StrategyUnit

Introduction
The Economist earlier last month did an update on America’s relationship in Central Europe, the area earlier hailed by Sec. of Defense Donald Rumsfeld as part of the “New Europe.” While I applaud his speech as brillent tactical manuverings (Reminding France/Germany that they’re other Europeans beside themselves), it seems like besides building military bases little is changing to reach out the the people themselves:

“America tends to underestimate the political cost of this. One post-communist minister recalls trying vainly to convince his American counterparts that staying in Iraq was rather unpopular at home. American military aid to the new democracies has been stingy. And the cost and hassle of America’s visa policies grate harshly. “Estonians don’t understand why their sons are dying in Iraq for democracy and freedom, and yet their families can’t get visas for the United States,” says Toomas Hendrik Ilves, a former foreign minister.

So far, only Slovenia’s 1.9m people have visa-free travel to America. Poland and the Czech Republic have lobbied hard; so did Mrs Vike-Freiberga on her recent trip. But there is little sign of change. In most post-communist countries, each visa application costs a non-refundable $100—a week’s wages. In Romania, even the appointment costs $11, for seven minutes of telephone time.” (Empahsis Mine)

Comment
To be fair to the Bush Administration, the US has lobbied hard for the “Big Bang” approach that has led many of “New Europe” states to be accepted into the EU and has given Central Europe some voice in the world stage through branding them as part of a “New Europe”.

However, the US must follow though on building a relationship with these states. While sending troops to Iraq has bought countries like Estonia closer ties to the US, simple things like visa-restriction fail to show what clear benefit such sacrifices provide back.

Just like at home, the Bush Administration should pursue a campaign to show the people - of Estonia, Poland etc - the benefits of closer ties with the US. Currently, we’re not doing that (or enough) and worse than that we’re losing our chance to prove these people right the next time around.

Additionally, while countries like Bulgaria and Slovenia are small, they represent members of a growing bloc - the European Union - and a post-nation-state identify of “Europeanness”. The US must reach out - both at government and public level - to those who are receptive to the US.

Indeed, reaching out to the Central Europe region (where in Hungary there is a statue in honor of Ronald Reagan in remembrance of the Cold War), can act as a balance to the German and French states, while the US could also provide security against the fear of a possibly reassertive and aggressive Russia (as long as the EU remains anemic in security terms).

Let’s hope that the Post-Bush Administration, whatever that maybe - will take things into the positive direction, if the current Administration cannot.

The Elections in the UK, Italy and soon in the US
UK: Last week’s regional elections has escalated a civil war in Blair’s Labour Party, with dissenters demanding him to step down. Telegraph reports: “Tony Blair abandoned his election promise to serve a full third term last night, indicating that he could stand down next summer.”

Italy: Prime Silvio Minsiter Berlusconi’s lost in April’s elections has paved the way for Romano Prodi to take lead as the succeeding Prime Minister. Prodi has discussed pulling out the 2,700 Italian troops (3rd largest contingent in Iraq). The latest targeting against Italian troops in Iraq will expedite such moves; indeed, CounterTerrorBlog discusses that Al-Qaida hopes to bully Italy to withdraawing, doing what it did against Spain with.

US: Mid-term elections are coming around very soon for the US, leaving many Republican nervous. With President Bush hitting every lower and lower approval ratings and increased Republican-infighting, we should expect Democrats to make gains against the Republicans. If they will recapture Congress is not known, but things can only get worse for the Republicans – and so the support for the Iraq War will suffer.

The Consequences
The fourth largest contingent of forces, from South Korea, are already beginning their partial pullout, paring down “1,000 of its 3,200 soldiers remaining in the country” by the end of this year. Italy, with the coming establishing of Prodi’s government, will most likely pull out its forces out of Iraq perhaps by the end of the year. The UK, American’s venerable ally, could be next when Prime Minister Tony Blair steps down. A very scary situation for supporters of the Iraq War.

With the “Coalition of the Willing” already mocked for its lack of many major powers, the list of nations (listed by the Coalition’s web site) will look even thinner.

Shakeup in the CIA, raising oil prices and the Iran Crisis are putting President Bush in an ever weaker position in the mainstream press and the masses (as the polls show). As more announcements on withdrawals will be announced, support of the war will fall into an ever deeper lull.

Still, the StrategyPage still looks pretty optimistic over the conditions in Iraq:

“[Violence] keeps the foreign journalists happy, but the local reporters are more concerned with the street crime and corrupt government officials…Most of the patrols and raids are now conducted by Iraqi troops, who are well aware of the fact that they are still fighting Saddam.”

But the overall feeling Americans and the world will have is “if the US is wining the war in Iraq, why is everyone pulling out? Abandoning the US?” The counterpoint that the more successful Iraqi government troops continue to be the more the Coalition Forces can step down will sound too convenient of an answer.

While the US has been and needs to slowly withdrawing some troops from Iraq as Iraqi Government forces standup, US withdrawal under media and public calls for an immediate pullout may only embolden and encourage the insurgents and US enemies.

While not perfect analogies, British troops remained in Malaysia for over 10 years to quell the Communist rebellion and similar numbers of years were spent by US forces in the 1899–1913 Philippine Insurrection (though with a high cost of civilian life). A better analogy is that Japan did not receive its sovereignty from the Allies until 1952.

We are only in Year 3 of the Post-Saddam Iraq Era. While the world and even the US public will increase pressure on withdrawing US forces, we need to remember that the Iraq Project is a long term project – longer than a single election cycle – and will have a profound effect on the Middle East, the World and most importantly the Iraqi People for generations to come. It is sad irony that elections in the democracies of the UK, Italy et al may imperil democracy in Iraq.

For a view supporting “Cut and Run” from Iraq, see Lt. Gen. William E. Odom’s article “ Cut and Run? You Bet” in Foreign Policy, May/June 2006.

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.

Via Volokh.com, the EU Justice and Security Commissioner has recently declared:

The European Union may try to draw up a media code of conduct to avoid a repeat of the furor caused by the publication across Europe of cartoons of the Prophet Mohammad, an EU commissioner said on Thursday.

