The New Political Centre

On the issue of red lines in Syria. By Bernardo Correia Hourmat

New Political Centre — Fri, 24 May 2013 10:44:37 +0000

The degree to which the situation in Syria has escalated in recent weeks has lent credibility to those who cautioned against unbridled optimist at the outset of the “Arab Spring” in Tunisia over two years ago. In fact, the Syrian situation as it now stands seems to check all the boxes in terms of its transition from legitimate political opposition to autocratic rule, to a focus point of regional turmoil and instability. This can be attested by the following aspects:

Bashar Assad’s willingness to violently put down the opposition, even more so as that opposition quickly organised itself into a coherent force against the government
The increased violence and intransigence of the opposition as they faced Assad’s forces, culminating with the alleged use of sarin gas and the infamous cannibalistic video of a tribal chieftain eating the heart of loyalist soldier

In this way, the ongoing civil war in Syria shows perhaps the darkest side of the Arab Spring, even more so than the potential rise to power of Islamist political movements, as in Egypt.

The role of the international community has best been summed up by the recent “red line” debate in the US. The truth of the matter is that foreign intervention in the Syrian conflict is hardly a straightforward issue. The number of “players” with a stake in the matter is considerable, from Turkey, to Russia, to Iran. Additionally, the contending sides cannot be differentiated by a reductive “good vs. bad” framework, as much as it would simplify the issue. The recent reports of the abhorrent violence carried out by the opposition forces are a clear indication of the shades of grey enveloping the Syrian militia and opposition groups. In this sense, US reluctance for a direct intervention is more an indicator of caution on the part of the administration rather than a sign of supposed weakness, however cynical this approach may be.

On the other hand, recent Israeli incursions into Syrian territory also demonstrated that other players assess their own “red lines” differently. In this sense, Israel is perhaps the most intriguing player in this scenario. The Israeli approach to the Syrian escalation (and, in fact, to the whole Arab Spring) has been very much centred on the potential (and real) risks to its own perception of national security. Israel, therefore, was more than willing of enforcing its “red lines” by considering that arms shipments coming from Iran, with the potential to impact the power balance between the Jewish State and Hezbollah, is very much a national security risk.

In a way, the sheer number of interested “players” in the Syrian theatre of operations makes the whole situation less about what Syrians may want, and more about the conflicting interests of Russia, Iran (and Hezbollah), Turkey, the US and Israel itself.

As the situation stands, Syria has already begun a process of effective fragmentation between zones of influence, into what analysts are referring as “three different Syrias”:

Northern Syria, where Islamists and foreign “jihadis” have taken over;
North-Eastern Syria where, as was the case in Iraq, the Kurdish minority are in the process of carving out a Syrian Kurdistan;
Central Syria where, in the heart of the country, government forces (heavily supported by Hezbollah) are gradually entrenching themselves having gained an upper hand against militant opposition.

As sectarian opposition becomes deeply entrenched between these different actors, the prospects for a meaningful understanding between them become increasingly dim. Despite on-going calls for a settlement coming from external sources such as the UN or President Obama, it appears that the situation will still become worse, before it can get any better.

3 Reasons why government should not be run like a business

New Political Centre — Thu, 23 May 2013 17:04:04 +0000

Something a little bit different today. Here is an article and link to a video from Onlinebma which gives an excellent account of why running government like a business is a bad thing.

Originally published at: http://www.onlinemba.com/blog/video-why-government-should-not-run-like-a-business

The difference between running a business and running a city boils down to this: Try closing a local, little used fire station to save a few bucks. Outraged neighbors of all political stripes would storm the city council in protest.

Now compare that to the silence that typically follows a corporate decision to close an underperforming branch bank or a surplus warehouse.

The reactions are different and for good reason. Although corporations and governments are organizations, that may be one of the few traits they have in common. The role of a business, any business, is to make money.

Successful companies typically accomplish that by producing products that consumers want. In addition, they must continuously find ways to reduce costs to better meet the bottom line.

