Talk to the hand

There are few neighbourly relations between rival countries in Asia

What are the most successful negotiating techniques and where does face-to-face rhetoric come up short?

There are some particular cases in Asia that can show us the antagonisms and stumbling blocks in mutual talks between border rivals.

The Korean peninsula has seen its fair share of back-and-forth demands and conversations. When North Korea and South Korea get together it is normally set against a backdrop of military tensions and civil complaints. It was no different this time.

Both sides had traded artillery fire and Pyongyang put itself in a ‘quasi-state of war’. The South dusted off it border loudspeakers and blared out propaganda and K-pop over the frontier.

So when the aides came to the table to talk, it was on normal, unstable ground with a simmering strain on relations. After marathon negotiations, an agreement was reached and both sides backed down, a laudable agreement and a satisfactory temporary outcome to what had become a dangerous battle of rhetoric, music and shells.

Temporary – because these two nations still have not come to any firm peace agreement for the 1950-53 conflict. That ended in a truce, not a peace deal, and they are still technically at war.

Further west across the other side of the continent there is another infamous case of anxious neighbours. Where India and Pakistan are concerned it is no real surprise when any talks between the two rivals founder.

Constantly looking over their nervous nuclear shoulders, the two countries have once again hung up the phone – this time over peace talks which were meant to be held between the respective national security advisers.

There are examples of regional rivals across Asia and the situation around Iran is of interest. With the Saudis staring dagger-eyes across the Gulf, and the ayatollahs simply returning the glares of mutual distrust, these are two countries that do not get on.

In their positions, representing the powerbases of the two major denominations of Islam, they ought to do better as regards their dialogue duties, areas where they could be more engaged actors in regional and religious disputes.

Iran has been doing a lot of talking lately, but not with its neighbours. The six world powers that reached an agreement with the Islamic Republic over its nuclear programme have achieved a lot and have cautiously brought a pariah state in from the cold. An example to nearby nations of how to deal with a troublesome neighbour through successful, international chinwagging.



The US Secretary of Homeland Security hints at a Bin Laden-style killing of leading Mexican mobster

Janet Napolitano recently completed a short tour of five Central American countries. She kicked off in Mexico, where she and the Mexican Interior Minister, Alejandro Poiré, signed security agreements and, it seems, had some heart-to-hearts about the continued search for Forbes Rich-Listed Joaquín ‘Shorty’ Guzmán. In the press conference that followed the meetings Napolitano admitted:

“Well, let me just say it took us 10 years to find Osama Bin Laden and we found him and you know what happened there. I’m not suggesting the same thing would happen with Guzmán, but I am suggesting that we are persistent when it comes to wrongdoers and those who do harm in both of our countries. So that issue continues.”

Joaquín Guzmán is certainly the prize target. He is the leader of the Sinaloa organisation. He was jailed in 1993 but has been on the run since escaping in 2001 in a laundry basket. Sightings have been made every now and again of ‘Shorty’ in and around his gang’s state capital, Culiacán. His latest wedding to an 18-year-old bride was well attended. But he is an elusive character and the photograph the press use to illustrate their stories is a grainy picture taken nearly 20 years ago when he was still behind bars.

The Mexican government’s wanted list of mobsters has been growing gradually smaller but killing or capturing Guzmán would be a major coup for the president. After lower house losses in 2009 Felipe Calderón is a lame duck at present and his National Action Party (PAN) seems set to be kicked out of the presidency and the Senate in July’s elections. It would be a boost for the PAN candidate for the top job, Josefina Vázquez Mota, if the wealthy gangster were taken off the beat.

His gang is arguably the most ‘successful’ of the major groups and forms the most important part of the ‘old’ foundation alliance with the Gulf organisation and the Knights Templar. Taking out its mysterious leader would also help stop the comments from across the country that the government has been favouring the Sinaloa gang by cracking down harder on its rivals, the ‘new’ foundation of Los Zetas, La Familia and organisations from Juarez and Tijuana. Analysts of the violence believe that the Sinaloa criminals may have finally wrested control of the border city of Ciudad Juarez from the local gangs; critics of the government say that this was achieved with an ‘understanding’ from the security forces. The president has categorically denied any such plots.