In an interview with Britain’s Daily Telegraph, EU Justice and Security Commissioner Franco Frattini said the charter would encourage the media to show “prudence” when covering religion.

“The press will give the Muslim world the message: We are aware of the consequences of exercising the right of free expression,” he told the newspaper. “We can and we are ready to self-regulate that right.” (Empahsis Mine)

In StrategyUnit’s commentary on the Jyllands-Posten Muhammed Cartoons, I stated:

The gulf and difference in values, assumptions and perception between millions of Muslims and what the West (esp. the sacredness of the freedom of speech) is not to be underestimated. This is a real division that exists between the cultures and a wedge that fundamentalist at both sides can drive and finally nail down to make the “Clash of Civlizations” a defacto truth.

Sadly, StrategyUnit has miscalculated the sense “sacredness” over free speech that EU officials are willing to state publicly. Eugene Volokh sums it up well, here:

When you say something like that against a backdrop of thugs burning embassies and killing people in reaction to your citizens’ speech, appeasement and surrender are exactly what’s going on, “voluntary” rules or not. Millions of Europeans should feel humiliated that one of their super-government’s officials is even proposing this.

Quick Post - Francis Fukayama on Europe’s Identity Crisis and Islam
Europe, Muslims, Demographics and Eurabia

On Slate Magazine today, Francis Fukayama’s “Europe vs. Radical Islam” takes to tasks the rash of “decline of Europe, raise of Eurabia” books that have been hitting American shelves lately, specifically “The West’s Last Chance” by Tony Blankley and “While Europe Slept” by Bruce Bawer. However, Fukayama focuses on the most extreme and perhaps even founder of the “decline of the West” crowd: Pat Buchanan’s “Decline of the West”.

Oddly and disappointingly, Fukayama skips over Bat Ye’or “Eurabia: The Euro-Arab Axis “, though he mentions the word. Its a shame because Eurabia is probably the most credible of all four books that addresses the subject with the fullest sense of reason and moderation with no wild scenerios like the type Blankey represents. Why this major omission?

Regardless, I believe Fukayama goes to the heart of the issue of Muslims in Europe and shifts the question on the need for Europeans to redefine what it means to be British, French, Germany…what it means to be European:

The problem that most Europeans face today is that they don’t have a vision of the kinds of positive cultural values their societies stand for and should promote, other than endless tolerance and moral relativism. What each European society needs is to invent an open form of national identity similar to the American creed, an identity that is accessible to newcomers regardless of ethnicity or religion. This was the idea behind Bassam Tibi’s concept of Leitkultur (guiding or reference culture), the notion that the European Enlightenment gave rise to a distinct and positive universalist culture based on the dignity of the individual. Muslims coming to Europe would be minimally expected to accept this perspective as their own. The German Christian Democrats timidly endorsed a version of this five years ago, only to retreat in the face of charges of racism and anti-immigrant prejudice from the left. Interest in a “demokratische Leitkultur” has been revived in the wake of recent events, however, and a vigorous debate has opened up over how to define it. There will be many missteps along the way: The state of Baden-Württemberg, for example, recently introduced a test that would require the respondent to support gay marriage as a condition for citizenship, something deliberately designed to exclude Muslims.

Time is getting short to address these questions. Europeans should have started a discussion about how to integrate their Muslim minorities a generation ago, before the winds of radical Islamism had started to blow. The cartoon controversy, while beginning with a commendable European desire to assert basic liberal values, may constitute a Rubicon that will be very hard to re-cross. We should be alarmed at the scope of the problem, but prudent in responding to it, since escalating cultural conflict throughout the Continent will bring us closer to a showdown between Islamists and secularists that will increasingly look like a clash of civilizations.

Fukayama nails on the head that Europe needs to find out what being European means before they began a process of incorporating other groups into their societies. The threat of a “Clash of Civlizations” in Europe is very real but fortunately has not fully materialized yet. Time is running short, but that doesnt mean its too late.

Commentary
Jyllands-Posten Cartoons: Sparking a Clash of Civilizations

The Jyllands-Posten cartoons of the Prophet Muhammad have sparked a global culture clash being seen around the world. Brussels Journal has done an exemplery job covering this event as it unfolds and their article, “The War is On“, is among others a must read.

The implications on Islamic terror is profound, as the the Wretched has noted: “The holy grail of every agitator is to find an issue on which both sides are unalterably opposed. Radical Islam has found it the blasphemy of Mohammed and ironically gave those who would rouse the West a mirror issue of their own: the blasphemy of censorship and the extinction of freedom of speech.”

The Clash of Cultural: A Counterpoint

What is missing in the conservative blogosphere is any serious analysis about what is the perspective of the “other side”. In today’s Asia Times Online, Ehsan Ahrari presents us with this view. Aharai is a respected strategic analyst, former professor at Armed Forces Staff College and has written written numerous papers for the US Military’s Strategic Studies Institute. His views, though contrarian to many in the West, should be taken seriously.

Here are excerpts from Ahari’s “Cartoons and the clash of ‘freedoms’“:

What seems to be notably different about the era after the terror attacks in 2001 is that no subject, and nothing, is sacred in the West, especially when it comes to Muslims and Islam.
…
In Austria, it is against the law to make any statements denying the occurrence of the Holocaust. But one can say anything about Islam and get away with it. Aren’t Muslims right when they take the position that there is an open season against their religion, and that the exercise of freedom of expression is used only as a “civilized” excuse for insulting them?
…
In the West, freedom of expression is considered sacred. For a number of people, that freedom might even be regarded as absolute, thereby allowing an individual to insult even someone’s faith. Two issues must be clearly understood regarding this controversy. First, for Muslims, nothing and no one is above Islam. No one should be allowed to be disrespectful about anything remotely associated with Islam. Having an open discussion regarding the Islamic faith is perfectly acceptable. Insulting Islam is not. That old adage about disagreeing without being disagreeable (or offensive) is fully applicable here. Second, not many understand in the West that a requirement of the completion of the faith for Muslims is to love and respect the Prophet of their religion. That might also be an alien notion, especially among secular Westerners for whom freedom of expression has remained an integral part of their secular puritanism.