Although governments must respond to the desires of their constituents (consumers) by providing necessary services (products), here the path diverges because public officials, unlike those in the private sector, must balance meeting the bottom line with the expectation that they will also provide for the common good, however that’s defined. Check out the video and learn about the three major differences that separate governments from businesses.

VIDEO TRANSCRIPT

With Reaganism of the 1980′s came the idealistic political stance that government should be run like a business with the President as both CEO and Commander in Chief and Americans as shareholders and customers. Here are three reasons why the government shouldn’t be run like a business.

Profit vs. People: A corporation’s mission is to make profits. This isn’t just good business sense – it’s also a legally binding component of incorporating. Government’s mission is to to provide for all citizens through the “common good” – things like roads, schools, and police protection. In fact, if a government is profiting, then they are probably hoarding tax dollars for no good reason. Microsoft may be smart for keeping $36.1 billion in cash and liquid short-term investments, but the government would be letting people down if they sat on that much money and weren’t using it to keep the country running.
Shareholders vs. Citizens: There are 535 people in Congress, the President, and nine judges. All of these politicians and judges answer to over 300 million Americans. That’s a lot of decision makers, but it’s this system of checks and balances that works to ensure each person’s voice is heard. It isn’t perfect (lobbyists/special interests/and corruption still exist), but consider the alternative. As a minor shareholder in a major company you wouldn’t even have the opportunity to vote on major business decisions—like whether or not to remove a failing CEO.
Customers vs. Constituents: Companies have the luxury of dumping a line of business because it isn’t profitable or choose to streamline their offerings to serve just one sector of the population. Government agencies do not have this option. This is a good thing. Imagine if Apple ran the government. Fire and Police departments would only answer calls to the homes of twenty-something hipsters, we’d have to use iTunes to file our taxes, and all legal disputes would be resolved at the Genius Bar. It would be horrible.

How racism frames the immigration debate. By Lauren French.

New Political Centre — Fri, 03 May 2013 11:26:14 +0000

With the impending local elections, one of the political hot potatoes is without doubt immigration. UKIP is working hard to make this topic to play a huge part in voting decisions, and other parties have followed suit to avoid losing votes to UKIP.

I’m all for having a debate about immigration, but the way all parties and commentators have approached the issue is racist. Not in an immediately obvious way. No one that I have seen has said “I don’t want Eastern Europeans in Britain because they are all criminals”- although Nigel Farage came very close when he used some police statistics to insinuate that all Romanians that come to Britain, and all future migrants, are criminals coming here just to steal from British natives.

The sneaky racism comes in seemingly innocuous words such as ‘us’, ‘them’, ‘they’, and ‘we’. One can be forgiven for thinking that maybe it is just some proto-nationalism or patriotism, and that it is completely tribal. There is no doubt that this forms some of it, and part of those particular ideologies is xenophobia- that is, the threat of the unknown brought into the country by non-natives.

This ‘us and them’ mentality creates the impression that we are superior and deserving, and that the ‘them’ are therefore a threat because they are inferior and undeserving because of where they happened to be born. It makes me feel very uncomfortable that because I happened to be born in Britain that I am somehow more deserving of opportunity than a poverty-stricken Bulgarian national who wants to begin a new and better life somewhere else, and maybe in the UK.

I know that many politicians and commentators are not shy about expressing their fears about our welfare system being over-run or taken advantage of, regardless of how the coalition is trying to dismantle the whole system anyway. But if you have seen the figures of how many immigrants come to Britain and claim benefits, or use the NHS, they aren’t very concerning, or at least they shouldn’t form as large a part of the argument as they are.

Most anti-immigrant politicos share a view that immigrants only make problems for natives, and they could not possibly bring any positives to the UK. And yet when they do bring benefits, for example as cheap labour for British companies, immigrant workers are blamed for not being paid enough. People in the community voice their concern that there are people sleeping rough, with absolutely no hint of compassion and without ascribing blame where it is warranted.

The frustrating thing is, there might not be a way to frame the argument without being racist, without the tribal language, or patriotism. I suppose I wish the world was perfect when it simply isn’t, and unfortunately that means that racism wins votes and wins out, no matter how cleverly it is disguised.

