Global Village Shaman

Al Qaeda in Iraq has accused the Pope of trying “to extinguish the flame of Islam among our Muslim brothers in Turkey and to wipe out their Islamic heritage.”

Again, does the Pope have some magical powers that only muslims know about? I thought his magic only worked on catholics, and devout ones at that. I once saw John Paul II from afar, and at no time did I feel the urge to convert from my rosary-free anglicanism.

If indeed the Pope can pull this off, I say we send him to Afghanistan and Pakistan. Imagine the confessions of those border-dwelling warlords.

Warlord: I had impure thoughts…. and I am harbouring Osama Bin Ladin.

Pope: Say twelve hail Marys (I hear you revere her too!). Oh, and hand him over!

The Pope’s Confessions Tour rolls on. Today in Turkey he pointed out during a sermon in a shrine dedicated to Mary that muslims also revere the Virgin for giving birth to Christ.

It’s getting a bit much.

Off course the Turks are eating it up, praising the Pontiff for his kind words. Reuters quotes a Turkish columnist as saying: “This is a big warning for conservative politicians who think the EU is a Christian club.” That quote speaks to the biggest misconception about the West: that it is as religious as the East.

Western nations aren’t christian the way eastern nations are muslim. God has little place in Western European politics. What muslims often interpret as anti-islamic sentiment in the west is actually anti-clerical, irrespective of how and to whom that cleric prays. If that distinction could be communicated to muslims in Europe, I believe there would be less apprehension on their part.

However, this lesson cannot be told, it must be seen. Muslims must see that actual christians (ie the active church) in Europe are forced to make the same compromises as them. However, Where are the active christians? They have had a century and a half to adapt to the new European climate, and have done so. Muslims do not see the struggle because it has already taken place, and the church lost. The result is they assume christians are happy with the situation, and are therefore complicit.

In fact, if christians and muslims looked at things objectively, they would realise that they are natural allies in this battle. However, some things must change in the muslim world if concessions are to be expected in the West. There is a lot less freedom of worship in Saudi Arabia than in the UK. Christians in Riyadh do not have the same rights of assembly and organisations as muslims in London do. These are legitimate issues that the Pope should feel himself qualified to tackle, instead of cowtowing to the hypocrisy that allows a muslim cleric to say anything, while the christian must be afraid of offending.

The NATO summit in Riga is over. Here are the highlights.

Afghanistan: Some nations will waive the caveats on their soldiers, raising the number of fully deployable men to 26,000 out of 30,000.

Afghanistan: Germany, France and Italy have still refused to waive caveats. Their soldiers will be deployable to the dangerous south on a “case-by-case” basis.

Global: The Rapid Reaction Force of 25,000 is declared fully operational.

Global: More invites, more invites, more invites.

The fact that stands out the most to me is this: 26,000 out of 30,000 soldiers are fully deployable. That’s almost 90%. This is in spite of Germany, France and Italy. Like I have already said, they will find themselves increasingly irrelevant, sidestepped by the US, UK, Netherlands, and a bevvy of smaller nations willing to toe the line.

The slew of invitations to such nations as Bosnia and Serbia, in spite of their war crime issues, should point out that the NATO leadership is looking for participants willing to roll up their sleeves. As I have said before, NATO is a democracy. The not-so-big-three’s votes are becoming less and less important with each new inclusion.
Spain meanwhile has promised more troops, and has apparently (I am yet to confirm) lifted their own caveats.

The Pope has given his support to Turkey’s EU entry bid. Apparently the Turks are worried that apparent hostility to islam could jeopardise their admission into Europe. I guess the Pope giving them the thumbs-up is supposed to quell this hostility. Yet again elements in the muslim world are overestimating the Pope’s influence on christianity, and christianity’s influence on Europe (Western Europe, to be precise). The hostility towards “the islamic world” is cultural not religious. Turkey would probably be better of getting and endorsement from Bono.

