Archives for December 2017

On the front lines in the fight against ISIS, referred to as insurgents in the countries they live in, the Kurds have faced a long and chaotic history of statehood, ethnic discrimination, and war. The Kurdish people the fourth largest indigenous ethnic groups in the Middle East, with about 25 to 35 million individuals inhabiting the mountainous borders of Iraq, Turkey, Iran, and Syria. They are also the largest ethnic group in the Middle East to not have a nation to call their own. Their lack of statehood makes them a minority in the countries they live in, and has contributed to a history of discrimination and violence between Kurdish militant groups and national military. Today the Kurds have gained more media attention for their involvement in fighting ISIS. Peshmerga forces, an Iraqi Kurdish military group, has worked with the United States and other countries to fight off the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. In recent news, a referendum was put up in the Autonomous Kurdish Region within Iraq’s borders to secede from the country and create the independent state of Kurdistan.  

The vote caused quite a stir in both the national and international governments. Even before the vote happened Syrian, Iraqi, Iranian, Turkish, American, and other governments urged Kurdish leaders to not hold the referendum for reasons of security and political stability. Iraq was especially mad at Massoud Barzani’s, former leader of the Kurdish Regional Government, decision to continue with the referendum. The Iraqi government was outraged by this call to action and retaliated by taking over Kurdish strongholds, displacing close to 183,000 people. International organizations like the United Nations also called for a halt on the referendum. The Kurdish government proceeded with the referendum and, according to the results, ninety percent of the population wanted an independent state.

Now officials are left with the question “now what?” How is this going to shape policy making in Iraq? How is the secession process going to be carried out? What are the international ramifications of this vote, since significant Kurdish populations reside in Turkey, Iran, and Syria. The immediate effects of the referendum came in the form of threats from the Turkish, Iranian, and Iraqi governments. Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan threatened to stop all trade with Kurdistan. Whether or not this will happen is a different question, since five billion dollars has been invested into their economies through trade. Out of fear of an insurgency in their own country, leaders in Tehran threatened military action against Kurdistan. Iraq has also halted all flights going the autonomous Kurdish region, and has sent troops out to reclaim the city of Kirkuk.

Kirkuk is the center of a large amount of the conflict for independence. After Iraqi military troops abandoned the city due to approaching ISIS forces, Kurdish forces stepped in and occupied the city in 2014. The city is also sitting on oil deposits worth billions of dollars. Russia has continued to invest 3.5 billion dollars on the autonomous region because of their control over the oil pipeline in the city. Yet, in redrawing the Iraqi border both governments would be caught up in dispute over control of the city of Kirkuk. Demographically the population is a mix of Kurdish and Arab people, so in regards to ethnic claims of the land there is not much to go off of. Kirkuk was brought to the forefront of the Iraqi Kurdish disputes of an autonomous country and until this issue can be solved it does not seem like much progress will be made in regard to peace talks.

The idea of a separate Kurdish state garnered supporters from countries all around the world, but timing of this referendum caused leaders to withdraw support and create even more conflict in the Middle East. While the idea of a separate Kurdish state could alleviate violence in the region, conflicts with ISIS, international trade deals, and oil have complicated desires for secession. Now that the Iraqi military claims to have defeated ISIS and retook the Syrian-Iraqi border, governments for both areas can now focus on internal conflict. Military forces are now trying to repair the country and rebuild the cities that were once claimed by the terrorist organization. Rebuilding the country will take much time and collaboration between all leaders in both Iraq and the autonomous region of Kurdistan. Working together may help talks of secession relieving tension between leaders of the contentious issue. Yet, while the defeat of ISIS is a huge relief to the nation, much work needs to be done in order to reach a state in which Kurdish and Iraqi leaders have a serious discussion of independence and redrawing the border.

To wrap up a long and hectic semester at UT Austin, I had the privilege of interviewing Dr. Paul Miller, Associate Director of the Clements Center for History, Strategy and Statecraft. Dr. Paul Miller brings a unique perspective to the discussion of national security on campus, drawing on his background as a former intelligence officer. Looking at his background and credentials, one would assume that Miller planned for success since birth. On the contrast, Miller had no idea he would go into foreign policy or counterterrorism. After getting his BA from Georgetown in Political Philosophy, he joined the military in order to broaden his experiences. He explains his change in direction quite simply, the occurrence of 9/11. During his time in the Army, Miller became an Intelligence Officer in Bagram Afghanistan and later an analyst for the CIA, specializing in counterterrorism efforts in Afghanistan and South Asia. His conservative position, shaped by his studies at Georgetown, Harvard, the National Defense University, and his own time in the National Security Council, can be seen as a stark contrast to the overwhelming liberal majority point of view on campus. However, it seems that this difference in opinion appears to be a motivator for Dr. Miller. He engages his students questions thoughtfully, respectfully, and challenges them to step outside their comfort zone and their regular patterns of thinking. He approaches topics of national security and foreign policy with a sense of urgency and sincerity, that is rare in today’s world of cynicism and confusion.

The major take away I got from time with Dr. Miller, is that the U.S. is engaging the world almost haphazardly and that we are not doing our due diligence, in regards to national security policy. His main argument is that we are not digging our heels in deep enough to military commitments and belief systems that are in play in Afghanistan today and in regard to radical violent Salafism as a whole. In light of Afghanistan, Miller is one of the rare policy experts who believe that we should increase our troops and funding. We have gone from a 90,000 soldier presence to 10,000 in the past five years and have significantly cut our funding. This was in response to the war fatigue that plagues the American public and if you ask Miller, is also due to America’s unclear grand strategy. Without clear goals defined and explaining how those goals are met by troop presence in Afghanistan, it is easy for the American public to want to pull out. Our presence in Afghanistan has lasted over ten years and many Americans do not feel that there has been tangible victory. A good portion of the public is tired of paying taxes that support these efforts and do not want the U.S. to be caught up in foreign entanglements, especially after Iraq. This is in part what led Obama to adopt a counterterrorism only strategy, forgetting the need for strong democratic institutions, naming it “Afghanistan good enough”.