@Lozipeg

Reacting to the possibility of Syria’s chemical weapons. By Freya Pascall

New Political Centre — Wed, 01 May 2013 17:10:11 +0000

This week the possibility of Syria’s using of chemical weapons hit the headlines. The hypothetical consequences of this took the fore, but we’re not yet on the cusp of a Libyan style intervention since the surrounding intelligence is not even close to reaching a consensus between the big players.

The Geneva Protocol of 1925 sets out not only that signatory countries agree not to use ‘Asphyxiating, Poisonous or other Gases and Bacteriological Methods’ as tools of war, but it also commits said countries to make every effort to induce other nations to respect this standard. Therefore the question is when suspicion of the use of chemical weapons becomes sufficiently significant to mobilise these efforts against the accused regime. This baseline is set by the UN Security Council if the global community comes to debate the use of force, but in the mean time the individual intelligence available to each country impacts their posturing in relation to the situation.

The UN’s intelligence is limited. Swedish scientist Åke Sellström was last month appointed to establish whether the Syrian authorities have in fact used chemical weapons or if any stores of such things exist. However, Sellström and his team faced numerous challenges in carrying out their investigation, owing to the Assad regime’s reluctance to cooperate fully, despite pleas for unfettered access by the UN. Therefore though suspicions have been raised, it is difficult to establish any concrete evidence in order to justify action.

The US has said that it believes that the Syrian authorities have used chemical weapons on their citizens during this prolonged uprising, but since the UN has no access to national intelligence unless a country offers it freely, it cannot act on this professed belief. The “small but significant” evidence, as it was categorised by British Foreign Secretary William Hague, gives the US and UK an edge over the UN, therefore allowing them to throw their weight around diplomatically, where they might not so freely were the UN leading the way.

The UN’s need to act in a steadfastly independent and certain manner means that it moves much slower than national intelligence gatherers who can gain evidence individually without the same level of evaluation as to their methods which is required when gathering for the international community as a whole. The UN is also expected to provide evidence beyond doubt, where national ‘suspicions’ might be considered warranted as a justification for some diplomatic action individually. Waiting for the UN is the safest way to ensure legal and just action in such cases, but assertions from powerful actors like the US make the global community feel ill at ease, when such grave occurrences might well occur if the situation is left unaddressed.

The dilemma is whether to wait and ensure legality, perhaps allowing ‘further’ use of chemical weapons to occur, or whether to act now for the people of Syria, perhaps jumping the gun and interfering where in reality there is no legal right to do so. The debate will continue due to the UN’s inability to remain in sync with its constituents, though perhaps one might consider airing on the side of caution and waiting for it to catch up when there are such high stakes for freedom and international relations.

@freyapascall

Torture flies low under the radar. By Bernardo Correia Hourmat

New Political Centre — Tue, 30 Apr 2013 10:14:30 +0000

In a month which has shown us yet again the ease by which an individual (or two, in this case) can sow chaos among civilians, it was easy to overlook another piece of news that merits reflection.

A bipartisan task force from The Constitution Project (http://www.constitutionproject.org) has released the main findings of its two-year analysis on US detainee treatment in the aftermath of 9/11. The full report is substantial (well over 500 pages) but going over the Task Force’s statement and its main recommendations one is able to get a clear picture of the scope of the work that was involved, as well as the full extent of US actions.

The report covers a considerable variety of aspects related to the treatment of detainees by US forces, as well as the sanctioning by Administrations officials (actually covering the last three Presidents – Bill Clinton, G.W. Bush and now Barack Obama) of unlawful treatment of those detainees not only under US law but also under international treaties and agreements like the Geneva Convention.

The topics in question can be summed up in the following manner:

The acknowledgment that the United States willingly tortured detainees under its custody in its continuing “War on Terror”;
The “official” sanctioning and endorsement of such practices by various Administration officials, both at civilian and military level;
The continued practice of rendition of detainees, meaning the capture of terrorism suspects and their transfer to other countries where torture and “harsh interrogation techniques” are deployed;
Efforts to validate torture practices through legal counseling by government bodies, namely the Justice Department’s Office of Legal Counsel;
Engaging with medical personnel and psychologists, to determine ways in which interrogation techniques could have their effectiveness maximized regardless of the “harshness” of such techniques.

