil war drags on with no end in sight, however, he may find that his once incredibly popular group made a losing gamble both in the Arab world and in Lebanon itself. One can only hope that any Hezbollah-led government would realize its error before civil war returns to Lebanon.

---

[1] http://www.nytimes.com/2013/05/08/world/middleeast/hezbollah-takes-risks-by-fighting-rebels-in-syria.html?hp&_r=1&

Botswana's Diamonds: Turning Resources into Foreign Policy - By Sam Worley

Botswana is a small, landlocked country in Southern Africa. Besides being one of the only countries in Africa with a relatively stable government, Botswana has also had considerable economic growth not seen in any other country in Africa. This is unarguably because of diamonds, Botswana's main export and key non-renewable natural resource. After gaining independence from Great Britain in 1966, Botswana found significant diamond mines and after some years of negotiations, control exactly half of the company that manages all of the diamond mining in Botswana, Debswana.

            

Diamonds generate immense amounts of wealth for Botswana. A Botswana Export Development and Investment Agency statistical report on their economy stated, “The mining sector remains the main engine of growth for the Botswana economy. The sector contributes over a third of GDP, 75% of export earnings and over 55% of total government revenue. The main driving force for the sector has been the diamond sub-sector.”  But this is a double-edged sword because being dependent on the activity of one economic activity exposes Botswana's economy to greater risks of fluctuations in GDP, export earnings, and Government revenues. Botswana has a small, specialized economy and is still a developing nation, thus exploiting global markets is necessary to achieve sustainable growth and economic diversification. Botswana is therefore tailoring foreign policy initiatives to target Botswana's competitiveness and productivity in the global market.

            

Diamond's revenues have led to a stable government through the creation of a bureaucracy that grew parallel to the increase in diamond revenues. Unlike other South African countries, the wealth generated from diamonds and the subsequent proper allocation of these revenues, pushed Botswana into a position of short-run economic stability. Once this stable government and revenue stream was established, a foreign policy could be implemented.

            

Botswana's government knows it can only benefit short-term from a specialized, diamond-dominated economy, a non-renewable resource can only go so far. Botswana's foreign policy is mostly concerned with its own economic diversification, which pushes their policy towards a regional integration of neighboring countries. Botswana's prominent role in the South African Development Community (SADC) and its strengthening of this entity to restore Africa's importance in the global economy, shows Botswana's policy commitment to fostering regional economic cooperation.  Botswana's strong involvement in the SADC and stable government gave them clout to move their foreign policy a step further, speaking out against anti-democratic movements and participating in conflict management in neighboring countries.

            

Internationally, Botswana participates in numerous organizations the promote democracy and human rights, namely International Institute for Democratic and Electoral Assistance (IDEA). By being a part of IDEA, Botswana is engaging in a foreign policy aimed at improving its international image as a stable, democratic nation that is worthy of investment in the private sector. A rapidly growing private sector, with foreign investment, is a strong way to diversify Botswana's diamond heavy economy. 

            

Diamonds and their revenues helped establish a strong government and bureaucracy in Botswana and therefore a strong regional foreign policy, but if Botswana continues to lag in diversification of their economy, their ability to be a political force in Southern Africa will diminish. Not to mention a continued dependence on diamond revenues will lead to a collapse of society, environment, and economy. Diamonds created a stable bureaucracy and short-term revenue stream in Botswana, therefore creating a foreign policy that was initially geared towards regional stability. In full circle, Botswana's government is now pursuing a domestic policy to slow down growth in the diamond mining sector and tailoring their foreign policy to give their economy a variegated model as to have long-term stability and constant revenues. 

The Media and the Manhunt

The Media and the Manhunt:

The Banality of Evil (and Good) 

Christine Deluna and Zach Crawford

On Wednesday April 17, CNN’s Peter King reported live on TV a suspect in the Boston Marathon bombings was taken into custody. This would have been a huge victory for CNN and Boston…if it were true. King falsely reported this “breaking” story and started a media firestorm, which ended in every reporter in a 100-mile radius descending on a Boston courthouse only to find there was no suspect, and oh, now there’s a bomb threat at the courthouse.  Shamefully, CNN’s next BREAKING NEWS bulletin would feature its own journalist’s negligence.

CNN’s misreporting Wednesday became the catalyst to the media equivalent to a chicken running around without a head, wings, and legs. From the millisecond-by-millisecond coverage of the manhunt to the post arrest schmorgesborg of misleading and speculative coverage, the media’s response to the Boston Marathon bombings has revealed the flaws of many news outlets while highlighting the strengths in others. Unfortunately, these strengths were, and continue to be, outshined by hypotheticals and flashy attempts to contextualize and sensationalize a news story, even if some (or entire) details are completely irrelevant.

Oh, we know what you're thinking: but the terrorists are white.