Crackdown on Egypt’s Muslim Brotherhood

Muslim Brotherhood doctors showing photos of anti-coup protesters killed on July 8th 2013

Muslim Brotherhood doctors hold up a newspaper with photos of their supporters killed in a confrontation with the Egyptian military on July 8. VOA/Sharon Behn (Wikimedia Commons)

Last week, Egyptian courts sentenced 18 members of the Muslim Brotherhood to imprisonment for inciting pro-Morsi riots. Punitive actions, including classifying the Muslim Brotherhood as a terrorist organization, have become commonplace in Egypt after President Morsi’s deposal. Indeed, thousands of Egyptian Muslim Brotherhood members or sympathizers have been arrested, injured and killed as the government seeks to eliminate Islamist influences from Egyptian political and social life. Such actions have drawn the ire of NGOs operating in Egypt as well as sectors of the international community.

As General Al-Sisi seeks to become Egypt’s next president, it seems likely that the Muslim Brotherhood will face further crackdowns. While the Muslim Brotherhood certainly is an organization that should draw suspicion – especially after its poor performance while leading Egypt briefly under President Morsi – the military-backed government’s harsh treatment is likely to incite greater internal conflict.

Egyptian Minister of Defense Abdel Fatah Al Sisi

General Al-Sisi saluting. April 24, 2013. User:RogDel (Wikimedia Commons)

Throughout the past year, the Muslim Brotherhood has been the victim of severe crackdowns by Egyptian security forces. In one notable case, 529 Brotherhood supporters were sentenced to death on charges of assaulting and murdering police. While this particular court ruling may be overturned according to human rights lawyers, judicial proceedings regarding Brotherhood members have been generally suspect. Numerous NGOs have protested the use of military tribunals to charge Egyptian civilians, including Muslim Brotherhood members, with attacking military units. If these NGO reports are accurate, the Egyptian government is risking the integrity of the judicial system in favor of stability and short-term political gain. This imprudent strategy will likely encourage the Brotherhood to take extreme actions and have long-term negative effects for Egypt’s civil society.

Before discussing the potential effects of this crackdown, it is necessary to touch upon the history of the Muslim Brotherhood. First, in the past, the Muslim Brotherhood has used violence to advance political objectives. By the late 1940s, a division of the Muslim Brotherhood named the “Special Apparatus” committed violent acts against British occupiers to force a withdrawal. After the British exited Egypt, the Brotherhood faced persecution under Egyptian Presidents Nasser and Sadat. Since then, the Muslim Brotherhood has recognized the benefits of maintaining a low political profile and focusing on developing a social services apparatus to gain grassroots support. As the Brotherhood’s desire to gain political influence increased, the Brotherhood began to denounce violence and promote politically expedient ideas, such as equality for all Egyptians. Before assuming control, the Muslim Brotherhood actively de-emphasized its Islamist ideology in favor of democratic norms to gain parliamentary seats. Even when parliamentary participation was restricted, the Brotherhood refrained from violence and continued to build support among the Egyptian people through its vast social services network including hospitals and schools.

Now that the Egyptian military has initiated a total crackdown on the group, including the Muslim Brotherhood’s well-developed and non-political social service infrastructure, the Brotherhood is left with no political voice. I, and many area experts, believe that political silencing combined with a violent crackdown by government officials will drive elements of the Muslim Brotherhood to terrorism. If so, Egypt is vulnerable to greater instability, since the Muslim Brotherhood maintains a sizeable membership and influence. Although the Muslim Brotherhood may represent a threat to social order during the current political transition, utilizing violent suppression is unjust and shortsighted.

The views expressed by the author do not necessarily reflect those of the Glimpse from the Globe staff and editorial board.

The Unknown Power of Shadow Monarchs

Belgian King Philippe and Queen Mathilde

Belgian King Philippe and Queen Mathilde wave to crowds in Brussels after Philippe’s swearing in as the new Belgian monarch. July 21, 2013. Michael Thaidigsmann (via Wikimedia Commons)

Do you know that Norway’s King can legally dismiss the Norwegian government with a simple stroke of his pen? In a world where international norms of democracy seem to reign supreme, it is easy to forget that 44 nations ultimately answer to sovereign monarchs as the supreme heads of state. While the degree of power associated with sovereign monarchs varies according to each type of monarchical system (absolute monarchy vs. constitutional monarchy), these royal sovereigns generally possess tremendous power relative to their countries’ elected officials. Sovereigns in constitutional monarchies generally do not exercise their powers, and their role in democratic countries has become largely ceremonial through legislation or convention. However, these monarchs still possess tremendous reserve powers and can legally invoke royal prerogatives at any time. I call these monarchs, “shadow monarchs,” as their roles and powers appear subservient to their countries’ elected leaders. In fact, this is often not the case as their powers are far-reaching. These often-underestimated sovereigns deserve our attention today – in 2014 – in a world where kingdoms and autocracy are often viewed as relics of the past.

There are generally two types of monarchies that exist today. The first type is as an absolute monarchy, in which the sovereign possesses supreme autocratic powers over his state and people. The second type is a constitutional monarchy, in which a system of government is established by a constitution or convention that mandates some form of an elected government overseen by a monarch. In almost all monarchies, succession is hereditary. Only a few monarchies, such as Cambodia and Kuwait, allow citizens to select a new sovereign from within the royal family. The majority of monarchies have an ironclad succession process. This continuous rotation of power and wealth among a select few royal families ensures the survival of an elite class that is inaccessible to the general population.

Absolute monarchies still exist today, but they are very few in number. These countries include Saudi Arabia, United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Oman, Brunei, Swaziland, and Vatican City. In these nations, the sovereign has absolute control over his state’s resources and population. Powers include setting the country’s general direction, such as Saudi Arabia’s King Faisal, who directed Saudi Arabia’s budget to match his personal priorities of technological and economic progress to modernize society in the 1970s. On the other hand, monarchs may utilize their state’s resources to satisfy their personal needs and desires, such as the acquisition of luxury items such as Oman’s “Super Yacht.” In these societies, there is virtually no opportunity for representative government and all power is concentrated in the hands of one person. No wonder absolute monarchies frequently draw heavy criticism from the international community

Even if an absolute monarch’s dramatic level of power seems foreign and excessive to the democratically oriented observer, this level of authoritarianism is to be expected from such a system of government. More surprising and interesting are the powers reserved for royals of constitutional monarchies with democratic systems of government, or shadow monarchies. There is a diverse set of countries that fall into this category, including Norway, Belgium, Sweden, Thailand, Jordan, and Denmark. Perhaps the most significant and popular shadow monarch of the contemporary period has been the Queen Elizabeth II of the United Kingdom (UK), who officially exercises authority over 15 Commonwealth realms in addition to the UK. Official descriptions regarding the duties of the monarch in England suggest a more “ceremonial” role as a symbol of “stability, continuity, and national focus” rather than an executive role. However, England does not have a written constitution, and many of the duties that have been undertaken by Parliament were delegated by the monarchy out of “convention.” In other words, the Queen has transferred some of her official duties as Head of State to the Parliament, although she can invoke her right to royal prerogative at anytime. The legislature in the UK can pass laws, but those possible affecting “the Crown’s interests” must receive the consent of the Monarch. The Crown has invoked the power of the royal consent and veto for at least 39 pieces of legislation in the contemporary period. The Queen also possesses other powers such as dismissing/appointing the Prime Minister and other ministers, declaring war as head of the Royal British Armed Forces (British soldiers swear allegiance to the Monarch), and making treaties. The royal prerogative in the case of the Queen of the UK and other Commonwealth realms is very robust, and her powers are clearly more than strictly ceremonial.