Freedom of speech is indeed a noble idea. To state that it should have no limits (or that it should be absolute) may be a useful academic exercise, but one should also keep in mind that such an exercise of freedom could also lead to the same kind of deleterious consequences as when one screams “fire” in a packed theater. Thus it is not enough to couch the whole argument about drawing caricatures of the Prophet under the rubric of freedom of speech, and thereby dismiss (or even be derisive about) the religious sensitivities of millions of Muslims. Why is it that the golden rule related to the insanity (or illegality) of yelling “fire” in a packed theater is not being applied here? That, in the final analysis, is the question the Western zealots of freedom of speech should answer. (Empahsis mine)

Read Ehsan Ahrari article over slowly. And then go over the quote from the Wretched again. It seems both cultures are at an impasse, but in the long run who will acquiescence?

The gulf and difference in values, assumptions and perception between millions of Muslims and what the West (esp. the sacredness of the freedom of speech) is not to be underestimated. This is a real division that exists between the cultures and a wedge that fundamentalist at both sides can drive and finally nail down to make the “Clash of Civlizations” a defacto truth.

——————
Update: The Brussel Journal points out that maybe the idea of freedom of speech being a sacred law in the West (at least in Europe) is not so true as it seems. Paul Belien, the author, has a point.

Update2: Tariq Ramadan discusses his own view of the matter here: Cartoon Controversy is not a Matter of Free Speech, but Civic Responsibility

Note: Posting has been and will be very light for a 1-2 weeks with work projects due and a vacation trip to Tahoe coming this weekend. As mentioned earlier, article contributions are welcomed.
——————-
Introduction
While oil, the Middle East and terrorism steal the headlines, we must not forget the need to seriously consider the security challenges from a range of issues from the changing climates to shifting demographics. This past week we have seen in the media concern on the cold spell in Europe (climate change?) and the rapid population decline in Scotland and Germany (demographic shift).

These topics are less sexy than terrorism and oil prices; and addressing its challenges will be far more difficult too. Changing climates and changing demographics will cause major shifts on a very wide horizontal level- it will effect every aspect of the state from domestic issues like pensions to the state’s relative global power.

Because these changes will cause ripples on a wide horizontal space of issues, these challenges can reset the global configuration of power more so than terrorism can; this fact must not be forgotten.
(more…)

Summary

Declining birthrates in places like Europe, Japan and Russia and increasing immigration in once homogenous states (like France) is becoming an issue of mainstream discussion. Just last week (January 04 & 05), the WSJ and the Economist both ran articles on the issue of demographics, commenting on the opposite ends but equally faulty premises. One seeing immigration and demographics change as signaling the decline of the West (WSJ) and the other tends to underplay the challenge of declining birthrate and changing demographics (Economist).

The impact of changing demographics are analyzed through the New Republic’s piece on the Netherlands, on the effects of Muslim immigration and the socio-political upheaval (a turn to the Right) it has caused in a state stereotyped as an uber-liberal country.

The challenge facing Netherlands (and other countries) is a major one: it is the challenge of successfully transitioning from a nation-state to a market-state. Indeed, Philip Bobbitt has already foresaw such issues in his seminal work The Shield of Achilles:

“Whereas the nation-state based its legitimacy on a promise to better the material well-being of the nation, the market-state promises to maximize the opportunity of each individual citizen…The current conflict is one of several possible wars of the market-states as they seek to open up societies to trade in commerce, ideas, and immigration which excite hostility in those groups that want to use law to enforce religious or ethnic orthodoxy.” (Emphasis mine)

(more…)

Complimentaring StrategyUnit’s post on the Russia-Ukraine Gas sega, StratFor’s Peter Zeihan has an interesting perspective on the possible role and orientation of Dimitri Mendevev, Putin’s newly selected Prime Minister, and his in the Ukraine-Russian Gas issue.

StratFor’s article is interesting because it takes account to the role of Mendevev, whereas Jamestown Foundation, Eurasianet et al have been more focused on Putin or Russia itself.

So, who is this Medvedev?

In mid-November, Russian President Vladimir Putin named Dmitry Medvedev as first deputy prime minister. Medvedev is a rather rare personality in Russian politics, in that he is a modernizer who has not become unrealistically optimistic about Russia ever looking like — much less joining — the West, and a nationalist who has not fallen prey to the debilitating paranoia that often characterizes Russian policy. He also happens to be Putin’s protégé and the board chairman of Gazprom. The Ukraine natural gas crisis was his first Russian foreign-policy initiative.

Medvedev, like all Russians, recognizes that his country’s long-term prospects without Ukraine are, at best, bleak. That means that Russia’s European relations have become of secondary importance — they are no longer an end in their own right, but rather a means to other ends.

According to Stratfor, Medvedev’s motivations are similar to what was mentioned in StrategyUnit’s article: a method to reassert Russia on the world stage, taking advantage of the G-8 chairmanship to set the tone of its chairmanship. In this case it is to force Europe to consider Russia’s interests, power and importance seriously.

Prior to the Jan. 1 shutoff, the Europeans had become complacent, unappreciative of the scope of their dependency upon Russia or how much they have taken a “friendly” Moscow for granted since the end — or even before the end — of the Cold War. Energy supplies to Europe continued throughout the Afghan war, the 1983 war scare, the Moscow Olympic boycott, the putsch against Gorbachev, the Soviet breakup, the Chechen war, the Kosovo war, and the enlargements of NATO and the EU. The Europeans grew confident that as far as energy supplies were concerned, the Russians — while unpredictable in their rhetoric — were rock-solid in their reliability.

Medvedev’s primary goal was to redefine European perceptions of Russia. As of Dec. 31, Western Europeans perceived Russia primarily as an easily dismissed, benign former foe. But with the Gazprom cutoff — which diminished gas supplies needed for heating in the middle of winter — Russia proved itself not only sufficiently erratic to be taken seriously, but also capable of inflicting very real pain with a modicum of effort.