The Pope has called for “authentic dialogue” between christianity and islam. The Turks got the ball rolling on said dialogue right then, when the head of the directorate for religious affiars referring to the Pope’s past comments on islam and violence, said “Such accusations and attempts can only serve to encourage those who perform wrong-doing on behalf of religion by way of exploitation.” Good luck, Benedict.

This back-and-forth between the Pope and the “islamic world” is a clear example of how the dominant cultures on the planet often fail to understand each other, and merely try to interpret each other’s institutions and people in terms of their own. The muslim world is gravely offended by the Pope’s comments, assuming that he has as much doctrinal, spiritual and political power as an Ayatollah. The Pope discusses islam and violence in the academic way he would discuss catholicism’s role in the crusades, without realising that islam does not relegate religion to a compartment of society, but rather enshrines it as the center, and therefore it is less accepting of criticism than modern, neutered christianity.

I applaud the Pope’s call for dialogue in principle, but I wonder if anybody, the pontiff included, is sure of what the goals should be. Beyond “understanding” what does each side hope to achieve? Are these goals compatible? While one side seems to want all references to it as being violent and dangerous to end, the other side seems to be trying to make sense of the violence. One is too sensitive about being judged, while the other is too insensitive in its judgments.

According to the BBC, US president Bush chided some NATO member nations for their use of caveats in Afghanistan. These caveats (or “red cards”) prevent NATO from deploying certain nationals to certain areas. The claim is that this complicates field tactics and strategy, and also puts more of the burden (and fire) on certain members of the alliance.

France, Germany, Spain and Italy are at a crossroads. They must decide, as I have said, whether they will be full partners in NATO, as the “New Agenda” requires, or lose relevance in the alliance. The “Old Agenda”, wherein Europe was courted, subsidised and protected by a desperate America is over.

While the US (and the rest of NATO) still needs these four, their strategic imporance is significantly less. This is because geography, the main source for their relevance, is no longer an issue. The enemy is no longer on the eastern border hoping to cross. The enemy is in every nation, including the NATO nations themselves. The only issue now is military and logistical contribution. If they are to enjoy the same privileged position within NATO as they have thus far, every European nation must step up.

America is losing patience.

Apparently, the amount of electronic devices discarded in industrial nations should be a cause for alarm. According to UNEP (UN Environment Program), this electronic refuse finds its way to poorer nations, where it is either re-used or disposed of. The disposal is often performed via such low-tech methods as burning, releasing hazardous chemicals. UNEP’s head stated this at a conference on amending the Basel Convention, a document which seeks to control how hazardous waste material is transported and handled.

While I am with UNEP on this one, I am afraid that they may be fighting a losing battle for now. The developing nations who are serious about fighting e-waste (India, for instance) have already taken steps to restrict inflow. This is in no small measure aided by the fact that they can offer their citizens viable alternatives.

E-waste importation is spurred by demand for cheap electronics among a poor population striving to keep up with the rest of the world. The governments of mosts developing nations have neither the means nor the will at the moment to create an environment that encourages better alternatives. The demand will therefore be met by traders on both sides of the digital divide trying to make a buck. The trader in the west sells trash to the trader in the third world who sell sit to the consumers.

The responsibility for stemming this tide lies squarely with the governments of the affected developing nations. Unfortunately it is yet another responsibility which they have shirked.

I’m coming late to this one, but last week US under secretary of state for political affairs gave a briefing ahead of the NATO summit in Riga. The briefing covered among other issues NATO’s transformation into a globally-acting alliance.

Nato’s new agenda is “now a global agenda and it tends to be about the rest of the world,” Burns states. The idea is to promote stability wherever interests vital to the alliance are at stake. The Afghan theater, for example is essential not only for fighting Al Qaeda, but also for stopping the poppy trade into Russia and eastern Europe.

Hand in hand with this new agenda go new responsibilities. Mr Burns expressed the US’s consternation at low defense spending by other NATO members. Only 7 of the 26 members commit up to 3% of their budget to defense.