The US has already been given permission from Mexico City to fly unmanned drones over the Sinaloa mountains and Chihuahua deserts of its neighbour to see what it can see. Will the next step be boots on the ground? The American government would want to avoid the kind of backlash seen in Pakistan after the mission to kill Osama Bin Laden there. The Mexican constitution outlaws foreign intervention on its soil. But, as we saw in that villa near the Afghan border in May last year, sometimes the small issue of national sovereignty can be gently pushed aside when its comes to the elimination of the Washington’s ‘high value targets’.

Indian summer of uncertainty

How will India make use of its month in the presidency of the UN Security Council?

India has a lot of domestic and regional defence and security issues on its plate at the moment. Bearing in mind the added responsibility of chairing the UN Security Council, Delhi has a lot to shoulder. Looking at the international situation first there is one major issue: what to do with Syria. Since the Arab League gave its first official condemnation of the ongoing repression across Syria, the Gulf Nations have been queuing up to denounce the regime and their ambassadors have been jumping on aeroplanes home.

However, India’s caution on the issue has stood out. The excitable Europeans have been at the forefront of the clamour for a condemnatory resolution, with their grouping led by the UK, France and Italy (and also this time Germany, notably ambivalent about the NATO mission in Libya). Then there are Russia and China, two heavyweight permanent members flapping their vetoes in the air as a warning. India has so far aligned itself with the Russians and Chinese, who also count current non-permanent Council member South Africa, (part of the emboldening BRICS global power bloc), amongst their ranks. The Council has so far failed to agree on a resolution and only issued a weak statement. With Arab countries of regional importance both to Syria and to India starting to turn away from Damascus, India should have something a little bit more negative to say about the terrible repression in Syria.

On the home front, a relationship that unnerves Delhi is the Sino-Pakistani one. However, it has soured somewhat with Beijing’s published fears that Muslim Uighurs from Xinjiang province have been popping over the border to Pakistan to terrorist training camps. India, the host country of the Dalai Lama and the exiled Tibetan government, is eyeing China with suspicion. Indo-Pakistani relations recently came under the spotlight after many attributed responsibility for the Mumbai bombings in July to a Pakistani group. However, Islamabad strongly condemned the attacks and many instead looked to India’s homegrown Mujahideen as the possible bombers.

A new ‘Great Game’ seems to be building slowly in India, Pakistan and China. All three have nuclear weapons and very strong armed forces. India has two eyes but must not train them in the same direction. Syria is clearly important but Delhi must deliver calm diplomacy and strong leadership in the sub-continent as well. It has the chance to be a mediator in Indo-Chinese disputes at home and international disputes via the Security Council and must use these opportunities calmly and wisely.

Time to retake the Latin exam

The British government shows some determination to address its lack of commitment to Latin America

They say Latin is a dead language. Sometimes it seems that many in different British governments have believed Latin America is dead too. The visit of the British Minister for Latin America to Bolivia from 26-27 July went almost unnoticed in the UK press. The BBC had one online page of coverage of the trip; a YouTube video Jeremy Browne, the Liberal Democrat MP with responsibility for Latin America, put online had only been viewed 42 times by the time this blog was published.

In November, the Foreign Secretary made this speech about the relationship between the UK and Latin America. He was right that Britons have played a role in forging Brazilian and Uruguayan independence and being the first European nation to recognise Mexico. Welshmen took football to Argentina. Cornishmen helped develop the Mexican silver mines.

But it seems that there has been an invisible colonial barrier barring the UK from closer relations with the region; a whispered admission that this was Spain and Portugal’s domain. Africa and the sub-continent have received far greater attention from the UK, mainly owing to the colonial links. Millions across India, Pakistan and sub-Saharan Africa speak English. Charities and aid workers regularly channel their efforts (rightfully) on the many social, political and medical needs of these nations but Latin America also needs support. And the UK can help the region in a different way.