Not all shadow monarchies possess the same degree of power, however. Belgium and Sweden stand on opposite ends of the spectrum of constitutional monarchies. The Monarchy of Belgium is relatively powerful and similar to the Monarchy of the United Kingdom. The King is endowed with numerous powers according to the Belgian Constitution, such as signing and promulgating laws passed by the Federal Parliament, acting as Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, and appointing/dismissing ministers of government. In addition, Article 88 of the Belgian Constitution states, “the King’s person is inviolable, his ministers are responsible.” This law basically means that the monarch possesses immunity from any type of prosecution. Clearly, the Monarch of Belgium is rather powerful and can dominate his elected counterparts if he so chooses. However, the Monarch of Sweden is much weaker in comparison. Sweden’s monarch was essentially stripped of his executive authority in 1975 by legislation, thus reducing the sovereign to a purely ceremonial role. Therefore, the King of Sweden is no longer considered a chief executive of the government and does not have nearly the same degree of reserved rights or privileges as the King of Belgium.

Besides conventional governmental authority and power, many monarchs also hold a position of religious or moral authority. The King of Thailand, for example, is designated as the “Upholder of the Buddhist religion and Upholder of all religions.” The British monarch, Queen Elizabeth II, is awarded the title, “Supreme Governor of the Church of England” and is frequently referred to as the “Defender of the Faith.” These roles, while sometimes not well defined, endow various monarchs from across the globe with a sense of moral authority and superiority. By being placed at the head of religious life in addition to political life, these monarchs are afforded even greater power, influence, and legitimacy.

Shadow monarchies that permeate the globe are vestiges of a different era. As the United States seeks to foster a democratic world order, it is rather perplexing that some of these monarchs still possess such tremendous power today. Elected governments of constitutional monarchies seem to be chipping away at the authority of their respective sovereign monarchs through legislation or convention, but much power still rests in the hands of this elite class. Debating the moral implications and efficacy of these monarchical systems is a different matter, but it cannot be denied that the power of these monarchs is certainly underestimated and, perhaps more importantly, unknown.

The Correspondents Weigh in: Crisis in Crimea

The Crimea Region is highlighted in Red on this map of the Ukraine (via Wikimedia Commons)

This piece will be the first of a special “Weigh In” series that is going to be started on Glimpse, which will focus on momentous current events.

Thomas D. Armstrong:

Recent op-eds have labeled Putin as a mastermind or a megalomaniac fool. I am of the opinion that Putin is a megalomaniac mastermind exploiting a disempowered US. However, debating Putin’s psychological profile is less constructive than analyzing the economic foundation of his regime. Putin and his Russia survive on energy revenues, and war is only making him richer. Unlike 2008, when Putin invaded Georgia, oil prices have held steady. In fact, the threat of sanctions on Russia have only driven oil prices marginally higher, up $2 dollars to $110.8/bbl as of writing. Putin is financing expansionist dreams (and his own savings account) thanks to his near-monopoly on Russia’s energy industry. Therefore, the best way to rein him in is to drive global energy prices down. The US can accomplish this quite easily with a reformed national energy policy. Currently, the US is sitting on an unused 727-million-barrel underground cache of crude oil, and is producing more and more natural gas by the day. If the US were to supplant Russia as Europe’s primary natural gas provider, and flood the global market with American oil exports, energy prices would plummet. A decrease from $110/bbl to $80/bbl would cost the Russian oil industry alone an estimated $120 billion, plus billions more in foreign exchange earnings. Putin is a deft leader, but even he could not survive such a sustained economic collapse.

Nick Kosturos:

Russia’s move to deploy soldiers in Ukraine is indicative of feelings of insecurity rather than confidence. Putin knows that such a large loss of influence in Ukraine, a critically important country in economic, cultural, and geopolitical terms, would be devastating to Russia’s ultimate goal of increasing its regional sphere of influence and international prestige. Putin’s domestic considerations and tensions can also shed light on these aggressive actions. If a small country like Ukraine can successfully stand up to the Kremlin by ousting its man from Kiev, what will Russians think of a leadership unable to control their “Small Russia?” Russia is acting out of desperation, not strength. Putin’s clownish justifications for Russia’s military actions do not hold up to scrutiny and are made under a façade by what I recently labeled an “imitation democracy.”

While the West has multilaterally condemned this act of aggression, which is a positive first step, it should now increase pressure on Russia to relent. In order to force Russia to withdraw and accept Ukraine’s sovereignty and a chance at a peaceful political transition, the West must maintain a multilateral and wide-ranging coalition of rejection, isolating Putin via sanctions on both his allies and competing oligarchs (including their overseas funds and visas), and by supporting Ukraine’s new government through assistance and advisement. At this point, conventional military power projection against Russia is not a viable option – no matter how tempting – as it could spark an unintended military provocation leading to conflict. The current situation is very difficult to manage, although the international community should know that the West ultimately has the upper hand. Russia’s desperate authoritarian strategy based on oppression is doomed to fail in the long-run.

Luke Phillips:

The situation in Crimea is nothing more than the Russians managing their own geopolitical periphery, and so far as it has to do anything at all with expansion, it is only due to the fact that Russian power is presently contracted to levels far below what Moscow would like. America would do and has done the same thing in the event of revolutionary unrest in our neighbor states, as is evidenced by our interventions in Mexico a century ago and in Cuba a half-century ago.

The question here, I think, is what the United States is going to do about it. Part of our grand strategy since the end of the Cold War has been to keep the Russians from establishing formal or informal dominion over the former U.S.S.R. Another part has been supporting the thin veil of liberal international order that girds the power politics flowing subtly underneath in an effort to at least grant a semblance of order and harmony in international affairs. These imperatives have come under increasing pressure in recent years, but in 2013 and 2014 more than ever before. I don’t know what the proper policy response should be, but I hope it isn’t more of the lectures, gestures, and silences with which President Obama responded to the Russians in the Snowden and Syria affairs.

Jacob W. Roberts:

America is in no position to intervene nor should it.  To the western world, Putin’s actions appear nefarious, but from the perspective of many Russians he is acting well within the parameters of international law.  Professor Tatiana Akishina of USC argues that, since the prime minister of Ukraine’s semi-autonomous Crimea region has called upon Putin for military support, his intervention is in accordance with international law.  Moreover, America has intervened with greater frequency and intensity over the past century, thus it is highly hypocritical of US authorities to castigate Russia for meddling within its region.  That being said, it is somewhat disturbing to witness Russia fail to respect the sovereign rights of an independent nation.  One can only hope that Putin’s intervention into the region will be short lived.

Alessandro M. Sassoon:

There is a risk of ethnic cleansing. It starts with classification. Weeks before this conflict made the front pages of the New York Times, reports emerged that Russian-Ukrainians in Crimea were being given Russian Passports. Russians have lived in Crimea for some 200 years, and Ukraine has held the territory for half a century. Then there are the Tatars, the people for whom Crimea is an ancestral home dating back to the Mongol Khan Empire. The Tatar population, which accounts for 13% of Crimea’s inhabitants, is predominantly Sunni Muslim. Under Stalin’s Russia, the Tatars were accused of collaborating with Nazi Germany and deported en masse to other parts of Russia (read: Siberia). It should come as no surprise then that they are more keen on being governed by Ukraine than by Russia. As things stand, there are three populations with strong ethno-nationalist tendencies who inhabit a geographic area they all feel they have a historical, political, or legal claim to. Of the eight stages of Genocide, we’ve passed #5: polarization. That means preparation, extermination, and denial are next.

Sabrina Mateen:

Before this conflict, my knowledge of Ukraine consisted solely of “ex-USSR”. I assumed the region consisted of Russian natives, and that they were considered to be allies with their ex-country. However, with the news of an outbreak of civil war, it has become apparent that there are opposing nationalities, languages, and mindsets that are all helping to tear Ukraine into pieces. The conflict seems to be reaching increasingly dangerous heights as Russia begins to put pressure on Ukraine in the form of planned military drills and in one case, an unspecified military presence that looked to be Russians supporting Crimeans. Although the conflict is being called a civil war, it is beginning to seem like one of the many moves Putin has been making to restore Russia to its USSR-era square footage. It is important to see what the United States plans to do, as the Obama Administration is already under scrutiny after the ill-advised response to the crisis in Syria.  Any move from the newly war-shy United States will be seen as an escalation in a conflict that has all the makings of a new Cold War.

