Refugee debate (2009 remix), or "Opinions are like bums..."

One half of the Aussie commentariat has gone into groupthink mode concerning the issue of asylum seekers attempting to reach Australia by boat. The meme is that asylum seekers are "illegals" - that is, criminals - who are trying to enter Australia because the Labor gumint is a soft touch. An example of this groupthinkery came yesterday when every man and his blog was quoting Greg Sheridan's opinion on the matter.

Sheridan - who makes no secret of his political leanings - is entitled to his opinion, as predictable as it may be. His column rolled out all of the usual arguments, including the suggestion that recent arrivals from Sri Lanka are not legitimate refugees.

However, being a News Ltd columnist on foreign policy with connections within the Liberal party does not make one an expert on the issues of border protection or international refugee flows. There are some experts out there, though, and it would be helpful if our media (and the blogging echo chamber) would paid them a little attention.

For instance, here is what an intelligence analyst who works in the area of border protection had to say about the current situation when someone bothered to ask:

"The idea that the change to policy has caused this surge is erroneous.

"The change has been minimal. Some smugglers have been marketing it as a softer approach, but the extent to which that has reduced any deterrent factor is questionable.

"You do need to consider the push factors, especially the war in Sri Lanka and ongoing conflict in places like Afghanistan."

Sheridan, bloggers, and the Liberal party themselves - "Teh boat people might be terrorists!!1!" - are in the business of finding "facts" that suit their own predetermined line of thinking. Intelligence analysts are not - they're job is to seek all available information, evaluate it, analyse it, and reach reasonable and objective conclusions. I know whose opinion I will value more.

This week's readings on peace and conflict

I haven't been blogging much lately but I've been reading a lot of really good stuff. The interests I formed while at uni have endured and so, as those who follow my tweets or shared items will know, my reading is largely concerned with matters of peace and conflict. And there is always plenty to read. Here's an overview of what I digested this past week.

International Crisis Group, Nagorno-Karabakh: Getting to a Breakthrough, Europe Briefing No 55, 7 October 2009.

The "frozen" conflict in Nagorno-Karabakh, an enclave in Azerbaijan which is occupied by Armenia, has been of interest to me for a while now. I didn't realise how little I knew about the situation until I read this latest ICG briefing on the current mediation process and the prospects for peace. As with all ICG publications, it provides a solid background and an analysis of the actors and the conflict dynamics. If you don't know what's happening in Nagorno-Karabakh then this is a good place to start. It also touches on wider issues in conflict resolution.

One aspect of the paper in particular gave me a bit to chew on. Before reading this briefing, I'd focused on the international dimensions of the peace process. I was concerned, for instance, with the impact that relationships between Armenia and Turkey might have on the resolution of the conflict. While this issue is important, it seems that the domestic dimension may prove more decisive. In both Armenia and Azerbaijan, the government supports (to a greater or lesser degree) the move toward peace. The people, however, are not yet convinced. There is a lot of aggressive rhetoric on either side and this may undermine the whole process. Consequently, ICG calls on civil society to pull its weight and do some peacebuilding.

Incidentally, when I wrote about this situation earlier, I talked about legitimacy, prestige and the role of third parties in peacemaking. I wondered whether the interests of foreign parties might compromise a mediation process. I neglected to mention that many people in both Armenia and Azerbaijan are suspicious of the role of Russia in the peace process. They perceive foreign powers as being less interested in justice and sustainable peace than they are in their own strategic goals in the region. They're not fooled by the diplomatic bullshit. This ICG briefing, therefore, is an interesting read on a number of levels.

Raffaello Pantucci, Understanding the al-Shabaab networks, Australian Strategic Policy Institute, 13 October 2009.

This brief discussion of Al Shabaab, the Islamist insurgent group in Somalia about which I have frequently written, threw up a few facts and trends that I was previously unaware of. It also makes some projections about the possible future impact of Al Shabaab outside of Somalia. The contested narratives concerning the movement's origins are described, which is handy.

Pantucci discusses the instances where members of the Somali diaspora or converts to the Al Shabaab cause have decided to support the cause by either (a) traveling to Somalia to take up arms or (b) planning terrorist attacks outside of Somalia. The list is longer than I realised. It is pointed out that Al Shabaab need not actively recruit; its sympathisers abroad often act without any guidance from the movement itself.

Pantucci talks about the group's "networks" and maps out in part the shape and function of these networks. Future papers from Pantucci will be worth a read, too.

Cooperation for Peace and Unity Afghanistan (CPAU), Delivering the impact of peacebuilding [pdf], 13 October 2009.