It need not abandon Uganda or Bangladesh but the old colonial frontiers that stood are long gone. New-age imperialism is booming. China has already muscled in on the old UK ground: Beijing is a massive investor in many African countries now, often exchanging construction workers and architects for coal. India is turning into a global power capable of looking after itself. South Africa has now joined Brazil, Russia, India and China in their strong, emerging-powers BRICS bloc.

Latin America is full of successful, healthy and democratic countries. Mexico, Argentina and Brazil are in the G20. The region does not need stabilising support but it would welcome closer trade and investment links. As Mr Hague noted in his speech “We export over three times more to Ireland than we do to the whole of Latin America”. That needs addressing fast. China is becoming the dominant power in Africa. As Brazil outgrows Latin America and sets its sights on global ambitions, the UK would do worse then re-focusing a little of its ring-fenced international development budget and a lot of its trade desires on Latin America.

A fortress made of BRICS

The BRICS countries are building a formidable global power base but there are still cracks in the foundations

With the addition of South Africa to the group late last year, the emerging markets bloc has expanded its reach and capability considerably. It now has fingers in pies cooking in all corners of the globe and each member-state has a rough home ‘region’ where it is the dominate force. Brazil has majority sway over Latin American affairs, China rules the construction industry in Africa and Russia has diplomatic and industrial control throughout the former Soviet Union nations. But the way they influence and react with each other – let alone other countries – is both a cause for celebration and concern.

China is the most successful of the BRICS. It competes with Brazil in Latin America and rivals South Africa throughout Africa, be it through construction contracts in Angola or oil agreements in Sudan. Its conveyor lines drive European businesses back home and its markets are being opened up to foreign firms. It is powerful militarily, diplomatically and economically. China also is skilled at both comforting and irritating rival BRICS. It is happy to let South Africa be a diplomatic voice for Africa while it maintains its industrial strength there. But it has annoyed India by cosying up to Pakistan recently with economic agreements and plans for motorways and railways between the two countries. The transport links would pass through a part of Kashmir that India sees as its own and that Islamabad ceded to Beijing in 1963.

The other powers have also tried to carve out distinct paths across the globe. Brazil is promoting itself as a leader of a new international diplomacy by flexing its negotiation muscles and by engaging with Iran and the Middle East. Russia is still sending rockets to the International Space Station and is arguably the closest of the BRICS to Europe. India is starting to move its weight in South East Asia and has belatedly broken free from its comfortable domestic engine room to engage with African nations and make its nuclear-backed voice heard. South Africa is aiming to make the continent it foots its own, at first through diplomacy (President Jacob Zuma recently met Colonel Gaddafi for talks), and later by possibly challenging China industrially.

There are many sticking points. China and India have a disputed border and Beijing is cross that Delhi lets the Dalai Lama use India as his base-in-exile. Diplomatically, Brazil and South Africa are making an impact on the world stage, while quietly letting China continue to invest in their ‘home’ regions. But while China powers on, Russia is stalling and South Africa relatively inexperienced as the baby of the club.

It is up to Brazil and India to move the BRICS on from a second-class talking-shop to the most important international alliance. An Argentine writing his doctorate on Argentina and Brazil’s economies recently told me that “Brazil is big, very big – too big in fact” and the same could be said for India. They are outgrowing their respective Latin American and sub-continental origins and it is time that they give China a rest from pace-setting. They are certainly all building themselves up quickly and strongly and the West ignores them at its peril.

Rumblings of Delhi belly

Thousands marching in cities across the country. Politicians vilified. Demands for change. While the media spotlight has been on Egypt, the public have also been on the move in India.

The clamour has been over the increasing corruption that the nation fears is infecting their politicians and business leaders. Nepotism, embezzlement and abuse of powers are all charges that have been levelled at the political class. Manmohan Singh, the prime minister, has stood firm and said he will not ‘spare’ anyone found guilty of corruption.

In December, the opposition Bharatiya Janata Party-led coalition headed a huge anti-sleaze demonstration in the capital. However the latest protests were not party-specific and it seems that the public is tired of all political corruption.