Kerry Collins:

Recent developments in the volatile Ukraine situation show the autonomous Crimea region voting to join the Russian Federation. Crimea has a Russian ethnic majority and is predominantly Russian speaking, so it might not come as a surprise that the region is in support of the secession. If it is what the people want, then perhaps the region should have never been a part of Ukraine to begin with. These recent moves that Crimea has made are violations of international law, which puts the United States in a tough response position. The President has been making frantic calls to Putin urging a diplomatic end to this crisis, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Putin doesn’t seem particularly concerned with US warnings. What the EU and the US bring to the table are economic sanctions, and it will be interesting to see if those “sticks” are enough to make Putin falter.

Stepping out of Russia’s Shadow? Ukraine’s Next Moves.

A protester at Euromaidan. (Ivan Bandura via flickr)

This past week, Ukraine experienced the worst period of violence in its post-Soviet history and a stunning political development as President Yanukovych was forced out of power by the Ukrainian parliament. The cost of this political victory for the opposition has been great; aggressive clashes between government security forces and protesters resulted in at least 77 deaths and 577 injuries. Although a potential breakthrough peace deal emerged Friday calling for early elections this December, a lessening of the powers of President Yanukovych, and the establishment of a “national unity government,” the Ukrainian parliament voted Saturday to remove President Yanukovych from office and to hold elections on May 25th in a stunning rebuke of his regime. This political whirlwind places Ukraine in a vulnerable position. Although the opposition movement achieved a great victory in eliminating Yanukovych from power, its efforts may prove futile if a fair political transition is not undertaken in the coming months, especially if Russia continues to bully Ukraine into submission. If Ukraine is to move towards a freer and more just society, then the West must work with Ukraine to ensure fair and free elections while offering strong guidance and support during the upcoming political transition.

The unprecedented violence in Ukraine was appalling and indicative of a deteriorating security situation on the ground, suggesting significant gains in the opposition movement and feelings of insecurity on part of the Yanukovych regime. To combat demonstrators, Ukrainian security forces were issued combat-grade weapons and fired upon protesters . Opposition members attacked security forces with Molotov cocktails and possibly firearms . Although both sides have committed acts of violence, there should be no doubt that the preponderance of force came from government-sponsored security forces; reports indicate that government-sponsored snipers killed at least 20 protesters this past week. This suppression is unacceptable and revealed the true authoritarian nature of the Yanukovych government. Although the main perpetrator of the violence has been effectively removed from power, the West must continue to isolate those responsible and should take an active role in shaping the next phase of the political transition.

Even though the U.S. and EU are becoming more active in Ukraine’s political crisis, the most influential external actor in Ukraine is undoubtedly Russia. President Putin and his allies are taking bold steps to keep their Ukrainian puppets in power thereby preserving the status quo. Indeed, Russia’s provocative moves instigated the political unrest when it bullied Ukraine into rejecting a trade deal with the EU in favor of $15 billion dollars in aid and a tantalizing 33 percent discount on Russian natural gas. Naturally, Russia has many reasons to prevent Ukraine from developing relations with the EU. In his quest to restore the idea of a “Great Russia” and a sphere of influence similar to the former Soviet Bloc, Putin knows that Ukraine is the most important country in pursuit of this goal.

Historically, Ukraine has been known as “Small Russia.” The concept of a “Modern Russia” is said to have started in Ukraine, and Ukraine is seen as the birthplace of the region’s Orthodox Christianity. Linguistically, the two countries are also very similar as many Ukrainians speak both Ukrainian and Russian. The economic ties between Ukraine and Russia are also vital in gauging Russia’s interest. If Ukraine does not join Russia’s Eurasian customs union (which recently recruited Armenia, Belarus, and Kazakhstan), then the whole concept could disintegrate. Russian companies have a large investment presence in Ukraine accounting for about 7 percent of Ukraine’s total foreign investment in 2013. In addition, many Ukrainians have migrated to Russia providing a substantial labor force for Russian companies. Ukraine also has geostrategic importance for Russia hosting Russia’s Black Sea Fleet naval headquarters. If the naval base’s lease were threatened by a more independent Ukraine, Russia would suffer a significant loss in a critical region. Clearly, Russia has a substantial interest in keeping a pro-Kremlin government in Kiev. Although Russia has indicated perhaps a softer stance by sending in a more reasonable diplomat to conduct negotiations during this tipping point, this gesture should not be considered a serious change of intention or attitude. Russia knows that losing Ukraine to the West will be a momentous blow to its aspirations of restoring the idea of a “Great Russia.”

When evaluating the West’s efforts to support the Ukrainian opposition and influence the Ukrainian regime, it is important to understand that the U.S. and its Western allies are at an inherent disadvantage. Unlike the Russian state which has few reservations in actively supporting authoritarian regimes that suppress their own people, such as the Bashar al-Assad’s government in Syria, the West generally does not support corrupt autocrats in such a brash manner. It also is difficult to provide assistance to an opposition that is not well defined. Nevertheless, the EU’s decision to place individual sanctions on Ukrainian officials , and the U.S.’s move to revoke 20 Ukrainian visas were positive efforts to punish President Yanukovych’s regime. These individuals must be held responsible for their actions, especially if they continue to receive guidance from Russia urging the state to resist tectonic reforms in the coming months. However, more must be done beyond sanctions to ensure a meaningful political transition and reform process.

More often than not, the West views elections as the end game of democratic reform, even when the elections in question are severely flawed. The West must actively monitor and offer guidance to the Ukrainian political transition team via diplomatic channels and civil society groups to ensure free and fair elections. Yanukovych and/or his allies may attempt to retain power in the upcoming months resulting in a Russian-backed political machine winning the elections. According to international observers, Ukraine’s 2012 election cycle was plagued with fraud, so it is likely that history could repeat itself if the election process is not regulated and monitored. Western countries should also keep an eye on rising leaders within the opposition movement that could be potential puppets for President Putin. Wealthy oligarchs such as Henadiy Boholyubov and Ihor Kolomoyskyy, who both have billion dollar plus holdings in the financial, media, and energy industries, have recently switched allegiances to the opposition movement even though they have traditionally supported the Yanukovych regime. These powerful actors could potentially hijack the opposition movement and resist any meaningful change that threatens their interests, which could include greater independence from Russia. Ukraine’s proposed political transition and reform could easily become a sham if the U.S. and the EU lose focus and decrease pressure.

Russia is bold to accuse the West of “puppeteering” in Ukraine via diplomatic support since the Kremlin has actively supported a bloody regime that has massacred civilians. While the current situation is not a proxy war, it is hard to ignore the emerging political divide and international political implications of Ukraine’s transformation. Western Ukraine supports further integration with the EU, and Eastern Ukraine is supportive of a strong Russian presence. Moving forward, it will be very difficult to reconcile these two viewpoints in a political transition that seeks a “national unity government.” However, the West and EU can continue to punish Ukrainian officials guilty of oppression and help support and shape meaningful political reform that keeps President Yanukovych and his cronies out of power. The ouster of Yanukovych by parliament, while a positive development, should be watched closely. The inevitable scramble and disorganization that follows such a momentous event could lead to the rise of another corrupt regime that seeks to ally itself to the highest bidder. Regardless of this possibility, those Ukrainians who desire a freer and more just society have won a substantial victory. Let us hope this victory is the first of many to come culminating in a Ukraine that aspires to be more than just a “Small Russia.”

Unlocking America’s Potential Energy

United States Shale gas plays, May 2011

Map of U.S. shale gas plays. May 2011, U.S. Energy Information Administration (Wikimedia Commons).

