StrategyUnit

Introduction - Lugar, IEA and Energy Cooperation

The Christian Science Monitor has an interesting article, “Bold idea for energy woes: global cooperation“, weighing in on the need for some sort of global cooperation among major importers in terms of energy security and alternative fuel development.

The article touches on a speech Senator Lugar gave at Brookings Institute early March. I highly recommend reading Lugar’s excellent speech here. Additionally, Sen. Lugar (R) and Sen. Obama (D) introduced a bill late March 2006 pushing for alternative fuel development.

The CSM article chiefly focuses on International Energy Agency (IAE) as a potential vehicle for energy cooperation:

So is it time for an OPIC - an organization of petroleum-importing countries - as a way to build up cooperation among the world’s booming and increasingly competitive energy consumers?
…
One hurdle in the road to developing cooperation among energy-consuming countries is the Bush administration’s distaste for the kind of international bureaucracy that might be charged with overseeing such a project, some experts say. But others add that the bones of what might be a starting point already exist in the International Energy Agency (IEA), a branch of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development that serves developed countries.

James Bartis, an expert in energy security at the RAND Corp. in Arlington, Va., says the IEA or something like it could serve as an “umbrella of oil consumers” that could begin to address fears about stable supplies and develop joint energy-investment strategies - and therefore become a force for stability in a world of tightening energy supplies.

The IEA was founded in 1974 in the wake of the 70s energy crisis. Its last major move was to coordinate the release of +2 million barrels of oil after Katrina. Will it take a bigger energy crisis to move the IEA towards a more robust, pro-active stabilizing force for energy security?

Conclusion

As noted in January 2006 at StrategyUnit, India and China has declared a “Year of Friendship” centering on energy cooperation on the development of alternative fuel, sharing information on energy bids and joint energy development.

That such emerging powers like China and India are taking steps to coordinating their energy policy is a telling development in global affairs. The US must see this as an opportunity to take the next step and slowly build a wider forum for major energy importers. In order to be taken seriously by other states, the US must also take steps to put its own house in order.

Holding hearings on high gasoline prices, while makes on popular with the public opinion, does little and to address the core concerns of our energy security.

Global energy security and coordination is in the US interests as it must seek to avoid a global dependency on oil-rich regimes that are far too often hostile to the US and its interests and even including those of other importing nations. The questionable stability of oil supplies, environmental damage, hostility of oil rich regimes, and oil peak concerns should be more than enough motivation for the US to help lead and shape a global forum to combat these issues. If not by the current Bush Administration (which is facing a lame-duck problems), than hopefully the next.

Introduction
Ariel Sharon’s withdrawal planned seems very elegant: Build a wall and unilaterally withdraw. In essence, this unilaterally creates a state of Israel and a Palestinian state. It’s not peace, but its forcing Palestinians to acknowledge the existence of two separate states.

The long held criticism of this plan was that Sharon and Israel was essentially boxing itself in, creating an Israel surrounded on both flanks by two Palestinian failed-states. The Hamas-led victory in the recent elections was no comfort, especially after the opportunity for new leadership given by the passing of Arafat.

Olivier Guitta noted on April 5th that “a Jordanian intelligence source confirmed to Al Hayat that a major Al Qaeda attack was just very recently foiled in Gaza. This source also confirmed that Al Qaeda has been expanding in Gaza and tried to penetrate the West Bank but with less success there.” A mix of Israel’s withdrawal, Arafat’s death and the democratically-elected Hamas is paving the way for Al-Qaida’s presence in Palestine, furthering Al-Qaida’s overall reach and adding another dimension to Israel’s security threat.

The other path presented to Israel, continuing to occupy Palestinian territory and building settlements, is unsustainable in the eye of global opinion and Israel’s moral position. Yet, unfortunately for Israel, the imposed two-state solution provides Israel with some higher moral ground, but presents its own strategic challenges.

Fortress Israel - But for How Long?
So far, Israel is shifting from being a quasi-occupying presence (the settlers) in Palestine to fully embracing its image as Fortress Israel. But..
- As Palestinian terrorists switch from suicide-bombings to rocket attacks (thwarting the barriers), there are clearly limits to this strategy.
- While Israel can withstand the occasional rocket attack, Israel cannot indefinitely retaliate each attack without causing escalation on both sides, eventually compromising any security provided by its barrier.

A Future War between Israel and Palestine
The passing of the Arafat era brought a lot of promise, promises so far dashed by the Hamas victory in the recent elections. But as Israel continues (for now) on its path to unilaterally creating a two-state solution, the question must be asked:

What happens if a democratically-led Palestinian government leads a popular war against Israel?

How would Israel be able to fight an all out war (surely a fourth-generation war) against Palestine, where the line between the Palestinian militants and civilians would be a blur?