Dr. Miller simultaneously attacks the orientalist rhetoric of Obama “Afghanistan good enough” and our major troop withdrawal.  After working as an intelligence Officer in Afghanistan, Dr. Miller finds this attitude insulting to Afghan people and oversimplifies their strengths and capabilities. Dr. Miller recently had the opportunity to interview Hamdullah Mohib, the Afghan ambassador to the US. In Miller’s interview with Mohib, Mohib states clearly that the U.S.’s decrease in boots on the ground in Afghanistan was equivalent to the U.S. exiting the country. Miller shared, that this policy that has caused over 75,000 Afghan security forces casualties over the past few years among security forces, a number exponentially higher than U.S. casualties during our fifteen years at war. However, bolstering our commitment to Afghanistan is not something that US public is ready for. According to a recent poll by POLITICO, only 20 percent of US citizens agree with increasing our troops and aid to Afghanistan, with the vast majority calling for a decrease.

The irony of Miller’s message should shock liberal thinkers. Many liberals who accuse, most of the times justly, America of orientalism, are guilty of that same accusation in regard to Afghanistan. From the interview between Miller and Mohib, the ambassador sincerely confirms his and his country’s commitment and desire to rid themselves of the Taliban and build a stable state. Miller argues that as a thinking community, we must accept the idea that it is possible to engage Afghanistan with strong military support and aid, while also correcting previous counterterrorist policies and civic engagement policies that were not effective. Although this idea might be hard to swallow for the majority of America, Dr. Miller has chosen a much harder audience, UT Austin liberal students.

 

 

On October 6th at the University of Texas at Austin, the Innovations for Peace and Development research program hosted an event titled “Achieving Peace and Reconciliation in East Africa” featuring Father Patrick Devine from the Shalom Center for Conflict Resolution and Reconciliation. Father Devine, a missionary priest and social entrepreneur with 25 years of experience in mitigating conflict and poverty in Africa, founded the organization in 2009.The Shalom Center organizes and leads workshops and trainings with Kenyan community leaders on peaceful conflict resolution. The center’s work is dedicated to empowering local communities through education and resources, functioning on the idea that development cannot exist without peace. A nonsectarian organization, the Shalom Center consists of an international team of experts from different religious backgrounds and disciplines who are based in Kenya and surrounding countries. Devine was awarded the 2013 International Caring Award, putting him in the company of the Dalai Lama.

As an organization dedicated to conflict resolution and reconciliation, the Shalom Center works on the ground in Kenya with various ethnic groups. Father Patrick Devine discussed the center’s methods of organizing problem-solving workshops to discuss the causes of conflict and possible solutions. In the Kenyan conflict, ethnicity is largely centered on religion. The objectives of these workshops are to empower communities to discuss solutions, and more largely, to discuss why religious differences create these tensions. The workshops focus on four types of relationships: personal, relational, structural, and cultural. How do Kenyans interact with each other, with the cultural landscape, and with the state structures that govern them? The Shalom Center aims to address underlying causes of conflict and poverty and to examine structural and systemic violence through these workshops. As a result, community leaders will feel empowered and educated to take action in addressing ethnic relationships and working toward an end to systemic violence.

Over 40 different ethnic groups reside within the borders of Kenya. This ethnic diversity poses significant challenges to good governance. Because “there’s always minorities yapping,” concerns of specific ethnic groups can go unnoticed by the government. The country is also facing resource scarcity and rapid population growth. These coinciding trends, intuitively, do not work well together and only increase ethnic tensions as groups struggle to provide for themselves amongst depleting food sources. In addition to these significant challenges to peace, radicalization from groups like Boko Haram threatens sustainable peace and security in the country. Evidently, violence in Kenya is greater than just ethnic hatred or lack of harmony. Serious structural problems continue to feed instability and violence.

In all honesty, I was skeptical while waiting for the event to begin. I was skeptical about the intentions of a European organization founded by a Catholic priest in intervening in African affairs. I was skeptical about the efficacy of a nonprofit in correcting bad governance, radicalization, and food scarcity. We’ve seen Europeans invade the Global South under a rhetoric of caring for the livelihood and morality of the people here. We’ve seen the impact colonialism has had around the world: murder, rape, slavery, economic exploitation, government corruption, stoking or complete creation of ethnic tensions and conflict, among other ills. We still see much of this impact on African countries. Motivated by a blind ambition to “make the world a better place,” these organizations can often do more harm than good.

Pleasantly enough, I was pleased with the methods and philosophy of the Shalom Center. Father Devine acknowledged that only the Kenyan people can solve their own issues. No outside, foreign power can achieve this result, and it is foolish and detrimental of these organizations to operate under this notion. However, when involving the voices of those impacted firsthand, foreign organizations can effectively advocate for and support these voices. The center also prioritizes listening to the community by gathering feedback. Kenyans are actively involved in every step of the center’s work, improving its efficiency.

I am still left wondering more about what these workshops look like. While I understand the purpose of them, I’m curious as to how the lessons are taught, what material is presented to the participants. Additionally, does the center facilitate meetings or workshops amongst conflicting ethnic groups at the same time? Father Devine believes that the solution to ethnic violence is to unite the narratives — find common ground between groups. How does this unity occur? How does a foreign organization inspire warring groups to drop their weapons? I hope to learn more about the role of NGOs in conflict resolution, and I am grateful to attend a university that enables direct interaction with these organizations.