America is in the midst of one of the most significant energy revolutions in modern history. Due to the recent discoveries of vast reserves of shale oil and natural gas, the U.S. is in a position to become the world’s largest energy producer by 2015, surpassing both Saudi Arabia and Russia – combined. This momentum, however, can only continue if U.S. firms are allowed proper flexibility to explore, extract, and export shale oil and natural gas from U.S. territories. Government regulations covering drilling practices, such as fracking, must be re-examined and equitably altered such that energy companies may pursue their energy interests while satisfying environmental concerns. The energy revolution has critical implications for U.S. domestic and foreign policy with the potential to transform America’s economic prowess and energy self-sufficiency for years to come.

Current estimates for America’s resource endowment and extraction rates are very promising. Natural gas production is experiencing a momentous boom due to recent breakthroughs in unlocking natural gas trapped in shale. With these advances, shale gas production is forecast to increase from 42% of total U.S. gas production in 2007 to 64% in 2020. This level of growth is unprecedented, with the U.S. Government estimating there will be a 44% increase in total shale natural gas production from 2011 to 2040. With regards to oil production, the International Energy Agency predicts that U.S. oil production will rise to 11.6 million barrels per day in 2020, up from 9.2 million just a few years ago. This increase in oil production is orthogonal to trends in Saudi Arabia and Russia, which will see their production levels decline from 11.7 million to 10.6 million barrels and from 10.7 million to 10.4 million barrels, respectively. Leonardo Maugeri at Harvard has estimated that shale oil production alone could reach 5 million barrels per day by 2017. These statistics stand as a dramatic reversal from discussions in the energy community even 5 years ago when talk focused on declining fossil fuel reserves and the need to explore alternative forms of energy. Fossil fuels now dominate the energy game, and rightfully so.

Natural Gas Production from US Shales 2000-2013

Graph of natural gas production for U.S. shale plays. September 16, 2013 (Wikimedia Commons).

While sound environmental concerns do exist regarding shale oil and natural gas extraction, such as pollution of groundwater and the effect of mining towns on surrounding communities, they are often overblown. For example, in Pennsylvania only 3% of all wells were cited for flawed construction from 2008-2013. Fracking has been a successful extraction method since 1940, and new technologies – waterless fracking is a good example – have only made the process safer and more efficient. The most legitimate environmental concern associated with fracking has to do with the well casings that surround the fracking apparatus. Since fracking pumps water and sand into the ground at a high pressure, improperly made well casings and other sealants can crack causing leaks which pollute the surrounding environment. This problem could be solved by using stronger and properly fitted well casings. Simple environmental regulations at the state level requiring proper well construction, specifically emphasizing casings, could ameliorate many of the environmental concerns associated with fracking. There is also a surprising lack of publicly available data regarding the effects of fracking operations on the surrounding environment. Increasing the availability of this data by setting mandatory reporting requirements would fully inform nearby communities and government authorities. Fracking to extract shale oil and natural gas can be done safely; such has been the trend thus far. If a more relevant, simple, and fair regulatory regime were to be established by state governments, and perhaps the federal government, to address issues such as well casing construction and reporting requirements, fracking’s safety and efficacy would only be further reinforced. Regardless, fracking – as it stands today – is a no-brainer.

Fracking Site in Warren Center, PA 08

Fracking Site in Warren Center, Pennsylvania. August 23, 2013 (Wikimedia Commons).

Why is fracking already a no-brainer? Because the shale boom, which has been enabled by fracking methods, is having tremendous economic benefits for the U.S. Natural gas prices in the U.S. are some of the lowest in the world – half the price of gas in Europe and less than one-third the price of gas in Asian countries. Surging shale oil extraction has overloaded Gulf refineries and revived East Coast refineries. This increased supply is so shocking that domestic oil prices have lately fallen out of sync with global oil prices, and experts predict a U.S. oil “glut” if U.S. firms are not allowed to export crude oil. This abundance has critical implications for manufacturing in the U.S. Indeed, The Economist claims that the energy revolution is resulting in a “Factory North America.” This “Factory” is resulting in more domestic jobs across all industries, especially in the growing energy industry. Energy jobs in nearly every state have doubled since 2005. Some equate the fracking boom as being similar to a gold rush, with energy jobs offering high salaries for basic work in rural areas. David Petraeus seems to be on track when he claims we are about to enter the “North American Decades” powered by our new-found energy endowments.

While the macroeconomic benefits of America’s increased energy output are clearly tremendous, expectations for the average American consumer should be tempered. Though the price of natural gas has fallen in recent years due to our ability to tap into previously inaccessible shale reserves, the cocktail of booming transportation, a recovering economy, and rising exports have raised prices in the past year. In addition, the need for further fracking R&D is likely to drive costs up in the coming years. Shale oil is experiencing a similar phenomenon. Although the price of gasoline has fallen beyond global pricing levels in the U.S. for the short-term due to surging supply, the price of oil is determined on a global energy market and is projected to increase for the long-term as global demand continues to increase. The increased supply of natural gas and oil certainly has lowered costs for the American consumer for the time being, and will continue to do so when contrasted to an America without new-found energy reserves. However, Americans should not be expecting $2.00 per gallon gasoline prices anytime soon.

So what does this energy revolution mean for U.S. foreign policy? Many good things. America’s increased self-sufficiency will change the U.S.’ relationship with many other countries. Because of surging domestic supply, the U.S. will be less dependent on other nations for energy; in turn, this freedom will afford the U.S. greater flexibility in pursuing foreign policy interests because it will not be as constrained to secure energy resources abroad. Strategic relationships with nations such as Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates are likely to change because there will be less of a need for their oil imports. Perhaps the U.S. will now be more forceful in advocating for democratic reforms within these non-democratic states now that it has greater autonomy on the energy front. In addition, the decreasing need to secure energy resources abroad may prevent the U.S. from becoming involved in regional disputes and conflicts to secure those interests.

America’s surplus of energy could also be an excuse for a more active role in foreign policy. America could gain more influence over other nations if U.S. firms are allowed to export energy resources. As we have seen in Europe, Russia’s domination of energy resources in Eastern Europe has enabled it to turn build new allegiances at the EU’s loss and expense. Consider the notable cases of Armenia and the Ukraine becoming part of Russian-led Eurasian Union. Please note that this author is not advocating for the U.S. to pursue an overbearing approach to energy exports like Russia, but rather a stable level of influence to help the U.S. realize its foreign policy objectives. If, for example, the U.S. could export to Central Asian states, it could gain more influence in the region and build a relationship that could allow these states to become closer to the West rather then being forced into a Eurasian Customs Union led by Russia. In a state like Japan, where natural gas sells for $17 compared to $3 in the U.S., greater exports from the U.S. could enhance a trade relationship with a major partner. Unfortunately, the U.S. is not reaping the benefits of energy exports because antiquated laws are in place that prohibit U.S. firms from exporting crude oil. In addition, the EPA has been very slow to grant export license requests for liquefied natural gas. These regulations are contrary to free market principles and concepts of free trade that America has advocated for since its inception. The U.S. government needs to allow U.S. firms to export and pursue their global energy interests more freely. The potential results of this policy change would provide more flexibility in U.S. foreign policy and would afford the U.S. even greater influence on the international stage.

Natural Gas Price Comparison

Comparison of natural gas prices in the United States, Japan, and the United Kingdom. September 30, 2011, U.S. Energy Information Administration (Wikimedia Commons).