That’s a question Israel must ponder as it continues its withdrawal from the territories.

During every Passover, it is tradition to declare “L’shana ha’ba-ah b’Yerushalayim” (Next Year in Jerusalem)

Israel already has their Jerusalem, but when will there be peace?

With Passover coming, Yehudit has a nice light hearted posting “If the Passover Story Were Reported by The NY Times” over at WindsOfChange.Net

The cycle of violence between the Jews and the Egyptians continues with no end in sight in Egypt. After eight previous plagues that have destroyed the Egyptian infrastructure and disrupted the lives of ordinary Egyptian citizens, the Jews launched a new offensive this week in the form of the plague of darkness.

Western journalists were particularly enraged by this plague. “It is simply impossible to report when you can’t see an inch in front of you,” complained a frustrated Andrea Koppel of CNN. “I have heard from my reliable Egyptian contacts that in the midst of the blanket of blackness, the Jews were annihilating thousands of Egyptians. Their word is solid enough evidence for me.”

Read the whole “story” over at WindsOfChange

The Observer reports leaks regarding the July 7 London subway bombing inquiry by the British Government:

The official inquiry into the 7 July London bombings will say the attack was planned on a shoestring budget from information on the internet, that there was no ‘fifth-bomber’ and no direct support from al-Qaeda, although two of the bombers had visited Pakistan.

While this is not surprising news in itself (if indeed, these leaks are accurate), this confirms the difficulty and the nature of the threat in this (for a lack of a better name) the Global War on Terror (GWOT). The enemy we face is larger, bigger than Al-Qaida or Bin Laden - it is a worldview, an idea - something that cannot be easily stopped.

According to the report, the attacks were largely motivated by concerns over foreign policy and the perception that it was deliberately anti-Muslim, although the four men were also driven by the promise of immortality.

As mentioned in earlier post, “Global Swarm: Explaining GWOT through Thomas Barnett, Huntington, Global Guerillas “, the threat we face is a cocktail mix of religion and issues of social justice (mix of real/exaggerated/false etc) with an overall feeling of the persecution of Muslims (The Ummah) around the world. Defeating such a “movement” will indeed be a Long War.

Special Note: With Internet finally here, this is my first posting in 3-4 weeks. I am looking forward to ramping-up to normal blogging operations soon…

This week John Reid, the British Defence Sec, called for a revamp of the Geneva Convention due to the changing nature of modern (post-modern?) warfare at the Royal United Services Institute.

“We risk trying to fight 21st-century conflict with 20th-century rules which, when they were devised, did not contemplate the type of enemy which is now extant,” he said. “The laws of the 20th century placed constraints on us all which enhanced peace and protected liberty. We must ask ourselves whether, as the new century begins, they will do the same.” (2)

Reid makes the argument that Geneva Conventions was not designed for a time where “non-state actors [are] capable of operating on a global scale, crossing international borders” and where “accelerating scientific and technological progress which has facilitated the proliferation of, and easier access to, the means of wholesale human destruction – particularly in the form of chemical, biological or radiological weaponry.”

Put simply, in today’s changed circumstances are we convinced that it adequately covers:
• the contemporary threat from international terrorists?
• The circumstances in which states may need to take action in order to avert imminent attack?
• Those situations where the international community needs to intervene on grounds of overwhelming humanitarian necessity in order to stop internal suppression - mass murder and genocide – as opposed to external aggression? (3)

Conclusion
“Laws such as the Geneva Convention had been drawn up at a time when the main threat of war was between states but the 21st-century world was under threat from terrorist groups unconstrained by any sense of morality or adherence to any conventions. “We now have to cope with a deliberate regression towards barbaric terrorism by our opponents,” he said. “The legal constraints upon us have to be set against an enemy that adheres to no constraints whatsoever.”

The phrase “unconstrained by any sense of morality” is somewhat inaccurate. The type of warfare (fourth-generation) we are seeing today is not driven by any sense of immorality. It is the gulf (asymmetry) between Western-style militaries (and their societies) against enemies that have radically differing ethics, moral code, organization, structure and motivations. Not superior or inferior, but rather on an entirely on a different plane.

Indeed, the beginnings of the Geneva Conventions go back as far as the 1864 - a very different world from today. Yet, for better or worse, these conventions are a part of the West’s sacred documents that cannot be thrown into the dustbin of history - least the West loses its own identity and values.

Change must happen and John Reid is right in pointing this out, but it must be examined critically least the West loses its identify in the fight against its enemies.

Links and Sources
1) Reid calls for Geneva Convention to be rewritten
2) Reid urges review of Geneva Convention on prisoner treatment
3) Full transcript RUSI - Event - Lecture: Secretary of State for Defence