While the world is outraged by the Paris attacks, no one seems to remember that the IS threat is wider than our TV broadcasters says and Nigeria is the best example.
Boko Haram pledged allegiance to IS in March 2015 and vowed to continue its terror campaign against the Nigerian government. The group is responsible for over 20,000 death since 2009 and many analysts consider it the bloodiest of all terrorist organisations currently in operation.
President Muhammadu Buhari, sworn in May 2015, pledged to defeat the terrorist group by the end of December, as well as fighting corruption and mismanagement that crippled the Nigerian economy.
Buhari was elected amid a historic vote, where for the first time an actual political transition from the majority party PDP to the opposition APC was completed, and was elected by huge popular demand, surrounded by huge expectations. Buhari is remembered as an ex-ruthless military that in 1983 took power, by overthrowing the corrupted civilian government of Shehu Shagari, and tried to clean the incompetence and corruption although with a poor human right records. Thus, many acknowledged that in those years, no one was untouchable and for the first time politicians and even members of the powerful military élite were under serious scrutiny. His return to power after 30 years, after being ousted by Babangida’s 1985 coup, arrived after a slanderous campaign from majority party PDP and after Buhari had lost every single presidential campaign since the return to democracy in 1999.
Buhari, supported by this aura of hard men who takes no nonsense, has been especially looked upon by Nigerians to solve Boko Haram insurgency once and for all. His party, and people, accused the ex-President Jonathan Goodluck and the PDP to underestimate Boko Haram fighters, to have reduced military capability and diverted funds destined to procure equipment through corruption and bribery.
However, the first six months of cabinet have not been easy for Buhari, since his arrival attacks continued with the last in Kano on 18 November, killing 12 people and wounding several others. In the last, of a series of bloody attacks, the authorities said that two female suicide bombers detonated their vests at a cell phone market. Witnesses and Red Cross officials said that the death toll could be higher than the authorities claim, although the number could not be independently confirmed. In another attack, at least 32 people were killed by a suicide bomber on a vegetable market in the north-eastern city of Yola days before. Still the bombings have continued in regular patterns since Buhari was sworn in, involving especially civilians targets such markets, schools, shops and even spilling to areas of Niger, Cameroon and a village in Chad, prompting officials to call a state of emergency there.
In a statement, following Kano attack, President Muhammadu Buhari called for Nigerians to stay vigilant, saying that even his recently intensified military operation against Boko Haram could not prevent every attack. “President Buhari reassures Nigerians that his administration is very much determined to wipe out Boko Haram in Nigeria and bring all perpetrators of these heinous crimes against humanity to justice,” the government release said.
Nevertheless, some are now starting to doubt about the real possibility of the government to fight back, although President Buhari has announced recent victories against Boko Haram, including seizing bomb materials, destroying territorial bases, training camps and winning battles in the North-East where Boko Haram wish to establish a new state. Security experts, regional authorities and Western military officials have nevertheless credited Buhari for showing greater strength than the predecessors in fighting back, in giving troops higher morale and proceeding to undermine Boko Haram control over the territory.
However, the fight is not only a military matter, and president Buhari after six months of careful negotiations has finally unveiled his 36-members cabinet, tasked to make his programme a reality. Those who criticise Buhari for this long time taken, should also take into account that choosing a cabinet in Nigeria is a complicated task made even more difficult by the heterogeneity of the country under an ethnic/religious point of view, as well as require wise and skilful political balancing. Buhari had to take into account the need for professional leaders but also to repay political allies and supporters, reshuffle the security apparatus and avoid undermining the already fragile capacity to fight. Then there is the need to carefully maintain an ethnic and religious balance, and to make sure each of the 36 states that compose the federation are represented.