Drawing on its in-depth analysis of local conflict in Afghanistan, CPAU has produced a policy briefing that calls on the Government of Afghanistan and other national and international stakeholders to ramp-up their commitment to local peacebuilding in the country. CPAU argues that the effective management of localised conflicts, which often concern livelihoods and resources, is an essential component of the wider strategy in Afghanistan.

The paper makes a series of recommendations. The most important of these concern the strengthening of traditional or informal justice systems (which people turn to when the formal justice system is absent or lacking legitimacy) and the trial of a "multilayered peacebuilding programme" in support of broader justice sector reform.

At present there is a lot of talk about the international war effort in Afghanistan changing its focus from the sexy hunting-down-the-bad-guys action to an approach that emphasises human security and the protection of communities. In light of this, CPAU's work in the area of local conflict and non-state justice mechanisms is extremely important and its recommendations come at an opportune moment.

(Maybe I'll post another recap of my readings next week.)

Posta Kenya delivers the goods

Some of you might remember a little project involving a couple of cartons of hand-knitted kids' jumpers bound for Love Shack in Nairobi. Some Tofu Notes readers even chipped in a few bob to help pay for the postage. Well they've arrived at last, after an arduous sea voyage and a few months' worth of unaccounted time. Good work, Posta Kenya!


Of course, we never doubted they'd arrive. No, that's a lie. I think I'd mentally written them off a couple of months ago. But Karen in Nairobi was optimistic. When I last spoke with her she said, "Don't worry, they'll make it. I am planning a new project for young mothers with babies and they have to be here in time for that."

Karen's faith in Posta Kenya was not misplaced after all. So what'll happen to these globe-trotting jumpers from Cooma?

In January, Love Shack will open the first class of its new "Little Citizen's Day Care" project. The idea is to support teenage mothers from Nairobi's slums by providing holistic care for the children and parenting education to the mums. The knits will be distributed to the little ones, who will also receive "a bath, clean clothes, breakfast, a health check and a cuddle" every day they visit. By the time the kids are old enough for school their mums will be self-sufficient and able to pay school fees.

And there's another goal, too:

The founder of Love Shack, Karen Ward, lived in the slum for two years in order to conduct a grassroots assessment of the needs of the children. It is clear to anyone that spends time in Kenya that real reform of the country lies in educating the citizens. At Little Citizen's Day Care we will set a foundation of fundamental values and ethics that will set children on a path to a bright and honest future. [Project concept paper.]

If, like us, you think that a project like this is worth supporting then you might consider flinging a few bob in Love Shack's direction (more info here). I'll post more news about the jumpers and the teen mums education project in the next few months.

My dream t-shirt

When I get around to ordering my "I think you'll find it's a bit more complicated than that" t-shirt, I want them to print, "And anyway, what has it got to do with you?" on the back.

Prestige, politics, and peacemaking

Political analyst M.K. Bhadrakumar, who writes for Asia Times, deploys an interesting phrase from time to time. Bhadrakumar talks about the United States (and NATO) having a "monopoly of conflict resolution" in Afghanistan and elsewhere in the region, and suggests that other powers, such as Russia and China, seek to challenge this monopoly where possible. I've read this on a number of occasions across the past couple of years but have never really thought about what it means. Today I had reason to give it some thought.

This morning I was reading the latest Europe Briefing from the International Crisis Group (ICG) concerning conflict resolution in Nagorno-Karabakh. Russia is playing a constructive role in the mediation process between Armenia and Azerbaijan and is supportive of Western diplomatic efforts to mend relations between Armenia and Turkey, a relationship which may prove critical to peacemaking in Nagorno-Karabakh. The ICG makes the following suggestion about Russia's motivations.

Russia views its mediation efforts over Nagorno-Karabakh as a means for promoting its influence in the region. It also sees an opportunity to mend its tarnished image by presenting itself as a responsible regional power. [My emphasis.]

Perhaps this is what Bhadrakumar has been eluding to in the context of Afghanistan. Just as Russia wants to be seen as a responsible power in the Caucasus, the US and its NATO allies want to be the ones to bring peace and order to Central Asia. Large powers understand that size and military or economic clout may be undermined when legitimacy - respect - is lacking. Peacemaking brings prestige, and maybe even legitimacy.

Clearly there are some drawbacks of conflict resolution processes being monopolised by large powers pursuing their own interests. Most obviously there may be pressure applied for outcomes to be reached that suit the mediating powers themselves rather than the parties to the conflict, but I guess that can be an issue no matter who is involved. But what about the question of who is left out? Does a Russian or American monopoly of conflict resolution exclude other local players who may be better suited to the task at hand?