This energy revolution will change America’s game, and for the better. Domestically, the U.S. will be more self-sufficient and experience the growth of an industry while boosting employment numbers (and therefore jobs) and observing lower energy prices. Internationally, America’s influence will extend to the importers of our energy, and there will be less dependency on other states for energy. These benefits, however, cannot be fully experienced under the current structure. State governments, and perhaps the federal government, need to formulate a simple and fair regulatory regime that will allow U.S. energy firms flexibility in fracking to unlock shale oil and natural gas while addressing legitimate environmental concerns such as well casing construction. The U.S. must also break its own barriers to exporting energy, such as the obsolete laws that currently prohibit U.S. firms from exporting crude oil from U.S. territory and the slow process of obtaining export licenses for natural gas. Only if these policy measures are implemented can America’s full energy potential be unlocked.

A Response to the Pentagon’s Arctic Strategy

Last month, the Department of Defense (DOD) issued an “Arctic Strategy” white paper along with a positioning statement by Secretary of Defense Chuck Hagel. Major newspapers such as the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times ran stories summarizing the strategy, but the authors of this response feel that those analyses lacked context and stake. The Pentagon release on an Arctic strategy is not a hot news item, and the terms “Arctic security” do not figure much in public discourse. Arctic security encompasses the international agreements for search and rescue, environmental and ecological security, international agreements on border delimitation, Arctic military capability, as well as the economics resource extraction and the potential for trans-Arctic maritime trade. While a good start, the policy paper produced by the Pentagon is lacking substance. The authors of this piece seek to apply our diversity of knowledge studying Arctic politics – in the field – to provide context and recommendations in response to the Department of Defense. While we will discuss the politics of political and military security, the other issues of ecological security and Arctic governance will be addressed in kind.

International Security Cooperation Forum Proposal:

Although the Pentagon emphasizes the need for greater international cooperation as a way to prevent the Arctic from becoming a militarized zone, it falls short in identifying effective means of multilateral security cooperation. The Pentagon’s Arctic strategy document supports cooperative efforts via the Arctic Council as well as regional military training exercises as ways to maintain peace. However, there still does not exist a multilateral forum for the five Arctic littoral states to discuss hard security issues. The Arctic Council is prohibited from engaging in security discussions, and Arctic nations seem reticent to mention these sensitive issues. Given the fact that each littoral Arctic state is gradually increasing its military presence in the region, it is crucial for the U.S. to engage Arctic nations on hard security issues to prevent a conflagration that could result in an arms race – one the public would likely not notice. Although conversations on hard security issues have occurred bilaterally, it is time to discuss these issues multilaterally. A potential forum could be a recurring Arctic security summit where both civilian and military representatives from each Arctic state meet to discuss the role of each nations’ military in the Arctic. This summit would be a step toward preserving the Arctic as a peaceful zone through meaningful dialogue and addressing the sensitive issues head-on. Without an honest and recurring dialogue on both hard and soft security issues, the possibility of the Arctic becoming further militarized would increase dramatically.

The Arctic, a region that has only recently seen a spike in interest and development, requires fresh governing structures. The proposed security summit and other potential means of hard security cooperation could serve as models for existing international security governance structures that do not function as effectively. In this regard, the Arctic represents an opportunity for the international community to explore more effective and transparent ways to conduct international security cooperation.

UNCLOS and Arctic Governance

The decision by the US Congress to postpone, delay, and ignore the UN Convention on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) is beyond counterproductive. UNCLOS is de facto law in the Arctic Ocean since the US is the only state in the region that has yet to ratify the law. Ratifying UNCLOS will allow the US to make larger maritime claims in the Arctic. It will also allow the US to contest and petition Article 76, which allows nations to extend their maritime borders on the basis of how far their continental shelf extends. The Russian Federation currently has an outlying claim that would extend their claims as far as the North Pole. Considering an estimated 15% of the world’s oil and 30% of the world’s natural gas is in the Arctic region, it would be wise for the US to join other states in signing on to this international law. Furthermore, the potential opening of the Northern sea route to shipping means that the designation of Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs) now has expanded political-economic significance.

Arctic Claims

This map shows current borders in the Arctic as well as claims made by Russia. Recently, Canada made claims that extend as far as the North Pole. Map by Ahnode (Own work) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons

Ecological Security and why it should matter to the Pentagon:

In the twentieth century, global air temperatures rose an average 1-2°C. This is nothing compared to the Arctic where temperatures rose 5°C. This comparison illustrates the importance of the Arctic environment as a climate change barometer. In 2012, scientists measured a 97% surface melt of Greenland’s ice sheet. This exceeded most accepted models and scientists are re-evaluating at what point in this century we may expect no summer Arctic ice. The questions of whether we will witness the disappearance of the polar caps is not one of ‘if,’ but ‘when.’ Since Arctic ecosystems are impacted more rapidly by climate change, understanding these changes is crucial to managing the effects on the world’s interdependent ecosystems. While climate change might not affect the DoDs daily operations, a dialogue between scientific research and political-military objectives should inform the overall strategy. The Arctic Council is an institution that already seeks to bring dialogue to the vast array of information, scientific or otherwise, relevant to the Arctic region and climate change discussions in general. Heightened dialogue between the Department of State and the Arctic Council would be a good place to start.

Need for Investment in Arctic Capabilities:

Although the Pentagon states its intention of increasing its presence in the Arctic, it also makes clear that the current fiscal environment may stunt further investment. Not asserting American interests would be a mistake insofar as an image of disinterest will be perceived as American weakness in the Arctic. Indeed, other Arctic nations already perceive a strong US disinterest in the region. The lack of an American presence in the region would also prevent US military and law enforcement entities such as the Navy and Coast Guard from protecting the integrity of territorial claims, carrying out search and rescue missions, executing law enforcement functions, and responding to environmental disasters. As of now, the US lacks sufficient dedicated Arctic resources for security and humanitarian purposes. While other US military equipment, such as nuclear submarines and aircraft carriers, have the capability of traversing the Arctic, the US does not have Arctic-specific resources to effectively respond to a disaster or other threats.For example, the US possesses only 5 icebreakers in its fleet and has had to lease icebreakers from Russia and Sweden in the past.This small number of icebreakers stands in stark contrast to Russia’s 37 vessels. Even small Sweden outdoes the US with 7 icebreakers. Due to climate change, the region will likely see increases in resource extraction, shipping, fishing, and tourism. This increase in activity in the Arctic would likely be accompanied by an increase in emergency situations. The US currently lacks effective Arctic capabilities severely limiting the ability to respond to emergency situations or security threats.

In order to mitigate these threats and to enhance US military and rescue personnel in the region, the US needs to invest more in developing Arctic-specific technology and infrastructure. For starters, the US should build a dedicated Arctic icebreaker fleet to better navigate the frigid terrain. Additionally, the US should explore the option of pursuing joint search and rescue exercises with all of the littoral Arctic states, especially Russia. These search and rescue and/or environmental disaster relief exercises would not be as controversial as conventional military exercises and would allow each nation’s military/law enforcement services to become more familiar with one another. Actively working to break the divisions of yesterday by building collaborative relationships today could ameliorate the potential for conflict in the Arctic.

Concluding Remarks:

The US is faced with the enormous challenge of increasing its Arctic presence while convincing other Arctic states that its intentions are peaceful. The US cannot afford to see the Arctic escalate into a zone of conflict and thus must handle this situation very delicately. The DoD’s Arctic strategy is a welcome policy document to a country that has historically lacked a significant interest in the region when compared to the other littoral Arctic states. However, the Pentagon’s strategy needs to incorporate more pragmatic and effective means of international cooperation to accomplish its objectives. In addition, the current fiscal environment should not influence the US’ ability to help secure and develop a region that will likely see a heavy increase in activity due to climate change. Both US military and civilian units need to invest more resources into developing superior Arctic capabilities to better respond to disasters while protecting American interests in a region that is growing in significance and accessibility.