Now, did the Russians want to hurt the Europeans? Of course not. Europe, particularly “old” Europe, remains a potential partner for Moscow, and there is no reason for the Kremlin to introduce spite into an already complex relationship. But did the Russians want the Europeans to know that the Kremlin has the capacity and chutzpah to turn the screws? Absolutely. And doing so at a time of year when the wind whipping off the North Sea is anything but balmy adds that ever-incisive Russian touch.

This is not about establishing trust, but about establishing in Europe a respect for Russia’s strengths and an awareness of Russia’s concerns.
…
The elegance of Medvedev’s strategy lies in the fact that simply causing the Europeans to think about Russian interests means that the Kremlin has driven a wedge not only between the Europeans and the Ukrainians, but between the Europeans and the Americans. If Russia is to recover what it has lost in geopolitical stature these past 15 years, this is precisely the sort of policy that will give it a fighting chance.

The entire article has more details regarding Ukraine’s motivations and calculations as well as its historic importance to Russia. Most interestingly it points to Yushchenko potential use of the gas issue as a way to play the “anti-Russian” card to boost his popularity for the upcoming March parliamentary elections.

If someone would like to see the article, please let me know and I can forward it. I am unsure if its available freely online.

Updated December 03, 2006
—————–

Introduction

With the breakdown in price negotiations during recent days, Russian state-owned Gazprom choose to cut the gas deliveries to Ukraine, the main conduit for exports to the rest of Europe. This is a critical situation because, as mentioned by Bloomberg, “State-run Gazprom supplies about a quarter of gas consumed in Europe and ships about 75 percent of that volume through Ukrainian pipelines.”

Washington Post provides further details on the outcome: “On Sunday, with no agreement on a new price, Russia cut by 120 million cubic meters a day the volume of gas it sent down the Ukrainian pipeline — Ukraine’s share. But there were soon reports that the volume of gas reaching Austria, Italy, France, Hungary, Poland, Slovakia, Romania and Croatia at the other end had fallen by as much as 40 percent.

Gazprom claimed that Ukraine was stealing gas — about $25 million worth on Sunday alone, according to Alexander Medvedev, Gazprom’s deputy chairman”

Russian Climbdown

But only one day after cutting the gas supply, Russia has been forced to restore the supply with mounting criticism from Europe and US on Russia’s ability to be a reliable energy partner. Gazprom, however, tried to square all blame on Ukraine:

“With the aim of preventing a possible energy crisis caused by Ukraine illegally taking gas, Gazprom has taken the decision to deliver additional gas into the gas transport system of Ukraine,” the company said in a statement.

“We stress that the additional delivery of gas is not designed for Ukrainian consumers but is meant for transit through the territory of Ukraine for delivery to consumers outside the borders of Ukraine.”

Europe, IEA and the US are placing blame on Russia for the current crisis, demonstrating the limits of Russia’s “Petro-Power”.

Russian Stabs Itself and Stumbles

In the long term, Ukraine will have to come to a compromise with Russia leading to higher prices. But more substantially, Russia’s heavy handed tactics against Ukraine will backfire throughout Europe and Russia’s energy customers. What Russia has seeming underestimated is the reaction from Europe because of its actions against Ukraine. What Russia’s hardball tactics has done for Europe is to:

1. Highlight Europe’s dangerous energy dependency on an increasingly authoritarian Russia
2. Confirm the fear that Russia will turn to its energy resources as its main leverage of power in the global stage
3. Encourage European states to find alternative energy sources, away from Russia (Neighboring Finland is already building its first nuclear to move away from Russia)
4. Highlight that Putin and Russia cannot be trusted in other important issues like Iran, North Korea et cetera
5. Encourage speeding the process to include Ukraine in western institutions like NATO and the EU
6. Underline that the Russian-German gas pipeline (expected to be completed by 2010) is a naked attempt by Russia to consolidate its power and influence in Europe
7. Seals Former German Chancellor Gerhard Schroder image as sell-out for Moscow, as he is now working on Gazprom’s Russian-German Gas Pipeline
8. Draw increasing criticism to Russia for its increasing authoritarian use of power, such as the banning of NGOs, that will only grow as Russia assumes head of the G-8 this year.
9. Increase calls for Russia to be removed from the G-8 for not being a major world economy, a democracy or even a free-market state

This arrogant move against Ukraine amid recent criticism for restricting NGOs and holding the G-8 chair may be a signal that Putin’s consolidation of power is leading Russia to a belligerent authoritarian state, rather than a corporatist Russia (think Singapore) that can help consolidate Moscow’s power before Russia deteriorates and bring Russia back economically.

Conclusion
Ukraine and Russia are still a long way from resolving the issue, but so far we can conclude that even if Russia gets what it wants from Ukraine, it still come out loser on the world stage and its reputation as reliable energy partner is soiled. At this point in the situation, it is difficult to see how Russia stands to benefit against Ukraine and the world stage. The loss in international standing is costing a lot more than any possible gain from Ukraine.

Post-Script: A Contrarian View, Russia Exerts Power?
To keep the analysis balanced (since events are too early to call), Putin could be purposely timing the move against Ukraine because of its G-8 chairmanship.

It is possible that Putin wants to demonstrate that Russia is willing to flex its economic muscle regardless of its cost to the world stage and that in the face of an increasingly energy vulnerable Europe, Russia’s power is very much real. True, states like Finland are increasingly promoting nuclear energy as an alternative, but they take years to build and Russia has the largest natural gas reserve while Norway and the UK’s has dwindled.

In short, this event could be a move to show that Russia is not to be taken for granted as the world “natural gas tank station” to be tapped freely by Europe or its other customers. Raw/Single commodity export states are viewed somewhat disparging as backward states for advanced states to exploit - this is something that obviously Putin would not like Russia labeled as.