The goal of peacemaking - at least in theory - should be to stop conflicts becoming violent and to lay the foundations for sustainable peacebuilding in the future. In reality, states that become involved in conflict resolution processes may have other outcomes in mind; maintaining a monopoly of conflict resolution, for instance, or manufacturing prestige and legitimacy. These aren't the only motivators, of course, but they are clearly present to some extent and may impact upon behaviour and decision-making. I'll keep this in mind next time I see images of high-profile figures smiling, shaking hands, and talking about peace.

Two interesting stories among the sad ones

A couple of interesting stories emerged from Afghanistan over the past day or so. The first concerns a statement by the Taliban:

"We had and have no plan of harming countries of the world, including those in Europe ... our goal is the independence of the country and the building of an Islamic state," the Taliban said in a statement on the group's website www.shahamat.org.

"Still, if you (NATO and U.S. troops) want to colonize the country of proud and pious Afghans under the baseless pretext of a war on terror, then you should know that our patience will only increase and that we are ready for a long war."

Some observers, like Joshua Foust, have responded skeptically, and for good reason. Yet there's another dimension here.

On the face of it, the statement is a public relations exercise. It paints the Taliban as an innocent victim of foreign aggression and is possibly intended for an already sympathetic online - and Arabic-speaking - audience. On another level, however, the statement is directed at the United States and its allies, hence the mention of Europe. The message for Taliban sympathisers is clear, so what's the message for the US and its partners-in-war?

In my view, the suggestion that the Taliban is no threat to Western nations is an especially conciliatory statement. Compared to the relentless hostility voiced by Al Qaeda, for instance, the Taliban statement conveys an entirely different position: we are not waging a war against the West, we are simply fighting for our independence, and we will only fight so long as foreign troops occupy our country.

These are fighting words, sure. But they're fighting words with strings attached. I suspect that this statement is an indication that the Taliban is positioning itself for negotiations with the US and NATO. The Taliban hasn't placed its cards on the table, but it's certainly considering its hand.

Finally, the statement reiterates a common theme in Taliban announcements: the insurgency is in for the long haul. As debate takes place in Western nations concerning ongoing commitments to the war, this part of the statement may be pitched toward Western politicians wary of public discontent.

The second interesting article concerns evidence from Afghan civil society that suggests Afghan women support the presence of foreign troops in the country as a guarantor of security. Writing from Kabul, independent journalist Aunohita Mojumdar asks whether General Stanley McChrystal will leverage this fact when making the case for a greater commitment of US troops.

"We are suffering from terrorism," said MP Shinkai Karokhail. "We cannot say that troops should be withdrawn. The international troop presence is a guarantee of my safety."

Afghan women were particularly critical of a policy option advanced by US Vice President Joseph Biden to reduce the number of American troops in Afghanistan and redirect the mission to the destruction of al Qaeda networks...

In an earlier interview, women’s activist Wazhma Frogh told EurasiaNet that international troops were not the answer, but necessary for building the capacity of Afghan national forces. "Their presence is useful while there are warlords in power and the insurgency is going on."

Frankly, I doubt that the interests and wishes of Afghan women will be a high priority for the Obama administration when it reaches a decision about the direction it will take. But if, as Mojumdar urges, these women's voices were indeed heard during the debate in the US and elsewhere, a new factor may enter the popular discourse about the war and its objectives.

General McChrystal wants the counterinsurgency to focus "on the people, not the militants". That is, he wants to concentrate on human security, not just battlefield success and military metrics. The views of Afghan women would be an excellent way to frame a discussion of human security and what it actually means in Afghanistan today.

Defending American prestige

John Howard, currently visiting an old pal in the US, has made a media appearance in which he called for a greater commitment of Australian troops in Afghanistan. In making his case, Howard could have drawn on a number of serious and reasonable arguments in favour of sending more Aussie troops. He didn't.

Mr Howard told Fox that: "There should be additional commitments from all of the countries, including my own, that have troops there at present."

"What we've got to ask ourselves is, what is the consequence of failure in Afghanistan? And that would be an enormous blow to American prestige, it would greatly embolden the terrorist cause," he added.

Okay, I realise he's visiting his old buddy, and I understand that FOX News is a slightly right-of-centre media outlet, but seriously. Ten years at the helm of a nation, portrayed as a strong, sensible, intelligent statesman, and all he can muster is "American prestige"?

Please, John, stay out of the media and just enjoy your retirement.