What is interesting about the Task Force’s report is that it combines a truly scathing appraisal of US conduct over the past decade with a somewhat limited ability to actually follow-up on many of its recommendations. Bear in mind I am not criticizing the actual report nor the Task Force, which by its very nature can do little more than issue those same recommendations without mincing words.

But it is troublesome to think about the extent to which any of those recommendations will be heeded. As an example, pointing out the forced feeding of detainees by medical staff under Department of Defense operating procedures, the Report considers that “forced feeding of detainees is a form of abuse and must end”.

Rings rather hollow, does it not? In the end, one questions the purpose of the report. Even worse, one can wonder if the story it tells is exactly new.

I would still argue differently, though. For one, while it may not tell a particularly new story, it does so with an enormous amount of detail. Furthermore, it will be a hard document to dismiss simply on the grounds of some sort of “liberal bias” in the same way it would be had it been issued by Human Rights Watch or been part of the latest rant from Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore.

It serves as a stark reminder of how far a country (any country, for that matter) may fall in the face of tragic circumstances and highlights the high standards that we must constantly ask of a society that claims to be an example to emulate.

And finally, it is not an anonymous story. Following the report’s publication, The Atlantic contacted some of the people who experienced first-hand the contents of the report. Maher Arar, a Syrian-born Canadian, tortured in Syria in 2002 and later released, had this to say:

“If anything your torture programme not only was harmful to the people you torture but it was equally harmful to your nation’s ideals and values. (…) Today the main targets are Muslims. Tomorrow it could be you. Never take what your officials say for granted.”

At the very least, the report keeps alive a discussion that should never be allowed to become mere background noise.

Press Freedom in the UK. By Freya Pascall

New Political Centre — Mon, 29 Apr 2013 07:16:10 +0000

Earlier this month Reporters Without Borders published their annual Press Freedom Index, which ranks as many countries as data can be gathered on based on their treatment of journalists. This year the list included 179 countries and, almost as interesting as looking at the table, is getting friends and colleagues to guess which nation comes where. No shock, perhaps, that Scandinavia, the Netherlands and Finland are at the top of the table and that North Korea and Eritrea are at the bottom. However, guessing the UK’s standing is a little trickier.

Given that the UK has been thought of as one of the model liberal democracies over the last decades, one would not suppose that its school report on press freedoms would read “could do better”. In fact it comes in at number 29, between Portugal and Ghana, though thankfully just ahead of the US. This is in the upper quartile of countries by some way, but given the UK’s aforementioned model status, it is not as high as one might expect. The BBC is here for goodness sake. So why is the UK not ranked more highly?

The methodology behind the index is subjective to some extent, but can certainly be said to be thorough. Countries are not included where there is a lack of reliable confirmed data and a variety of sources are used. The number of journalists, media workers and netizens killed or jailed is an obvious indicator, but the UK thankfully has recorded no such statistics in the past year. The quality of the media is not taken into account, but other qualitative factors are. For example, self-censorship of media providers, Government interference, and access to journalism and journalism training are some of the other indicators that are looked at.

The UK’s transgressions are not nearly as easily identifiable as many on the list, but they are still present. The BBC-Thatcher saga after her recent death provides an interesting example. Though the BBC was not forced to do anything by the Government outright, it was heavily suggested that the song “Ding Dong the Witch is Dead” should not be played on the Radio One Chart Show after reaching the Top Ten in protest of the late Prime Minister. The reason given for the Government’s posturing was that of decency in respecting an elderly lady and her family, though it seems contentious as to whether MPs would have expressed an opinion so forcefully had she not been a politician. The BBC did not have to do anything, thus negotiating cries of censorship, but it was very much understood what was expected, leading to the eventual result of self-censorship.