However, such increase in fear and power would only be a short/medium term gain. In the long run, such hardballing tactics would likely motivate Europe to move away from Russia - be it using nuclear power or alternative sources of natural gas. Thus, this is a risky gamble for Russia to make, if indeed this is Putin’s intentions.
(more…)

Introduction

The Oil Drum has an excellent post covering the recently released findings over the major drop (30%) in the temperature of the the Gulf Stream, the warm currents that from the N. America flow east to warm Europe. (Note that this report was curiously timed against current discussion in Montreal on the successor to the Kyoto Protocol.)

Immediate Implication

What are the obviously implications if the Gulf Stream deteriorates further?

1) Emphasizes the growing need for a stable energy supply to warm a chilling Europe, while the oil peak grows ever nearer and UK is already facing a potential energy crisis this winter.

2) As best said by Oil Drum’s Stuart Staniford:

That’s the warm water that didn’t go to Europe, and is now coming back into the tropics. Where’s it going again?

Smack into the region where North Atlantic hurricanes form, that’s where it’s going.

So if this result holds up and these trends continue, I think we can expect to see plenty more of this in the future: [Staniford shows a picture of wrecked oil rig in the Gulf Coast]

Broader Implications

The changes in the Gulf Steam is a microcosm for the broader implication of climate change:

1. There will be more extreme weather - very cold and very dry/hot. Both will lead to the increase use of heaters on one side and the use of air conditioners on the other. All energy hogs.

2. Extreme weather (like hurricanes) will make it more difficult and *expensive* to extract hydrocarbons (oil, natural gas etc) and difficult to transport.

Closing Remarks
In the distant land of Sudan (distant for the West, that is), a prolonged and extreme drought is partly to blame for the genocide, as conflict for water and land between herders and peasants gave with to a more ethnic conflict between Arabs (mostly herders) and Furs (mostly peasants).

While the role of climate change is little mentioned in the ongoing Darfur Genocide, with the climate change now bearing its weight to Europe we should expect to here more on this. While I doubt Europe will descend so easily to genocide, Sudan represents the extreme changes in human behavior to government policy that are possible and caused partly by climate changes.

Polish Plumbers: Handsome and Good for the Economy?

From the BBC: The “Polish Plumber” was the catch-phrase of the French “Non” referendum on the constitution, and later became a tongue-in-cheek slogan for the Polish tourist board.

Out of all the arguments against immigration, economic fears - from “natives” losing their jobs to wage depression - seems like one of the more reasonable “anti” arguments, especially when compared other arguments that touch on racism and xenophobia.

Thanks to the recent EU Enlargement, the world had a chance to have a sample lab on immigration: 1) England, Ireland and Sweden who let in EU Central/Eastern Europeans 2) The rest of the EU, fearing “Polish Plumbers”, did not

Via Virginia Postrel, Thomas Fuller of IHT reports on the results so far of the experiment:

It turns out the doomsayers were partly right: Nearly a year and a half after the expansion of the European Union, floods of East Europeans have washed into Britain.

Poles, Lithuanians, Latvians and other Easterners are arriving at an average rate of 16,000 a month, a result of Britain’s decision to allow unlimited access to the citizens of the eight East European countries that joined the EU last year.

They work as bus drivers, farmhands and dentists, as waitresses, builders, and saleswomen; they are transforming parts of London into Slavic and Baltic enclaves where pickles and Polish beer are stacked in delicatessens and Polish can be heard on the streets almost as often as English.

But the doomsayers were also wrong: Multicultural Britain has absorbed these workers like a sponge. Unemployment is still rock-bottom at 4.7 percent, and economic growth continues apace.

Since May 2004, more than 230,000 East Europeans have registered to work in Britain, many more than the government expected, in what is shaping up to be one of the great migrations of recent decades.

Yet the government says it still has shortages of 600,000 workers in fields like nursing and construction.
(more…)

After 11 plus days, the French government sent in the Gendarmerie (Military Police) and enforced curfews…and thus, the riots appear to be abating. Sending in the military-police and curfew - as I mentioned at GlobalGuerillas - was something the French Government should have done during day 2 or 3.

The rivalry between Interior Minister Sarkozy and PM De Villepan could have led the government to delay action to make Sarkozy look bad. Or simply, the French government feared that such measures would escalate the issue. Either way, the real issue (and it always has been the issue) has been the consequences of the riots.

StrategyPage has a similar take my posting on “Paris Riots: Welcome to Netwar?”:

[the] street violence is partly a lark, because the kids know the cops are not going to use lethal force, and anyone who gets caught will, at worst, do maybe a year in the slammer (for burning cars looting stores). The drug gangs encourage the violence as a way to intimidate the cops. When the violence dies down, the gang bosses can threaten the local cops with a revival, if the cops do not back off (when it comes to the drug trade).

There are some Islamic radicals running around in all this, but they are a minority. The Moslem kids like to talk about respect and payback, but very few see this as a religious war. It’s become a sport, with various groups competing to cause the most destruction. Text messaging, Internet bulletin boards and email made it possible for the rioters to stay in touch and compare notes. The media coverage also encouraged the violence, giving the kids some positive (for them) feedback.

But now, nearly two weeks of street violence have thoroughly embarrassed the government so much that curfews and more arrests have taken some of the joy out of these Autumn antics. But it’s not jihad, and never has been. (Emphasis Mine)

I think I have empathized points similar to StrategyPage’s in my postings. The real question is will the Paris Riots give haste to the raise of the Muslim Street? Will it push France to concede more power to the Islamic Councils at these banlieue. Or will it simply fade from memory?
——————————————
Update from CounterTerrorism Blog:

Most of the rioters and especially the gang leaders are for now secular and very materialistic, but they will most probably join the rank of jihadis within three to five years if nothing is done.
The usual scenario goes like this: either the rioters end up in jail and are easily converted right there to Radical Islam or an imam from the banlieue convinces them to join the Jihad. At first, family, friends and cops find the transformation almost miraculous. From a drug trafficker, alcohol-drinking, girl-chasing individual, the thug becomes religious, even reserved, adopts a quieter lifestyle and no longer gets in trouble with the police. But this is a transfer of violence: instead of burning cars, the youngster focuses his hatred on the West and becomes a jihadi.
It is no coincidence that scores of French citizens are in Iraq fighting coalition troops (at least half a dozen Frenchmen have died in this fashion).