Why is this suddenly a concern? A clue to the answer lies in another comment made by Burns: since “there are no longer any vital threats to the security of the United States emanating from Europe, the agenda with Europe has changed.” In other words, the Cold War is over, and there is less need to woo Europe with military support. Western Europe is no longer a physical buffer that the US must defend against a hostile USSR at all (military, financial and strategic) costs. As the theater of conflict moves elsewhere and as Europe transforms from gamepiece to partner, the NATO members will find themselves shouldering more of the burden for their own defense and for the alliance’s activities.

Yet NATO members will not be alone. Already a handful of non-member nations from other regions have increased their participation alongside the alliance in different theaters (Afghanistan, Iraq, Kosovo). THE US proposes the most prominent of these -Australia, South Korea, Japan, Finland and Sweden - be referred to as “global partners”. These countries will increase their participation in NATO exercises, as well as involvement in strategy discussions.

A final challenge that Burns highlights - one that every international organisation seems to face - is the national autonomy issue. Command of NATO troops on the ground ultimately rests in the hands of their governments. Capitals have the right to issue “caveats”, special exceptions limiting how NATO can deploy the nation’s troops. This complicates the chain of command, as it forces commanders to wait for permissions from capitals before they can make significant changes to their plans. The US is hoping the other members will lift these caveats, paving the way for a truly autonomous NATO command.

Generally it seems to me that NATO is going about its global transformation in a logical manner. The proposed purchase of C-17s (to transport more troops and equipment farther afield) is a sound investment and a good example of retooling for the new job, as is the proposed increased emphasis on special forces (multiple conflicts across the globe, fought alongside regional partners, would call for elite, adaptable soldiers as well as specialists in less conventional warfare). The new strategic objectives being set show that NATO understands that the Cold War it was built to fight is over, and that while its interest (the safety of the western world) hasn’t changed, the threats to it (terrorists and global crime networks, not nukes and russian tanks) have.

However, the European members would be well advised to ensure that old paradigms of US primacy do not govern this transformation. America is already the main driving force of the transformation, and that could very well mean that the new NATO is even more a servant of US policy than the old. Europe is no longer the lady in the middle to be courted. She is the partner to contribute equally or be dominated. As such, every European nation that wishes to continue participating in NATO would be advised to raise its defense spending and its contributions, in order to have more of a strategic say.

Yes, NATO is democratic, but its allies and partners will listen to the members with the most to offer. If the US can provide its asian friends with Aegis battle systems, they are in turn in position to become NATO partners, and also more likely to side with the US, increasing its influence in the new global NATO. This is the politics of globalisation: aid, trade and influence. When it comes to military matters, the Europeans are almost as beggarlike as the rest of the world, and they must address this if they are to be truly equal allies to the last Superpower.

On a light note, I wonder how the defendants feel about the one guy who was acquitted.

The Bush administration has denied allegations that the verdict was timed to precede the midterm elections (I had to put this in here to give this story global village cred).

The North Atlantic Treaty Organisation’s military adventures over the past 5 years have taken her beyond her eponymous geographical territory. NATO forces are at work in Afghanistan and Darfur. While these theatres do not lie in the Euro-Atlantic region, the interests of individual NATO members are in play, and thus the organisation has been forced to rethink its unwritten rules of engagement.

The United States is pressing NATO to develop a global doctrine. The US would like the upcoming NATO summit in Riga to focus on turning the regional alliance into a “global security organisation”.

The truth is that NATO is already a global security organisation. The US Nato ambassador, Victoria Nuland, said as much:

“We want NATO to be able to demonstrate when our heads meet four weeks from now that we have an alliance that is taking on global responsibilities, that it increasingly has the global capabilities to meet those responsibilities, and that it is doing it with global partners[…]”

Furthermore, Nuland admits that the weeks leading up to the summit will be spent “arm-wrestling and mud-wrestling about the words that we use in our NATO documents … to reflect today’s reality.” In short, NATO is already a global actor in all but name. The Riga protocols will not be a change of policy so much as a declaration of the situation on ground.