In the 19th century, the established nations of Europe met in Berlin to carve up Africa with the intent of extracting from it resources and riches upon which empires were built. The social, political, and human costs of this are still being felt today. In the 21st century, the established nations of the Europe, Asia, and North America are prepared to, and in certain instances already have, descended upon the Arctic for similar motivations: resource wealth, trade, and power. It would be foolish to think that because Arctic states are politically stable or economically developed that somehow this translates into regional stability. If history is any indication of what is to come, we should actually be all the more alarmed that “established” states are scrambling for the Arctic. Granted, the “Scramble for Africa” involved a large landmass and the intent of colonizing large populations, thus the forthcoming “Scramble for the Arctic” will not be a carbon copy of the past. In sum, there is an opportunity for the Arctic to be used to and for the benefit of all nations, and this begins with a sustainable governance regime.

A Call for National Unity

Nick Kosturos at West Point

The author pauses for a photo while attending the Student Conference on U.S. Affairs at West Point. The topic for this year’s conference was “Navigating Demographic Flows: Populations, Power, and Policy”

Two weeks ago, I had the honor of attending the 65th Annual Student Conference on U.S. Affairs (SCUSA) at the U.S. Military Academy at West Point. In addition to allowing students and cadets to explore various topics regarding the theme of “Navigating Demographic Flows: Populations, Power, and Policy,” the primary purpose of this conference was to foster a better mutual understanding between cadets and civilian students, also known as a “Civ-Mil Relations.” The idea behind these exchanges is that in the future participants may find themselves working in government or business together, and this program would afford all participants at the conference a better understanding of military and civilian lifestyles. Indeed, healthy civilian-military relations are essential for a well-functioning civilian-led democracy, which is why these types of programs exist and receive government funding. For four days, I was granted a fascinating peek into West Point life, including living in the barracks with cadets, studying in the library, and dining in the mess hall. I became very close to my cadet hosts and other students attending the conference. I was deeply affected by the cadet lifestyle and the unique shared experience offered by the Academy. West Point, while certainly not a place for everyone, offers our generation many lessons about the importance of shared experience in the development of a strong national identity.

 

West Point is composed of a diverse set of cadets from all walks of life. They differ in socioeconomic status, gender, race, creed, age, professional/academic backgrounds, and many other factors. While some cadets had already served in the military as enlisted members, most cadets came to the Academy straight out of high school. I recall a conversation with one cadet where he noted the variety of backgrounds and personal beliefs found amongst Cadets at West Point, but that amidst this diversity there was a common denominator uniting all: a desire to serve. I did not realize how strong this common bond was until I witnessed day-to-day operations of the Academy and personal stories of many cadets.

Unlike students at a normal university, cadets at West Point are subject to a daily, rigorous training schedule that makes college final exam season look like a cake walk. Cadets must participate in an average of 6 classes per term – including mandatory athletics, be subject to daily inspections, and march to and eat meals together. And these are just a few components of regular term schedule. As each cadet enters West Point, he or she must survive “Beast,” a summer-long basic training program employing mental and physical stress tests to effectively weed out those candidates who are not fully dedicated to the Academy’s mission. Throughout their time at West Point, cadets who do not perform adequately or break the rules must endure severe reprimands. A common punishment is called “Hours,” which entails walking back and forth in the public square while holding a rifle or sabre for hours at a time (only “Firstie” cadets or seniors are allowed to enjoy the lightness of a sabre while completing their hours). I spoke with a cadet who had to make up 120 hours because of, in my view, a slight deviation from the rules! However, other cadets assured me that there exists a purpose to these seemingly mind-numbing tasks. At West Point, there is little oversight by commissioned officers or other professional staff. The hierarchical nature of West Point teaches cadets to first follow and then lead, with senior cadets or “Firsties” responsible for management tasks such as conducting inspections and running summer “Beast” training for new cadets. Freshmen cadets, or “Plebes,” complete the less glorious tasks, such as taking out the barracks’ trash or escorting civilians, like me, around Academy grounds.

Understandably, some cadets expressed their desire to experience a traditional college lifestyle. When I mentioned I was from USC in Los Angeles, a lot of the cadets humorously grumbled about the weather and college parties, and it became clear to me that some wanted a break from the strenuous life of a cadet at a military academy. However, I was equally, if not more, envious of the West Point experience. The unmatched traditions, dedication to a sense of duty and common purpose (including at least five years of mandatory service upon graduation), the stringent Cadet Honor Code, and perhaps most significantly, the incredibly strong bonds between cadets struck a deep chord with me. This unity and cohesion is something that I feel is missing from political culture and American society in general, especially among my peers.

At a time when U.S. demographics are rapidly shifting, the wealth gap continues to widen, and Congress and our political culture are seeing historic divisions, the importance of fostering a national identity has become ever the more critical to sustaining a strong societal fabric. It is important to understand what I mean by “national identity.” I firmly believe that America’s strength is drawn from the diversity of its citizenry, but this diversity must be woven together by a common thread if our strengths are to be channeled in the most productive manner possible. National identity is developed through actions such as teaching a national history and common language, developing national institutions and symbols like monuments in the Capitol region, and, most importantly, allowing for some type of a shared national experience.

In 2013, there does not seem to exist a shared national experience for my generation. The educational system in our country is very fractured, with some students attending charter schools, public schools, private schools, community college, universities, or no school at all. Unlike our parents and grandparents, there is no World War that must be fought and no common threat like the Soviet Union’s “Evil Empire” that must be defeated. Indeed, it seems as if major bipolar conflicts and common enemies have brought Americans together in the past. Abstract issues such as climate change and the Global War on Terror have not mustered nearly as much national unity when compared to previous historical events. While the information age and social media may prove to be more conducive to greater unity, these technological tools have proven to be both uniting and divisive on a global scale. Therefore, in the absence of a shared national experience, I believe it would be prudent for U.S. policymakers to entertain discussions exploring ways to develop a stronger national identity. Programs such as AmeriCorps, the Peace Corps, or mandatory military service could be used as inspiration for possible public service options. In addition, a thorough and long-needed re-haul of the public education system would also do wonders for shaping a meaningful national experience for youth. Regardless of the policy proposal, U.S. policymakers should always keep the issue of national identity and the utility of shared experiences in mind when developing civic policy, especially for legislation that impacts American youth.

There may be some who question the significance of national unity as the world becomes a small place through the auspices of globalization. However, as long as the nation-state remains the dominant unit of analysis on our planet, America’s national identity is critical to retaining a competitive edge in the international system. The West Point experience, while certainly singular in the sense of its rigor and military culture, reveals the benefits to be had from shared national experiences. This institution accepts youth from all backgrounds and transforms each class of cadets into a united group of individuals willing to serve for a cause greater than themselves. I have no doubt that some of the individuals I met at the conference are going to be leading this country in both the military and civilian realms in the near future, which comes as a comforting thought. The cadets’ shared experiences, sense of brotherhood, and devotion to service distinguishes them from other youth in an American society largely defined by apathy. My generation desperately needs a shared national experience to foster unity, patriotism, and a sense of civic duty. This unity will strengthen our national fabric while unlocking the full potential of the nation.

An Autocrat’s Guide for Dummies: How to Build Your Own Cult of Personality

As an autocrat, one of the smartest choices you can make for long-term political domination is to build a strong cult of personality. This is no easy task. Building your brand requires much dedication and effort, which will surely take away from many scotch tastings at your summer palace. Indeed, rumor has it Stalin only slept four hours per night due to his constant cultivation of his exceptional personality cult. However, the rewards of this strategy are bountiful. A personality cult attracts blind devotion in the minds of your subjects and instills fear in the souls of your opponents – the ever-rare opportunity to murder two birds with one stone! Indeed, history has shown that some of the most powerful autocrats, such as Josef Stalin and Mao Zedong, enjoyed a long period of rule and a lasting legacy because of the success of their personality campaigns. The mass-appeal of the cult of personality syndrome is irrefutable, as even the humblest man would enjoy the constant ego stroking. By heeding the following recommendations, you too can develop your own brand that will stand the test of time.