Again, what will happen is partly up to the French Government…

Introduction
While I still have the fear that we are seeing the raise of the Muslim Street in Europe, it is still far from the “Jihad in Europe” and “French Intifada” that we often see it described in the blogosphere. As of now, it still seems like male juvenile violence at a massive scale, only possible in the age of globalization (which provides for cheap and high-tech communication).

Christopher Dickey at Newsweek correctly describes the rioting as “incendiary flash-mobs”:

But by using cell-phone text messages to coordinate their incendiary flash-mobs, rioters in the city’s suburbs managed to burn thousands of cars, as well as buses, warehouses and stores

Back in 2001, John Arquilla and David Ronfeldt at RAND, published “Networks and Netwars: The Future of Terror, Crime, and Militancy”, which described the phenomena of Netwar in the context of transnational gangs to flash mobs and the Seattle Riots to Zapatistas. On Hooliganism in England, Netwar states:

Firms of opposing hooligans now use wireless technology and the Internet (email, etc.) for both marshalling their own combatants and challenging their opponents. For example, Milwall’s Bushwackers are believed to have used Internet tools (an interactive web site and real-time messaging) to organize and coordinate the violent activities of hooligans traveling to a match in Cardiff, where 14 people were hurt and 6 arrested.

Sounds familiar to anyone?

Welcome to Netwar.

Arquilla and Ronfeldt define Netwar as:

[The term] netwar refers to an emerging mode of conflict (and crime) at societal levels, short of traditional military warfare, in which the protagonists use network forms of organization and related doctrines, strategies, and technologies attuned to the information age.

These protagonists are likely to consist of dispersed organizations, small groups, and individuals who communicate, coordinate, and conduct their campaigns in an internetted manner, often without a precise central command.
…
This includes familiar adversaries who are modifying their structures and strategies to take advantage of networked designs—e.g., transnational terrorist groups, black-market proliferators of weapons of mass destruction (WMD), drug and other crime syndicates, fundamentalist and ethnonationalist movements, intellectual-property pirates, and immigration and refugee smugglers. Some urban gangs, back-country militias, and militant single-issue groups in the United States have also been developing netwar-like attributes.

Like the rivaling English hooligans the Paris Rioters are doing battle – but unfortunately, its on the scale of bragging who burned the most cars, the most:

On Internet websites, young arsonists brag about their successes. Rioting, it seems, has become a trend sport, as youths in immigrant areas of provincial cities begin to rally to the call from Paris (source)

John Robb at Global Guerilla suspects that the riots are not solely motivated by the mindset of simple juvenile violence. What he sees is that in response to French Interior Minister Sarkozy campaign to crackdown on violence, the criminal elements took advantage of the death of the teenagers to help launch a loosely coordinate rioting to force Sarkozy to back down.

John Robb’s unique analysis on the Paris Riots is a breath of fresh air compared to the “Jihad in Europe” meme we are continually seeing or the social/cultural explanations. Robb’s view is very probably on the mark, but its impossible to tell (thus far), how involved the criminal elements are. Indeed, it would be naive to think there is no amount of criminal gangs supporting the rioters.

From: Netwar, p. 103

To return to Networks and Netwar and assuming that criminal gangs leveraging street mobs, we are seeing a combination of First Generation Gangs and most likely nascent Thirst Generation gangs – Hooligans and Drug Lords.

The difference between Second and Third Generation gangs is operations at a global level and political goals. In most cases, the political goals were focused on helping attain market protection for these organizations. As expounded in more depth by Manwaring’s “Street Gangs: The New Urban Insurgency”:

This political action is intended to provide security and freedom of movement for gang activities. As a consequence, the third generation gang and its leadership challenge the legitimate state monopoly on the exercise of control and use of violence within a given political territory.

Linking between Third Generation Gang, Rioters and Islamofacist Organizations
There has always been a fear of a linkup between gangs and terrorist organizations and indeed in South American, there are often one and the same. “Street Gangs: The New Urban Insurgency” goes into great length describing case studies in Central and South Americas.

The pervasiveness of the gangs and the narco-corruption influence it carries are some of the factors that lead to the empowerment of the third generation gangs in the Americas. Fortunately, the same cannot be said of France. These gangs have limited territory and the government is not so much paralyzed by narco-corruption but a lack of political will.

Besides the unknown factor of the criminal gangs in influencing the rioters, there is still the question of the potential role of Islamists. There are methods by which we can possiblely see a link up:

1. Outright collusion of the criminal element (and its rioters) with the Islamofacist.
2. Islamic Fundamentalism could be promoted to various ghettos as a method to “clean” the streets of gang and mob violence – a method of social reform. Indeed, this is an often heard argument of Islamic Fundamentalist – that they are simply trying to reform society and cleanse it of corruption (be it a woman’s ankle seen naked in public to narco trafficking). While reforming the ghettos - such reformist organizations could still keep the connections of the criminal elements to attain weapons and other materials for carrying acts of terrorism.

Amir Taheri takes a possible third route (Hat Tip to Belmont Club):

Some are even calling for the areas where Muslims form a majority of the population to be reorganized on the basis of the “millet” system of the Ottoman Empire: Each religious community (millet) would enjoy the right to organize its social, cultural and educational life in accordance with its religious beliefs.
…
“All we demand is to be left alone,” said Mouloud Dahmani, one of the local “emirs” engaged in negotiations to persuade the French to withdraw the police and allow a committee of sheiks, mostly from the Muslim Brotherhood, to negotiate an end to the hostilities.

In essence, the Islamofacist and the French Government could settle on a political agreement: the Islamofacist will “keep the peace” in the neighborhoods to quell the rioting. The French will get back their facade of domestic harmony. The Criminal Gangs secure their turf and have Sarkozy stopped (for now). The Islamofacist attain the position of power as the mediator between the ghettos and the French Government.