India is at an interesting global intersection at the moment and must aim publicly to clean up politics to ensure the continued smooth running of the fast-developing country. In December it signed an historic arms trade deal with Russia, deepening the ties between the two BRIC countries. It is undergoing a census of its 1.2 billion citizens. Kashmir remains a sticking-point in the region but it can provide India with a platform for reformist and more open dialogue in the future, even though it will never accept secessionist plans.

The sub-continent is in a time of trial. Pakistan, despite the exciting news for adrenaline-loving snow enthusiasts that a ski resort has opened in the Swat Valley, is nearing boiling point. The war in Afghanistan is going on inside its borders, sectarian violence is increasing and as the pressure increasing on politicians, the risks become ever more deadly.

But the Indian government ought not to discard talks with Pakistan simply because of the violence and the historic entrenchment over the area. India can continue to grow politically and this would help it grow into its shoes as the second-biggest country in the world, a role it might be able to play in the years to come on all levels – not just in terms of population.

Snow boots for Islamic terrorists

Sweden was the subject of a recent bomb plot gone wrong and five men were arrested in Denmark on 29 December on suspicion of planning a bombing raid. Has Islamic terrorism come to Scandinavia?

The chilly winds and blizzards of Sweden and Denmark are far-removed from the blasting sun and desert heat of the Middle East but Islam is a powerful and growing presence in Northern Europe. It has overtaken Catholicism to become Norway’s largest minority religion. There are approximately 500,000 Muslims in Sweden. After Lutheranism, Islam is the biggest religion in Denmark.

Mass immigration in the 1980s and 1990s, particularly from the Muslim south-east corner of Europe, Somalia and Pakistan, has prompted the development of Islam as a serious faith in the three Scandinavian countries. National reaction to the growth of Islam has courted controversy.

The Jyllands-Posten cartoons uproar in 2005 was the first major sticking-point to development between this part of Europe and Islam. The men arrested earlier this week in Denmark have been accused of wanting to kill “as many people as possible [at the newspaper’s offices]”, according to Danish officials. The fact that these alleged threats and confirmed arrests have occurred five years after the cartoons were published show that the reach of Islam is growing.

Cartoons were also at the centre of controversy three years ago. Lars Vilks, a Swedish cartoonist, pictured Muhammad as a dog on a roundabout. Mr Vilks has since taken precautions against possible retribution.

Islam has not suffered the same level of inertia and religious apathy which has afflicted the Christian denominations across Europe. Young Muslims are born into a growing faith of potency and totality. Their non-Muslim peers simply do not worry about religion that much at all. And it is this perceived affront to the standard Scandinavian secular-based lifestyle by a popular and powerful minority religion that has caused an upswell in indignation towards Muslims in the region.

The traditional Scandinavian mentality may also be a root cause of the increase in terror plots. By attacking a liberal, less outspoken area of the majority-Christian and Western world, the direct opposite of the US, the UK and Israel, Islamic fundamentalists are demonstrating their capabilities to challenge religious and political ideologies across the globe, no matter how quiet and non-confrontational those countries appear on the surface.

Reporting the dead: Part Two

The Press Emblem Campaign (PEC) has published its end-of-year report and it does not make easy reading for journalists. This is the second part of a two-part blogpost. Here we analyse the figures since 2006.

  • 2006 – 2010 – Death toll: 529

a) The five most deadly countries

1. Iraq 127

The ongoing insurgency has caused the most problems for reporters but religious conflict between the different Muslim congregations and ethnic troubles towards the Kurdish north of the country have contributed to make Iraq the most dangerous nation for journalists in the last 5 years. The withdrawal of UK and US combat troops was meant to herald a change in the fortunes for Iraqis but the militancy has continued.

2. The Philippines 59

Developing fast with a mushrooming population, the Philippines is becoming a deadly platform for reporting. Inter-religious divisions and ethnic bonds spill over into the politics, which sees a number of assassinations every year. Journalists are regularly caught up in the shootings.