1. Nail Down Your Style

Right: Graffiti of Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi in Knoxville, Tennessee. June 19, 2013. (Joel Kramer) Left: Muammar Gaddafi at the 12th AU summit in Addis Abeba. February 2, 2009. (U.S. Navy/Jesse B. Awalt)

Right: Graffiti of Libyan Leader Muammar Gaddafi in Knoxville, Tennessee. June 19, 2013. (Joel Kramer)
Left: Muammar Gaddafi at the 12th AU summit in Addis Abeba. February 2, 2009. (U.S. Navy/Jesse B. Awalt)

The communist-style grey suit is so 1950s. Kim Jong-un: please take note. While those drab American leaders all dress similarly and wear the same American flag pins, which are of course made in China, you should focus on dressing to impress. We recommend obtaining a military uniform and cramming as many shiny badges on your outfit as possible. People want a strong leader, and old-school military power projection will impress your subjects while making them more accepting of your militaristic police state over time. Muammar Gaddafi mastered the dressing game, switching between flashy traditional garb and his ornate military uniform to trumpet both his cultural and military credentials. A consistent, yet unique style will leave the newly minted members of your personality cult craving for more.

2. Plaster Your Face on Everything

Bundesarchiv Bild 137-075664, Polen, Betreuung von Umsiedlern

Child holds portrait of Hitler in Poland. 1940 (Wilhelm Holtfreter)

If there is one thing you should do, it would be to post your portrait everywhere possible, including private buildings, buses, churches, government buildings (give-in), postage stamps, flags, and children’s toys. This author would advise against toilet seats, although that is a potential option. Not only will everyone learn to recognize you, they may even develop an emotional attachment to your face. Let’s take a lesson from Comrade Stalin. His portrait was diffused so broadly throughout society that some Soviet families felt the need to turn his portrait against their walls if they criticized the Soviet regime. This is power you cannot buy. Hire a good photographer, take as many portraits as possible, and send them off everywhere. Additionally, a good skin regimen can help with regime perpetuation. You’ll thank me for this bit of advice when you’re before The Hague and the judges compliment your radiant glow of self-confidence.

3. Product Placement

Right: Portrait of Vladimir Putin. Unspecified date. (Russian Federation) Left: Putinka Vodka. February 5, 2011. (Reuben Yau)

Right: Portrait of Vladimir Putin. Unspecified date. (Russian Federation)
Left: Putinka Vodka. February 5, 2011. (Reuben Yau)

Extend your brand to everyday, consumable goods. You should connect yourself to the minds and souls of your subjects at as visceral a level as possible. Vladimir Putin has been able to link himself to the everyday pleasure of alcohol consumption by making a state-sponsored Vodka manufacturer label a popular brand of vodka, “Putinka,” after himself. It’s all about the subliminal advertising.  So the next time your subjects drink themselves to sleep, they will have raised many a glass to you along the way. Za Zdorovie!

4. Crush Challenges to Your Image

Left: Stalin and Nickolai Yezhov (chairman of the Soviet secret police) at the shore of the Moskwa-Wolga-Channel. After Yezhov was tried and executed, he was purged out of from this photograph. April 22, 1937. (Unknown Author) Right: Nickolai Yezhov has vanished from this doctored photograph. 1937. (Author Unknown)

Left: Stalin and Nickolai Yezhov (chairman of the Soviet secret police) at the shore of the Moskwa-Wolga-Channel. After Yezhov was tried and executed, he was purged out of from this photograph. April 22, 1937. (Unknown Author)
Right: Nickolai Yezhov has vanished from this doctored photograph. 1937. (Author Unknown)

 

If an individual or a group tries to rain on your cult parades, you must remove them from the scene. The last thing a true leader wants is a competing figure or group stealing your thunder. You and you alone are the star – channel your inner Hollywood diva. Remove all opponents swiftly and by any and all means necessary through any force necessary, and most importantly, be sure to erase them from the annals of history. A few photo touch-ups should do the trick for well-known figures. Job prerequisite: a least two years experience with Adobe Creative Suite© and, preferably, previous experience in product marketing and re-branding.

5. Micro-managing is a Must

Lenin reading Pravda

Lenin reads Pravda newspaper at his study desk at his flat in the Kremlin. October 16, 1918.

You must maintain an active presence in the direct management of your cult or else it could be hijacked by the opposition, or worse, a not-so-loyal lieutenant. Stalin was a master of this management style and developed a habit of personally monitoring and directly approving or disapproving cult products that were to be distributed to the masses. So next time one your lieutenants offers to “take care” of management, politely refuse. Reply that you will “take care” of him and send him to Siberia to break rocks.

6. Conceal any and all Physical Faults

Kim-Jong-il

Kim Jong-il. October 7, 2010. (maxdavinci)

We know you’re perfect, but on the off chance that you have a physical or mental ailment, it must be concealed. You need to portray yourself as god-like, and to do this requires careful image manipulation. Kim Jong-il had a major speech impediment that prevented him from giving speeches or distributing recordings, but he was able to hide this impediment and keep his people in the dark. Rather, Kim was known to have Herculean sporting abilities where he would bowl and golf perfect games, and he was incapable of passing gas. Focus on your strengths and do not be afraid to highlight only your finest qualities, such as your ability to show off that priceless grin.

7. Bad Press is BAD Press

Edmund S. Valtman, What you need is a revolution like mine ppmsca.02969

This cartoon of Fidel Castro is critical of Cuba’s revolution in 1959. August 31, 1961. (Edmund S. Valtman)

The saying “any press is good press” should NOT apply to you. As supreme autocrat, you can afford to restrict any and all bad press. Any negative material could dampen your image and threaten your grip on power. It may be wise to invest in subtle social media filters, shut down freelance journalistic outlets (perhaps by accusing them of being “foreign agents”) and employ youth bloggers friendly to your regime to capture the minds and hearts of a more skeptical generation. Now there’s an image that makes every autocrat want to click the “like” button.

8. Keep it Funky

Vladimir Putin in Japan 3-5 September 2000-23

Vladimir Putin judo wrestling at the Kodokan Martial Arts Palace. September 5, 2000. (Russian Federation)

Unpredictability is a good thing. By dazzling your people and the international community, you will earn a reputation of being spontaneous and larger-than-life. Many autocrats have employed this technique. Chairman Mao accomplished this task by allegedly swimming the length of the Yangtze River. Putin constantly publicizes his wild activities, such as wrestling fellow Russians to the ground (that includes bears) or guiding endangered migratory cranes on a hang glider. Stability is a necessary ingredient to ironclad rule, but in order to build a good brand, a little funk is necessary now and then.

*Disclaimer: The aforementioned recommendations will only get you so far in an increasingly democratic world. In these volatile times, where a globalized press and social media apparatus seem to be exposing the ugly aspects of your brotherhood of autocrats left and right, the days of autocracy are increasingly numbered. Instead of building a cult of personality, consider democratizing your state’s society and liberalizing its economy. Until next time, Do Svidaniya.

Updated 2 November, 2013: formatting changes for better image-text integration.

Vladimir Putin: Master of the World’s Greatest Imitation Democracy

Vladimir Putin - World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009

Vladimir Putin – World Economic Forum Annual Meeting Davos 2009 (flickr, World Economic Forum)

Vladimir Putin is the most tactful political leader of our time. While some may gawk at his strange leadership style, including a growing string of “Putin Action Man” photos as representative of a clownish leader, Putin’s ability to project a strong foreign policy and maintain control over a great power should be taken very seriously. Most recently, Putin has been able to uphold Russia’s interest in Syria while projecting himself as a world peacemaker as the U.S. recovers from a massive political fumble. This is no easy task, even for a former KGB man. On the home front, he has consistently bent the rules to empower himself – and his regime – at great cost to his own citizenry. Over the past decade, he has purged political opponents, denigrated Russian civil society, and allegedly siphoned off billions of dollars for his own gain, perhaps making him one of the richest men in the world. He accomplished all of these actions while maintaining popular support from Russians. Indeed, reports indicate Putin would have won the previous 2012 election even if the vote had not been rigged. He has also just announced the possibility of running for another 6-year term in 2018, which, if he wins, would make him the longest-serving leader of Russia since Josef Stalin. Even though history has shown that Russians tend to be pre-disposed to accepting authoritarian leaders, Putin’s rise to power in an increasingly democratic world is the mark of a master autocrat.