The BBC is a funny beast, for though it endeavours to hold up standards of independence quite unlike any other media outlet in the world, it is also dependent on the Government for funding and support. Though this does not lead directly to favourable reporting for influential politicians, it means that parliamentarians need to be kept sweet in the face of commercial lobbyists. Resultantly, the Government and the BBC have a love-hate relationship, and can never quite leave each other alone.

This example points us in the direction of why the UK doesn’t rank as well in the Press Freedom Index as it might. Journalists aren’t detained, they are leaned on. Media outlets aren’t just supported, they are also restricted. The easily identifiable factors of a free press are well-established and well-publicised, but scratch below the surface and there is a level of communication from MPs to the press that it not quite morally wrong, but is not quite morally right either. Leveson exposed the ugly side to this, but institutionalised restriction is not the answer. Instead an end to under the radar restriction must be worked towards,

Other countries on the list might quite rightly be the subject of most concern, but the UK should not be complacent. A lack of direct censorship is not the be all and end all when it comes to Press Freedom, and this report reminds us of this.

By Freya Pascall
@freyapascall

The full Index and report can be found on the Reporters Without Borders Website here: http://en.rsf.org/press-freedom-index-2013,1054.html

Can NATO overcome the current “Age of Austerity”? By Bernardo Correia Hourmat

New Political Centre — Fri, 26 Apr 2013 08:06:45 +0000

It has long been a point of contention when discussing the state of the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation (NATO)— the issue of the balance (or lack thereof) between member-states’ national contributions to the Alliance.

In a recent article for Foreign Policy, acting NATO Secretary-General, Anders Fogh Rasmussen, identified this as one of three main “gaps” the Alliance would need to overcome. A particular difficult one, it should be noted, considering that the US alone accounts for 72% of the total defense spending of the member-countries.

But how can the European general public be made aware of the consequences of this apparent “free-riding” in terms of security and defense spending? In a period of continuous austerity and economic downturn, public spending in defense and security is usually rated low in the priority scale when compared to healthcare, education or employment policies. On the other hand, there is still a perception of NATO as an extension of US military strategy instead of an actual alliance of nations, which makes NATO that much harder to “sell” to public opinion.

However, just as national Armed Forces are still deemed a necessity from the point of view of national governments, so should NATO be seen as an international organization with a significant role to be played, well beyond the one it played in the aftermath of the 2^nd World War. How so?

Firstly, NATO should act as the primary discussion forum for transatlantic security issues, where European countries have the opportunity to meaningfully contribute towards formulation of actual NATO policy.

Secondly, as an organization that has a potential to represent Europe’s strength as a regional bloc, from a security point of view, in the same vein that the EU has given priority to its strength from an economic and social point of view. True, this would require that very level of commitment, at the material level, to which Mr. Rasmussen alludes in his piece, a commitment that remains seriously compromised in light of the present economic situation.

And thirdly, NATO has progressively moved beyond its original purpose, to a point where it is virtually unrecognizable from the “anti-USSR” alliance created in 1949. As Mr. Rasmussen points out “NATO forces have been engaged in almost 40 missions and operations, including in Afghanistan and Kosovo, over Libya, off the coast of Somalia and on Turkey’s border with Syria, where NATO recently deployed Patriot antimissile batteries”.

In this sense, NATO’s flexibility and adaptability is its biggest asset, if member-states are able to follow through on their commitments. It is not only a matter of manpower or financial allocation, but rather the contribution that individual members can give in specific areas of expertise, i.e. air-to-air refueling, maritime assets, command and control capabilities.

In a way, NATO has been looking for ways to maximize its effectiveness against today’s threats through its policy of “Smart Defense”, whereby the Alliance has tried to improve its overall capabilities based on improved cost-effectiveness ratios by encouraging member-states to focus on three crucial aspects: prioritization, specialization and cooperation.

Considering that it was officially adopted at the NATO Summit in Chicago, in 2012 it is still too soon to effectively gauge the impact such a strategy may be having. Despite, for example, the Alliance’s success in Libya, both the UK and France that took the lead in the NATO exercise still relied heavily on US resources to achieve air superiority over Libyan territory.