So what exactly will happen? Things are still too early and information is far too little. But in the end, I am optimistic that the French will pull through and find a proper strategy.
——–
Update:

Today’s Wall Steet Journal (Nov. 07) echoes similar remarks. Here’s an excerpt from “Muslim Groups May Gain Strength from French Riots“:

…
As France enters its 12th night of rioting, Islamic organizations like the Tabligh, which originated in the 1920s in India, stand to benefit from the unrest and emerge strengthened from it. The Tabligh advocates a strict adherence to Islam but also a disengagement from society.

While gangs of disaffected youths, mostly from Muslim families, continue to rampage, burning thousands of cars and ransacking entire neighborhoods, some of these organizations are positioning themselves as mediators who can bring back the order the government has been unable to restore.

These groups don’t preach violence, but they do advocate something that is troubling Europe’s secular democracies: that Muslims should identify themselves with their religion rather than as citizens. Effectively, they are promoting a separate society within society and that brand of Islamist philosophy is seeping into many parts of Western Europe. Countries from France and Germany to the United Kingdom and the Netherlands haven’t succeeded in integrating their Muslim minorities — and Islamic organizations have carefully positioned themselves to fill the breach.

The riots “are a blessing for them because it gives them the role of intermediary,” says Gilles Kepel, a scholar who has studied and written extensively about the rise of Islam in France. That, in turn, puts them in a stronger position “to force concessions from the state,” such as demanding a repeal of the law France passed last year banning headscarves from public schools, he says.
…
There isn’t anything inherently Muslim about the violence: Islamic groups appear to have played no part in stirring up the trouble, and few rioters seem to be using Islam to justify their attacks. On the contrary, many Islamic groups say they are trying to calm things down. But the bleak projects that ring Paris and France’s other big cities have long been fertile recruiting grounds for Islamic groups that preach a fundamentalist form of the religion that is often hard to square with Europe’s pluralistic societies.

While their mediation seems helpful in the short-term, these Islamic organizations end up further alienating Muslim youths from mainstream society because they teach an ideology that is in conflict with France’s secular ideals, says Malek Boutih, a former head of human-rights group SOS Racism. “They recruit, they teach the Quran and they try to orient everything around the mosque,” says Mr. Boutih. “That’s it.”

That is especially true of the Tabligh group here in Clichy. Founded in India in 1927, the Tabligh sends its missionaries to Islam’s troubled frontiers: Central Asia, Africa and Europe. Although it preaches a peaceful brand of Islam, some of its former members have founded terrorist groups and been expelled from countries like Kazakhstan for engaging in radicalism. French intelligence officials say up to 80% of Islamic extremists in France were once Tabligh members and have dubbed the organization the “antechamber of fundamentalism.”
[Fury in the Suburbs]

The group’s influence has grown even as France has tried to integrate Islam by giving Muslims a political voice. In 2003, the government set up a body meant to represent the Muslim community to the state, called the French Council of the Muslim Faith, and held elections to it. The government hoped the council would be a moderating influence. Instead, it has been riven by divisions and has given official representation to some of the most radical Islamic groups in the country.

Quick Posting for Today…

I’ve been reading alot lately of the portrayal Paris Riots as the Intifada - and I don’t buy it yet. While the rioters appear to be mostly run by Muslims immigrants, the attacks so far has been of random violence and at most against symbols of the state (Trains, Police etc). I don’t see youth with green flags burning churches yet. Heck, I haven’t heard any reports of anyone carrying a political banner yet or shooting a political slogan yet. Have you?

I think much of the blogosphere is jumping the gun on the Intifada slant - but its definitely a realistic fear of what may come if things in France and Europe don’t change soon.

The violence has so far ranged from the usual stone throwing and molotov cocktails to evil and mindless:

A handicapped woman was doused with petrol and set on fire by youths during another night of rioting in Paris.

The 56-year-old suffered third degree burns to 20% of her body in the attack.

Witnesses said a youth poured petrol over the woman and then threw a Molotov cocktail on to the bus she was travelling on in the suburb of Sevran.

Over at Instapundit, a reader, David Mosier, attempts to bring some greater context for the riots:

If the rioting goes on for another couple of nights and spreads to other areas of the country, you’ve got 1968 all over again. France is ready to explode, as it was in 1968, and the all-night riots are lighting the fuse. Will Chirac be able to prevent an explosion that shakes the whole country? I doubt it. There’s too much pent up frustration in France, and not just among young Muslims. They might be the group that kicks off the insurrection, but once it’s kicked off, everybody in France with a beef (and that’s everybody)will join in. Just like they did in 1968. University students started it with student strikes in Nanterre (note, not in Paris)and it spread from there. Before it was done, almost every organized, or unorganized, group in the country had joined in to bring down deGaulle. It would seem Chirac’s time is short. France hasn’t had a proper Gallic explosion since 1968; it’s long overdue.

I am unaware if a large cross-segment of France shares some sort of frustration at the government or the state of the nation. But, I can image that if the riots take a political tinge - antiglobalization, anti-immigration laws etc - then we’ll start to have ourselves a major movement similar to the May 1968 scenerio Mosier is talking about.

On the other side, I am sure there are radical Muslims in France and beyond considering taking advantage of this raw violence and “Islamofacist-ify” the violence.

But the more realistic scenario I still see is that if violence continues to be principally perpetuated by Muslim youth is beginning of Europe’s Muslim Street.

So which scenario will happen? May 1968? Intifada? Muslim Street? Nothing? We’ll have to keep watch.

Day 7 of the Paris Riots

AP 11.03.05 Christohe Ena

Paul Belein has an excellent commentary on the Paris Riot (and in Demark) and what it means for Europe’s future and what is holding Europe’s politicians back . Hat tip to Instapundit for the link to Paul.

There are always talking heads and pundits analyzing the “Arab Street”. They have spread the constant fear of a US going so far as to upset the “Arab Street”, igniting radical revolutions against the authoritative governments throughout the Middle East. This fear is heard countless times from US support of Israel, authoritative governments and from Operation Desert Storm (Persian Gulf War) to Operation Iraqi Freedom.