Unlike many other world leaders who have come to power through familial connections, personal wealth, or coup d’état, Putin’s ascension is unique. As a trained intelligence officer who operated overseas under the KGB, and as the former head of the FSB (Russia’s successor to the KGB), Putin is arguably better prepared to maintain political dominance more than most other world leaders. Putin’s foreign policy machine was able to manipulate world leaders and the UN Security Council into stalling on Syria for over 2 years while continuing to sell advanced weapons to the murderous regime. Russia then proposed a peace deal that overshadowed a flustered and disjointed U.S. Additionally, Putin’s craftiness in foreign policy is alarmingly evident in Russia’s expanding sphere of influence. Putin shunned Western Europe when he forced Armenia and other nations away from the EU and into an exclusive Eurasian economic union that is growing in size and prominence. To accomplish such objectives, Putin is known to use coy power tactics in his diplomatic dealings; one such example is his taking advantage of Angela Merkel’s fear of dogs by bringing his trusted companion to diplomatic negotiations with Germany. Putin truly puts the bite in foreign policy leaving his counterparts flabbergasted at his aggressive wielding of power and influence. This bold leadership style has certainly contributed to the rise of Russia’s global power projection when compared to its status at the beginning of the 21st century.

On the domestic stage, Putin is gradually bringing back a Stalinist-like society, feeding off of growing xenophobic and conservative attitudes held by many Russians. However, Putin dominates political life in a stealthier manner than Stalin. Putin has removed competitors from power under the guise of well-timed, government sponsored anti-corruption campaigns as opposed to mass killings. The removal of Russia’s richest man, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, along with activist Alexei Navalny’s conviction and subsequent temporary release from his prison sentence to compete in a mayoral election, both stand as illustrative examples of Putin’s tactful political purges. Although these men were not taken to a house and shot in the back of the head, both were convicted in blatantly manufactured court rulings, affording the Putin regime solid political victories under the façade of judicial legitimacy.

Proponents of democratic reform in Russia should be particularly alarmed by Putin’s heavy regulation and interference in Russia’s civil society. Indeed, the Russian leader has thoroughly stomped on democratic principles by heavily regulating and restricting budding civil society groups, most notably by branding all NGOs that receive foreign funding as “foreign agents,” which evokes immense suspicion from Russian citizens because of the negative connotation of this label. The jailing of political dissidents such as the “Pussy Riot” band also discourages an atmosphere of protest and certainly prevents a healthy civil society from taking root. Putin’s grip on Russia’s domestic affairs has tightened and appears to be strong-as-ever for the foreseeable future.

Putin’s contradictions are too many to count. He holds elections only to rig them. He praises the impartiality of the Russian judicial system, and then uses it to jail political opponents. He projects himself as a world peacemaker and continues to support murderous regimes. He expresses a desire for public diplomacy but constantly stimulates anti-foreigner sentiments among his people. He worships state sovereignty and then uses obstructionist tactics to bully other nations into economic and military cooperation. Russia, a place former Russian Prime Minister Mikhail Kasyanov referred to as an “imitative democracy,” will never be able to transform itself into a true democracy as long as a Vladimir Putin is at the helm. So next time you see Putin projecting his dominance while riding a horse in Siberia, avoid labeling his antics as foolish and instead recall his ever-tightening grip as master of the world’s greatest imitation democracy.

On America’s “Culture of Leaks”

 

Those individuals who believe Edward Snowden is a hero who exposed Big Brother should think twice. It may be easy to support an increasingly popular culture of Internet leaks and freedom of information for all things sensitive, but it is more difficult to examine the long-term consequences and implications of Snowden and other leakers’ actions for U.S. national security. While leaking has occurred long before Snowden and Manning, a new culture of internet freedom in which every tech-savvy person can be a world hero by disclosing government secrets seems to be growing in the U.S. I am very wary of this misguided “culture of leaks.” The leaking of sensitive information, even if well-intentioned, exposes some of our nation’s most sensitive sources and methods to terrorist organizations and foreign intelligence services, which makes us all less secure.

Let’s start with Snowden. This man did not merely blow the whistle, he trumpeted a storm. Snowden could have chosen to carefully release only the documents that succinctly showed violations of NSA surveillance policy and a potential overstepping of government surveillance, but instead he opted to flee to Russia and Hong Kong with multiple computers filled with highly-classified NSA security programs and other sensitive data. I am still dumbfounded that a man who preaches privacy and freedom would scurry away to Russia, one of the most oppressive great powers in the world today. In addition to this highly questionable circumstance, Snowden’s seemingly indiscriminate release of sensitive information cost the U.S. government dearly in research and development, resulted in a loss of international prestige, turned attention away from regimes that actually oppress their people, and damaged U.S. national security capabilities. Responsible whistleblowing takes restraint, thoughtful planning, and thorough exhaustion of internal channels, standards that are seemingly absent from Snowden’s actions.

Now that we understand Edward Snowden is no Deep Throat, I want to touch on Wikileaks, one of the biggest players on the receiving end of our leak culture. I am astonished that an organization dedicated to the mass transmission of our state secrets to all peoples and governments commands respect among so many fellow citizens. If these were the days of the Cold War when America faced the more discernable threat of a nuclear-armed “Evil Empire,” I doubt as many Americans would be supportive of a global databank of U.S. sources and methods ripe for the picking. My generation seems to forget that it is not just terrorists in the Middle East that threaten our national security, but also foreign governments. Just about every competent nation is constantly seeking to penetrate our private industry and government to steal sensitive trade information and government secrets. Indeed, there is no such thing as a “friendly” intelligence service. These foreign intelligence services and hostile transnational groups have already scoured Snowden’s leaked data and have adjusted their methods accordingly. I would not be surprised if Snowden was already debriefed by Russian intelligence officers. U.S. citizens should be more wary of global institutions that eagerly await more leakers to approach them for “assistance.” Organizations like Wikileaks, unlike the Intelligence Community, do not have a loyalty to our country and are working to further their own interests, which can vary from world fame to fulfilling certain ideological goals.

As Snowden relaxes and drinks Russian vodka at a dacha (cottage) near Moscow, U.S. national security professionals are in damage control mode. Now more than ever, our adversaries have a better understanding of how our national security apparatus operates and have adapted their operations accordingly. These groups include both terrorist cells that are constantly planning to attack U.S. and Allied targets, as well as foreign intelligence services that seek to steal our industry trade secrets and sensitive government information to gain an economic, political, and military edge. Indeed, I would be very hesitant to readily praise Snowden, Manning, Anonymous, and other distressing groups or individuals. As a concerned citizen, it’s up to you to counter this malice with two easy actions. First, read a few books and/or articles about our security services and the threats facing our country to gain a more complete understanding of current global challenges and the proper function of our Intelligence Community. To start, I would personally recommend Intelligence: From Secrets to Policy by Mark Lowenthal and a student subscription to The Economist. Second, and most importantly, consider finding ways to become involved in our government in order to responsibly facilitate the improvements you may wish to enact. This involvement could range from grassroots advocacy activities such as writing letters to your Congressman to interning for an Executive branch agency, an NGO/think tank, or Congress. We should not have to wait for unlawful and misguided security leaks for calls to activism and civic involvement. Our generation needs to make a more robust effort to become involved in the governmental process, and perhaps even work directly for the institutions that run our government in order to face these challenges. Our country deserves no less from our generation, and mere armchair activism via social media will not suffice.