In the end, even “smart defense” represents a substantial investment on the part of the member-states and a public support for the notion that security and defense should remain relevant priorities even in an “age of austerity” is essential. NATO’s ability to “sell” itself to the public eye not only as a relevant international organization, but an indispensable one, will go a long way in determining its sustainability in the months to come.

Standing on the Right Side of History. By Alexandra Rouse

New Political Centre — Mon, 22 Apr 2013 21:41:57 +0000

The other week I found myself sat over the dinner table discussing current affairs when a friend brought up the issue of marriage equality. To my surprise I was the only one out of the six of us to support the issue. As I was sat their listening to their points of view it occurred to me that same sex couples were being penalised due to their sexuality in the same way mixed race couples were ostracized in the past for the colour of their skin. These people sat round my dinner table were neither staunchly religious nor right-wing conservatives, yet their arguments seemed to suggest that same sex couples marrying each other would somehow desecrate the sanctity of marriage and that in some way the whole notion of the idea was ‘wrong’ on many levels.

Following this dinner party news spread globally of a new internet movement organised by the Human Rights Campaign (HRC). This successful social media initiative encouraged supporters to change their social media profile pictures to the HRC logo as a sign of solidarity in preparation for the Supreme Court’s discussion of the matter. However, doubt the organisation anticipated the support they did in actual fact receive— not just the 2.7 million of Facebook users who changed their profile picture, but also the millions of twitter followers and numerous celebrities.

Of course the main argument proposed against same sex marriages is that of religion. This is based in part on Leviticus 18:22 which states “You must not have sexual intercourse with a man as you would with a woman; it is a detestable practice.” This is the issue that came up over my dinner table, with people claiming that marriage is a part of the church and thus since the church is against gay marriage it should not be allowed. Furthermore, some people believe that marriage between a man and a woman is God’s intention and anything straying from this is against God’s will.

However, in my opinion the ‘traditional’ marriage is not worth defending. In many ancient cultures men acquired concubines/ mistresses to keep them satisfied. Britain’s history is littered with marriages arranged on the basis of political power and financial security, and marital domestic violence was legal in Britain till the 1970’s. Furthermore, it wasn’t until women fought for their right to vote and their equal standing in the constitution of marriage that the dynamics of matrimony evolved into what we have today. Thus the whole concept of marriage can adapt and is adapting as we speak. No longer do people get married solely ‘in the eyes of god’- we mostly get married where ever we please, be it a hotel, beach or registry office. The motivation is (largely) purely down to the fact that we love our betrothed. Thus who are we to decide what love is right and wrong. If I can go to Las Vegas and marry a complete stranger who’s to say that same-sex couples, who are in love and may have been with their partners for many years, should not be given that same privilege, even if the compromise people make is that the ceremonies may not take place churches. I mean who are we to deny someone the right to marry?

Although my opinions may be controversial I believe marriage is a fundamental civil right. I believe that those fighting against same-sex marriage will be thoroughly embarrassed by their actions in the future. I mean, imagine trying to justify your past opinions to your grandchildren. I believe that marriage equality now is the same fight mixed raced couples fought years ago and all I can say is this—Do you really want to be on the wrong side of history?

Peace Talks ongoing in Havana while violence continues in Colombia. By Marcus Sales

New Political Centre — Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:10:35 +0000

The people of Colombia have not known peace for over half a century. In 1948 the assassination of Jorge Eliécer Gaitán, a popular political figure, sparked a period of unprecedented violence in Bogotá, which spread throughout the country in a movement known as ‘La Violencia’; the violence. In an attempt to suppress the bloodshed, then-President Gómez elevated the military’s presence, hoping to stem violence with violence. The result of such a tactic however, was to rouse the land starved peasant communities, who with the help of the Colombian Communist Party began forming self-defence groups in an effort to protect themselves from the actions of both the army and large landowners. These communist peasants sought to establish alternative political, social and economic structures than those imposed on them by the dominant political parties, and ‘La Violencia’ turned into a war fought along class divides.