“Impatience is not a virtue. Careful and deliberate decisions after consultations get far better results” said the president to his critics, who thought that the long delay in naming a new government was a sign to bad things to come. Thus, on Wednesday (the same day of the attacks), Buhari unveiled the 36 ministers at a ceremony in the capital Abuja. To maintain and deliver his pledge of cutting the costs and a huge but inefficient political machine, he said that not all the thirty-six will get their own ministries, and in fact, he eliminated eight departments, meaning that eight members of the cabinet are deputy ministers. The most notable of the exclusions was the petroleum ministry, where Buhari himself has taken charge of the ministry, which for years has been associated with gross mismanagement and corruption on a grand scale. Nigeria, Africa’s largest oil producer, has been forced to import refined petroleum as a result of the failures of this ministry, while most part of the country suffers from chronic power shortages. However, it is the security situation that received utmost attention from Buhari.
He chose Dan Ali, a retired brigadier-general, as defence minister who shares with Buhari a total mistrust on the operate of the security forces under the previous government. Dan Ali earlier this year attacked Alex Badeh, the former army chief, by criticising his counter-terrorism measures and since then has been replaced, with the Nigerian army’s poor record against Boko Haram now recovering.
The other important appointment is Abdurrahman Dambazau as the new interior minister who is in charge of the police. As Nigeria’s Chief of Army Staff between 2008 and 2010, he led a successful campaign against Boko Haram. After his removal, seen by Buhari’s supporters as an example of the incompetence of PDP dealing with Boko Haram, the militants regrouped in 2011 and since then, thousands of people have been killed with the insurgency spreading to neighbouring countries.
Nevertheless, the best example on the determination of President Buhari to fight insurgency and corruption was given this week when he accused the previous administration’s national security adviser, Sambo Dasuki of embezzling public money destined for the army. Even before the election, Buhari vowed to investigate corruption in the previous government, in which Mr Dasuki served. Dasuki is accused of pocketing more than $2 billion that had been allocated for four fighter jets, twelve helicopters and ammunitions to fight Boko Haram, allegations that Dasuki has denied.
Soldiers have long complained that despite the military’s huge budget, they were ill-equipped to fight and Dasuki, who was already under house arrest, has been indicated by Buhari as the main culprit. He was under house arrest as part of an ongoing trial for allegedly possessing illegal firearms, and although the court for that trial allowed him to travel to the UK for treatment for suspected prostate cancer, the government has now refused to let him leave the country.
For many Nigerians this is the strength of Buhari in tackling issues without any concerns, but it will be enough? Soldiers have reported they are better equipped since President Buhari came into office, but the previous president’s supporters say this is because those weapons were ordered while Jonathan Goodluck was in power. Same apply for the recent military successes, for which ex government officials claim Buhari is just benefiting on the effects of legislations passed by the previous president. Nevertheless, for many Nigerians the debacle of the Chibok girls kidnapped and never found was more than enough to show the complete inefficiency and incompetence of the security forces, as well as the incredible loss of international credibility.
The bigger problem for Nigeria, and Buhari, is that Boko Haram cannot only be considered an internal insurgency but has a wider implication on the West African security system. In this will be decisive to bring into a full understanding the regional and world powers that currently have severely underestimated Boko Haram capability in attacking Nigeria’s institutions. Action across the borders to Chad and Cameroon show how the group has grown from just internal actions until 2009 to a more capable military machine able to seize territory and attack on a wider front on several countries.
Western powers have seriously not taken into account Boko Haram successes in destabilising Nigeria that, if not supported, can have serious repercussion on all other weaker governments of the area. A collapse of West Africa security defences, taking into account that Nigeria has always been considered paramount as a stabilisation force, could seriously affect the wider struggle against IS. Turmoil in Libya and the presence of various non-identified groups whose allegiance is not always clear pose a great threat to states economically fragile, and struggling to control their own porous borders.
While Muhammadu Buhari is trying to rebuild Nigerian capability in fighting Boko Haram, one of the weapons he needs to rely on is international recognition as a partner in a struggle against a common menace. Unfortunately, the distortion caused by our euro centrism and hypocrisy of the events on the ground are distracting us from taking notice of the bloodbath happening in Africa that soon or later will have an effect also in our own countries.
The recent Paris attacks have opened a series of questions on security and the real strength of IS. However, one clear fact is in front of our eyes: IS strength is proportional to our weakness.