3. Mexico 47

Five years ago, Felipe Calderon was sworn into office as Mexico’s president. In the same year he launched his ‘war on drugs’, an aggressive policy of taking on the gangsters head-to-head with the military spearheading the campaign. Five years later and a staggering 28,000 people have died in the violence. The majority have been gang members, but thousands of policemen and soldiers have died too. And so have 47 journalists, unsure over what to publish and what to broadcast as the cartels’ media influence grows. As the war intensifies and continues, it becomes an increasingly deadly news story to report.

4. Pakistan 38

The NATO coalition’s war in Afghanistan has spread to Pakistan and although operations began in Afghanistan in 2001, over the last 5 years there has been increased activity in Pakistan; both by the Taliban and by mainly US forces. When the militancy is added to religious strife, the ongoing Kashmir situation and corrupt politics, it is clear that the journalistic atmosphere is particularly dangerous.

5. Somalia 23

A country without a full-functional government since 1993, Somalia has been the scene of fierce fighting and warfare mainly between government troops and Islamist militias, of which Al-Shabab is the most prominent. Recently, African Union peacekeepers have been trying to improve stability in the capital, but intimidation and violence from the militants have meant very little press freedom.

b) The rest of the world

Africa (18): DRC 7, Nigeria 7, Angola 4

Asia (70): Sri Lanka 15, Afghanistan 14, India 14, Nepal 9, Thailand 6, Israel/Gaza 5, Indonesia 4, Lebanon 3

Europe (26): Russia 21, Georgia 5

Latin America (44): Colombia 19, Honduras 14, Venezuela 7, Guatemala 4

Reporting the dead: Part One

The Press Emblem Campaign (PEC) has published its end-of-year report and it does not make easy reading for journalists. This is the first part of a two-part blogpost analysing the data.

In 2010, 105 journalists were killed. Since 2006, 529 have died. The risky countries are not surprising. However, there are different reasons for the dangers faced by reporters and cameramen out on the roads.

There are two main sets of figures the PEC has released: this blogpost will look at this year’s figures and the next blogpost will analyse the global total of journalists’ deaths since 2006.

  • 2010 – Death toll: 105

a) The five most deadly countries in the last year

1 = Mexico and Pakistan 14 dead in both

With more than 3,000 people killed in Ciudad Juarez, a northern border town, this year alone, it is no great shock that the ‘war on drugs’ has claimed journalists’ lives in Mexico. The reporting of drugs deals and violence is often accompanied by death threats and in September the newspaper ‘El Diario de Juarez’ published a frank editorial to the gangs titled ‘What do you want from us?’ and agreed to print what the gangs wanted after one of its photographers was shot dead.

More than 3,000 died in violence in Pakistan last year. Militancy, tribal wars, US drone strikes and the Pakistani armed forces’ battles against Taliban insurgents have contributed to the rising deaths. Journalists covering the militancy have been shot as political, religious and international tensions grow.

3. Honduras 9

Since the 2009 coup, which installed Porfirio Lobo as the new premier, politically-motivated murders have been on the rise. In addition, the contagion of Mexico’s ‘war on drugs’ has spread to the country and that has caused further problems for journalists in the field.

4. Iraq 8

US combat operations ceased in Iraq this year but thousands of troops are still in the country training troops and aiding stabilisation policies. The insurgency has claimed 8 journalists’ lives this year alone.

5. The Philippines 6

Religious conflict in the mainly-Muslim south and the ferocious and deadly politics, where ethnicity, party allegiances, family ties and religion meet in a lethal mix, have created an unstable environment in which to report.

b) The deadliest nations in the rest of the world

Africa (14): Nigeria 4, Somalia 3, Angola 2, Uganda 2, Cameroon 1, DRC 1, Rwanda 1

Asia (16): Indonesia 3, Nepal 3, Afghanistan 2, Thailand 2, India 2, Bangladesh 1, Yemen 1, Israel/Gaza 1, Lebanon 1

Europe (11): Russia 5, Belarus 1, Bulgaria 1, Cyprus 1, Greece 1, Ukraine 1, Turkey 1

Latin America (13): Colombia 4, Brazil 4, Venezuela 2, Argentina 1, Ecuador 1, Guatemala 1