The conflict continues to this day throughout Colombia. The Revolutionary Armed Forces of Colombia, more commonly referred to as the FARC, were the premier self-defence group to emerge from this period and have been actively seeking change ever since. Such ambition however, has come at a significant cost to the Colombian society. FARC’s methods, which include kidnap to ransom, illegal gold mining, and the taxing of drug production and trafficking, has been met with fierce resistance by the Colombian government and paramilitary groups. The consequential internal conflict involving these complex tridents has resulted in the displacement of millions of Colombians, and continues to displace tens of thousands every year. The FARC also continues to commit serious crimes against Colombian citizens with the use of indiscriminate landmines and bombings, while the Colombian military were responsible for the ‘False Positives’ scandal in which they executed civilians and decorated them in FARC uniforms, an unforgivable atrocity.

Despite continued violence in Colombia, these warring factions have come together in Havana, Cuba where a five point plan is being negotiated. This involves land reform and agricultural development, the FARC’s right to political participation, the FARC’s withdrawal from the drug trade, the recognition of victims’ rights, and the cessation of the conflict. Negotiations have been ongoing since 19^thNovember, 2012, and optimism soon followed as the FARC announced a unilateral ceasefire. Such optimism however, has now faded. It is five months down the line, the ceasefire has long since ended and no agreement has been made on the first, albeit most complex issue. Although both parties have conceded that rural poverty is the root cause of the conflict, differences remain between the two parties on issues such as energy and mining, foreign land ownership and the autonomy of peasant reserves. With foreign investment in this area key to the growth of the Colombian economy, it is difficult to see the government producing a proposal that the FARC are likely to accept. Negotiations will resume on April 22^nd after several delays, and it remains to be seen if this round of peace talks will produce an agreement on agrarian reform.

By Marcus Sales
@marcussales88

How North Korea is putting the World on hold. By Bernardo Correia Hourmat

New Political Centre — Fri, 19 Apr 2013 10:59:01 +0000

I finished writing my previous piece on the situation in North Korea with the opinion that the threat was winding down, in line with patterns of past “confrontations” between the North-Korean regime and the international community.

However, since then, events have been taking several turns for the worse. As the situation stands today (April 8^th) although war may not be imminent, miscalculations and misinterpretations from the various contending parties may well lead to unintended consequences.

As Fred Kaplan, of slate.com, points out the biggest danger is not so much an all out nuclear Armageddon between North Korea and the US, but something as dangerously simple as a case of overreaction between North and South.

Up until now, the “wild card” remains Kim Jong-Un, simply because no one knows for sure what he is about. On the one hand, he appears to maintain his predecessor’s willingness to place North Korea in the “Big League”, especially through the flexing of its nuclear and military muscles. On the other hand, he appears willing to prolong the war drum’s beat well beyond what would be reasonable from an outsider’s perspective.

Kim Jong-Un’s approach is thus somewhat oblique to the remaining players in the game—namely the US and especially the South Koreans who, looking across the border to their neighbour’s threatening overtures, may feel entitled to a more forceful reply with dramatic repercussions.

This is the main cause of concern. From the US’ point of view, the North-Korean leader is still a bit of a riddle, unlike Kim Jong-Il our Kim Il-Sung. Theirs was a bluster grounded in a degree of reasonableness usually associated with the need to ensure a steady stream of humanitarian aid. Kim Jong-Un combines a degree of inexperience with a need to affirm himself to the North Korean military command. At the same time, he remains in charge of a potential nuclear capability which both his predecessors lacked.

As I have pointed out in my previous piece, it is easy to dismiss the potential threat of the events unravelling in the Korean peninsula, since war is hardly in the best interests of any of the contending players. However, that is an assumption based on the inherent rationality of all of those players, something that cannot be verified, at least in the case of Kim Jong-Un.

Lauren French argues that “no one need to worry about nuclear Armageddon”, and that’s probably true. However, escalation need not go that far when a conventional conflict between North and South can just as easily propel the region into utter chaos.