World powers division over Syria has just highlighted how easy is for groups like IS to increase their force and exploit the void created by our indecisions. IS strength has been unequivocally supported by the fragility of political institutions in Middle East, and especially after the raging war in Syria. It cannot be denied that the so-called Islamic State is a collateral effect of the western disastrous policy of “change of regime” and at the same time a sub-product of the illusory Arab spring. The weakening of secular states, pursued by the US during the Al-Qaida years, although has led to the fall of repressive regimes, created a void thus replaced by the only real organised and opposition force: Islamists groups.
While the Arab spring worked in a way in Tunisia, Egypt is the best example of how the dangerous shift to Islamism was blocked in time by the only possible resource available: a military coup. When Mubarak was ousted, and the Muslim Brotherhood won, everyone just simply knew that it would be matter of time before Egypt would be engulfed in serious troubles. The army, conscious of the danger, used its force to avoid a Libyan scenario thus blocking the contagion from the IS fever. It is true nonetheless, that Egypt is still a terrain fertile for IS infiltration and the recent attack on a Russian airliner simply shows that.
Nevertheless, it is the total failure of western policies in Syria and Iraq, that ultimately led to the growth of IS and its apparently unstoppable force. Following the steps of Libya, Western powers have made a huge miscalculation in thinking to replace easily the Assad regime with a pro-western government. Arms sent to strengthen the illusory rebel army, instead favoured the growth of all Islamist groups and ultimately of IS. In Iraq, the total disregard and animosity towards the Shia government in power, united with their own mistakes in seeking revenge against the Sunnis, soon created the fertile terrain for Sunni resistance and ultimately IS growth.
However, how really strong is the Islamic State? Is terrorism a sign of power or weakness? IS in itself is full of contradictions: fights the West but many fighters are mercenaries from Europe where most of them enjoyed life of freedom; is against idolatry and western consumerism but uses all social media platforms; destroys cultural history, belonging even to their own past, but put forward slogans of brotherhood; it fights against other Muslims, mainly Shia, and does not concern itself with the Palestine problem.
It is quite remarkable for a group claiming to be ready to install a Caliphate to notice that in all their claims Israel and the Palestinian problem has been left out. Even when they slightly consider the issue, their targets are Hamas and the Palestinian Liberation Organisation, for who they fight for then?
Terrorism is never a viable political solution, inevitably leads only to two solutions: total annihilation of the group or negotiation. By the choices of targets and its political agenda, it is unlikely that IS can pursue or even is willing to negotiate. Exactly because has been born from western hypocrisy is in itself a hypocritical and cowardly group: attacks minority groups, enslave women, fight a terror war against civilians, is armed and financed by foreign donors (powers). Therefore, the question is, can be destroyed? Yes and easily.
Taking into account that its main base is in Syria and part of Iraq, and it is surrounded by major regional power, we have: Turkey in the North, the Kurds in Turkey and Iraq in the North, Lebanon backed by pro-Syrian groups and Hezbollah to the West, the sea to the West can be blocked (if wanted by any major power like the US), Israel and Egypt in South-West, Jordan in the South, Iraq Shia backed government to the East and obviously Iran that support Assad, Hezbollah and the Iraqi government.
At first looks like an impressive display of power but we need to consider the following issues affecting the real fight against IS:
- Turkey could block the borders better and support the Kurds, instead of fighting them for internal reasons;
- The western powers keep living the dream of the Free Syrian Army that in reality is just non existent as long as all weapons are used against the only other legitimate ground force to counter IS, which is the regular Syrian Army. Any future agreement on Syria should be postponed after the war. They face a common enemy.
- Western powers, namely US, against Russia: the Russian campaign in Syria was denigrated and attacked before the Paris attacks, while now Putin is seen as a messiah in the fight against terror;
- Russia is also not always clear on the real targets of its campaign in Syria: internal security, defence of strategic interests or to pin point US forces?
- Western powers refusal to acknowledge the importance of other actors in the scene: Iran and its allies.
- The hypocrisy and double play of some of the so-called “allies of the West”: Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Qatar, and UAE. Financing for IS comes mainly from “donors” in these countries.