Yes war, like everything else, is globalised now. This fact is best illustrated by the threat of terrorism, and American perspectives thereon. We hear the Bush administration and its supporters say “we are fighting them over there so we don’t have to fight them over here”. We hear their opponents at home say “our actions abroad are creating terrorists over there that will attack us over here”. Either way, the implicit assumption is that the war on terror is global, with results in one theatre affecting all others (be it positively or negatively).

What are the longterm effects of this globalisation of war? I’m willing to stick my neck out and make a few predictions (but I reserve the right to take them back if I am shown to be completely off the mark).

1. Increased involvement of every world power in every other world power’s backyard. Currently, world powers for the most part keep their dealings with the neighbours of rivals as quiet as possible. American involvement in former soviet republics is frowned upon by Russia, for instance. However, as the doctrine of global cause and effect gains ground on the older idea of isolated theatres, world powers will become less shy about sticking their noses in each other’s business. Their individual security will depend on it.

2. Worldwide decline of democracy. As world powers take more of an interest in individual scenarios, they are likely to lend their support to local forces deemed capable of stabilising the area. These decisions are likely to be taken without excess consideration for the growth of democracy, for a variety of reasons:

a) non-democratic governments tend to be better equipped to keep the peace(contrast musharraf and saddam to the new Iraqi government);

b) the world power’s interests are not necessarily in harmony with those of the democratic elements of the “host” nation.

Support from a world power tends to embolden governments, allowing them to take steps towards consolidating power. Case in point Musharraf in Pakistan. His status as America’s ally in the war on terror, in spite of the nature of his rule should prove that local democracy is not always relevant to a global war.

3. Further decline in U.N. credibility. As World powers butt heads over situations in their backyards, more and more of these scenarios will be deliberated by the UN security council, increasing the number of times UN action is halted by veto. Dissatisfaction with the UN will grow both among the world powers (who will be frustrated at each other’s spoiler tactics) and the among the weaker natons (who will see the UN as a toothless bulldog).

4. Rise in political and military cooperation outside of the U.N. NATO and the African Union are collaborating in Sudan. This is the model for future peacekeeping. The regional powers directly affected will receive logistical and military support from world powers and other alliances who feel their interests are involved. The U.N. will find itself ignored and unsolicited, or even usurped.
Examples of these developments can already be seen in different theatres. It would appear that we are headed towards a more militarily connected world, without the UN and its arbitration. What remains to be seen is if any convention or international law system will emerge to regulate how and when global forces act upon a local situation.

New Truth: Every war is a global war.

The International Criminal Tribunal for Rwanda has a problem. The court, based in Arusha, Tanzania, has so far acquitted five people accused of participating in the 1994 Rwanda genocide. Four of those five are yet to find a country willing to take them in. The Tribunal has therefore been obliged to keep them in custody. Yes, men who have been acquitted of all crimes are in jail.

What about their home country, you may ask? Well anyone who has interacted with families of murder victims knows they do not always believe not-guilty verdicts. Imagine a country with a few million of those. These men are not safe in Rwanda.

Critics of international criminal courts often point to their lack of territorial jurisdiction, and the sovereignty of all nations. The argument is usually that no naton should subject itself to the laws of a court that claims to be global, and can therefore claim sovereignty over the nation. However, not much is said about these courts’ inability to enforce their rulings when it’s all over.

Beyond the courthouse, the prison and the gallows, international courts have no power. On what grounds could the Arusha tribunal force a nation to take in and take care of these men? Yet it must be done. If these courts are given the moral right to pass judgment, the international community is obliged to create a real framework in which their the spirit (not just the letter) of their rulings can be enforced, anywhere on Earth. Otherwise we might as well scrap this idea right now.