All experts speak of this powerful “Arab Street”. Thomas Friedman mentions it countlessly. George Tenet in his “World Threat 2001” briefing before the Senate talks of “The recent popular demonstrations in several Arab countries—including Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Oman, and Jordan—in support of the Palestinian intifada demonstrate the changing nature of activism of the Arab street”.

But now we see we’ve been looking at the right religion, but wrong ethnicity and region. We should be worried about Europe’s growing Muslim Street.

An “Arab Street” revolt is simply a revolt in an Arab state – states in a region already hostile to the West. But, a revolt of Europe’s Muslim Street threatens to constrain the birthplace of Western Civilization itself.

Here’s an except from Paul, touching on why the Europe’s politicians have been hesitant and constrained in their actions against the growing problem:

The first one is that the Muslim population in Western Europe has become so large that politicians fear what it might be capable of.
…
A second reason why some politicians try to appease the Muslims is that these are now a substantial segment of the voting population. Demographics are deciding the fate of Europe’s democracy.

Europe has already been hesitant in pursuing any bold policies that involve Muslims and Arab nations, unlike the United States. After the Paris Riots - there will be no doubt that Europe would bulk at any risk of upsetting its “Muslim Street’.

Will this further isolate the United States on its “Global War on Terrorism”?

In terms of openly stated policy and openly seen actions by Europe’s leaders - the answer is yes. But, when it comes to Europe’s domestic security services - undoubtedly, they will step up their efforts, which currently are far more extensive than the U.S. (If some Americans fear the Patriot Act and Bu$h Hitler Police State ™, they would shriek at horror at France and UK’s anti-terror policies).

The War on Terror is also a war on political will between the Islamofacist and everyone else – this is something Europe has been short on and now it will be shorter still.

Until the day Europe comes around, the Paris Riots mean further isolation for Bush’s policies and a set-back against the War on Terror (to use the US Govt’s term).

Some have argued that the Paris Riots will awaken the French and Europe population to the growing issue and threat they have failed to confront decisively. Judging from what we hear from the French Press (specifically from opposition party leaders), it seems its Sarkozy that is under fire for trying to lay down the law. A bad sign of things to come…
————————————————————————————–
Update: Belmont Club has just posted its own (and opposite) take:

“What events in France have done is discredit the liberal recipe so badly that even those who are not prepared to admit that American policy may have been right must now root around for an alternative theory. “

I hope he’s right, but I am pessimistic. Maybe in the long term, it will.

The following is more of a commentary/opinion rather than StrategyUnit usual goal of analyses on issues and policies related to security issues.
————————————————————–
Update 10.03.05 - A Retraction and Correction:
1) After reading, researching and looking into the issue, I would like to retract my position of countering The Wretched at the Belmont Club
2) After reviewing the comment by Carsten Agger below, I have to put in question the reports of the riot in Denmark. Carsten has mentioned that this could really be a simple situation of alienated and jobless youth. Until, I can verify from additional sources - I’ll hold on the Denmark Riot issue. Thanks Carsten for your input.
3) Check out the follow-up posting “Paris Riots - Raise of the Europe’s Muslim Street, not Middle East’s Arab Street”
————————————————————–

A Restive Population in Europe
It is now day five of the riots in Clichy-sous-Bois, a suburb outside of Paris, which has now spread to other suburbs, Sevran, Neuilly-sur-Marne and Bondy [1]. The riots was sparked when allegedly two immigrant youths were electrocuted after coming into contact with a transformer while under fleeing from the police. During the riot on Sunday, a tear-gas that launched at a mosque serving only to exacerbate the riots.

At the same time, sectarian riots have sparked in Denmark:

“Rosenhøj Mall has several nights in a row been the scene of the worst riots in Århus for years. “This area belongs to us”, the youths proclaim. Sunday evening saw a new arson attack.
…
We are tired of what we see happening with our prophet. We are tired of Jyllands-Posten. I know it isnt you, but we wont accept what Jyllands-Posten has done to the prophet”, he says aggressively, and the others nod approvingly. [2]”

The last bit is a reference to the Danish newspaper Jyllands-Posten, which recently has been sent death threats over a drawing of the Prophet Muhammad by a cartoonist.

While those that support Huntington’s “Clash of Civilization” would not be surprised, those on the other wide would disagree. They would point to social issues being the root cause: from the plight of the immigrant community in the slum housing in French suburbs to the general alienation and seemingly self-segregation of Muslim immigrant community throughout Europe. What I’ve learned from my own study of this- both views cannot be discounted nor are they mutually exclusive.

From Discontent to Jihad
Taking from the “Other Side” Robert Leiken (Foreign Affairs Aug 05) recently wrote: As the French academic Gilles Kepel acknowledges, “neither the blood spilled by Muslims from North Africa fighting in French uniforms during both world wars nor the sweat of migrant laborers, living under deplorable living conditions, who rebuilt France (and Europe) for a pittance after 1945, has made their children … full fellow citizens.” [3]

With no support network and a sense of alienation among the youth, radical Islamic foundations would only welcome them with open arms. It is no surprise that France has been repeatedly targeted for bombings, including more recently a plot to shoot down aircrafts in France.

Alienation of Muslim immigrants goes on to link up with the Global Islamofacist Movement and Insurgency, a self reinforcing network linking all oppression of Muslims (real and imagined) as part of a global struggle:

(More on the explanation behind this graph in part 2)

Robert Leiken goes on to divide the jihadist into two types of immigrant: outsiders and insiders. Outsiders were the newly arrived immigrants who served as the grunts and cannon-fodder (sometimes literally) of the jihadist organization; some of them may be radical imams seeking asylum but with funding from Saudi Arabia and seeking to start a jihadist network. The insiders are second generation immigrants, who are westernized in education yet anti-western and generally the leaders (think Zacarias Moussaoui).

Yet unfortunately the story doesn’t stop there…
(more…)