- The refugee problem: open door policy or closed borders? EU has not a clear strategy and swing from an excess to the other in the assessment.
- Media propaganda and misinformation: once again serious anti-Islam slogans and total disregard for an unbiased assessment of the reality. The theory of the double standards still applies and only has as a result an increase in racism and xenophobic attacks in the western capitals.
Nevertheless, the Paris attacks and the Russian plane bombing are changing everything, as France is now ready to cooperate (at least in words) with Russia; Egypt will have to answer about its security standards as surely cannot allow tourism to disappear following the recent incidents. Calls are growing on US and the UK (the most recalcitrant in changing their views and policies towards Syria) for a coalition to destroy IS, but the risk of leaving main actors such the Kurds, the Iraqi government, and Iran out of the decisions can also expose further the West and Russia in a direct intervention that will play IS propaganda. On the other side, all powers must reconsider their circle of friends in Middle East and realise that a shift of policy towards Iran could benefit these powers in the long term better than the current dependence from questionable partners, Pakistan-US relations are a lesson.
Muhammadu Buhari has been sworn as President of the Federal Republic of Nigeria on 29 May 2015, after the historic victory over the People’s Democratic Party of rival and ex President Jonathan Goodluck.
The victory of Muhammadu Buhari has been hailed as a major turning point in Nigerian and African politics. For the first time Nigeria assisted to a democratic transition of power from the ruling party to the opposition candidate in an election praised for its order and clearness of results.
Buhari won at the head of the opposition coalition All Progressives Congress, an alliance of four opposition parties: the Action Congress of Nigeria, the Congress for Progressive Change, the All Nigeria Peoples Party, and the All Progressives Grand Alliance. Buhari obtained 53.96%, over 2.5 million votes separated him from Jonathan Goodluck and obtaining a landslide victory in the majority of states, except for the south, southeast and Niger Delta. The gap of votes was so wide that PDP and President Goodluck had to admit defeat, and even taking into account eventual irregularities, these could not have changed that outcome.
Nevertheless, Buhari is not new to Nigerian politics having first of all been one of the military rulers during the country’s long history of coups and juntas. He was Head of State between 1983 and 1985 and then candidate for four times against PDP leaders Obasanjo, Yar’Adua, and Goodluck since return to democracy in 1999.
Nigerians became aware of Muhammadu Buhari on 31 December 1983, when the then Major General overthrew the elected government of Shehu Shagari, in power since 1979, in a bloodless military coup. The military seized power once again, primarily because there was virtually no confidence in the civilian regime. Indeed, conditions had deteriorated so much in the Second Republic that when the coup came, it was widely acclaimed. Buhari had been director of supply and services in the early 1970s, military governor of Northeast State at the time it was divided into three states, and Federal Commissioner for Petroleum and Mines (1976-78) during the height of the oil boom. At the time of the coup, he was commander of the Third Armored Division in Jos. The regime of Buhari became soon famous for its bold actions: for the first time a military in power shows a clear hostile face towards the civil society and fundamental rights, and for many he put the seed of authoritarianism that will flourish further in the next juntas of Ibrahim Babangida and Sani Abacha.
Buhari tried to restore public accountability and to re-establish a dynamic economy without altering the basic power structure of the country, but it was in politics that his action was ruthless. All political parties were banned and dissolved, the bank accounts were blocked temporarily to permit judicial enquiries on corruption. The main point of his policy was the war against corruption, with the hunt for those responsible, even abroad and culminated with the famous Dikko affair (an attempt to kidnap in UK, with the help of Israeli Mossad agent, an ex Shagari’s minister to face justice in Nigeria for corruption). In April 1984 were established special tribunals to find those responsible and be put under arrest and the ones that escaped abroad. No one was immune: a certain number of governors were arrested for corruption, important political figures of the previous government, included Shagari, were arrested while the Parliament and the Constitution were suspended. The government announced that there was no plan for a democratic transition and outlawed any political debate on the future of the federation. Constraints were placed on various groups and associations.
As a further attempt to mobilize the country, Buhari launched a War Against Indiscipline in spring 1984. This national campaign, which lasted fifteen months, preached the work ethic, emphasized patriotism, decried corruption, promoted environmental sanitation, fight disloyalty to national symbols such as the flag and the anthem. He specified acceptable forms of public behavior, such a requirement to form lines at bus stops or civil servants who were late at work had to perform humiliating frog jumps.
In economy was decided to use oil to buy food, abandoning any industrial project and accepting the Structural Adjustment as the only remedy for rapid recovery and self-reliance. It was given priority to the repayment of the external debts, leading to drastic reduction on wages, budgets cuts for ministers and state administrations, privatisation for public companies, new incentives for multinationals. The regime attempted to crackdown on criticism with journalists harassed and many critics were arrested. The National Security Organisation (NSO) became the principal instrument of repression. Buhari introduced the some infamous decrees: the number four forbade any journalist from reporting information considered embarrassing to any government official whilst The State Security (Detention of Persons) Decree Number Two gave the Chief of Staff at Supreme Headquarters the power to detain for up to six months without trial anyone considered a security risk. Special military tribunals increasingly replaced law courts and followed further restrictions: trade union ban, detention for trade union leaders, critics, students and journalists, any organisation or popular activities was harassed or repressed. Despite the increased efficiency with which Buhari and his associates tackled the national crisis, the regime’s inflexibility caused discontent, especially within the army apparatus and will materialise in a coup led by Major General Babangida and Brigadier Sani Abacha to oust Buhari and continuing the long history of military regimes until 1999.
Nevertheless, Buhari’s legacy of those years split Nigerians over the judgement of his figure: uncompromising, ruthless, incorruptible, disciplinarian, authoritarian, determined and a strong leader. Those who followed him as a politician appreciated his qualities above against the new corruptible system represented by the PDP. Those who dislike him accuse Buhari of poor human rights records, his questionable appetite for democracy, authoritarian tendencies and a divisive figure over ethnic and religious affairs. The election of 2015 proved stronger than all these objections.
If the above paradigm ensured PDP victories in series from 1999 to 2011, the tide started to change in the last presidency of Jonathan Goodluck. PDP was built as a formidable electoral machine, rich, powerful, backed by prominent businessmen and the always important lobby of retired generals who manipulated Nigeria’s politics in the past. PDP was so efficient and able to win easily every election that can be considered a sort of Nigerian version of the Mexican PRI, made to govern 70 years. But recent cases of corruption scandals, failing leadership after the stronger years of Olusegun Obasanjo, increasing security threats from Boko Haram and inability of the government to get hold of the interest of the federation, raised questions inside the PDP before the society. Obasanjo tearing apart his PDP card was more than a symbolic gesture, it was an actual end of a mighty machine, several governors changed attitude toward Buhari defecting and joining APC (those of Rivers, Adamawa, Kano, Jigawa and Kebbi), and the same Obasanjo said about Buhari “would not be a good economic manager but will be a strong, almost inflexible, and a courageous and firm leader”.
Buhari in the past challenged lost election for frauds or recounts, but this time, when appeared that Buhari was actually on the verge of victory, the places changed. President Goodluck and PDP tried to stay in power launching a strong and powerful slander campaign against Buhari but at the same time this generated fears that an opposition victory would not be accepted by the ruling party, thus paving way for possible violence. Nevertheless, the Nigerian elections have been historical especially for overcoming these fears, the PDP party accepted defeat and President Goodluck acceptance was a duty from a Head of State to avoid disaster, or worst civil war, which gave huge credit to his figure. Nigeria showed great maturity and consolidation of its path to become a stronger and solid democracy.
However, is not all roses for Nigeria, as Buhari’s election also represents some limits of the current Nigerian political system where, for an example, an ex-military ruler is needed to change from the ruling PDP and open questions on the absence of new and younger political figures able to be identified as “national” by the population. Although Nigerians remember and are divided by the judgement over Buhari’s past, the overwhelming victory was a clear message for action, safeguard of the federation, end of the corruption cancer and especially to tackle Boko Haram in a more decisive manner than PDP has shown.
Nigerians cannot forget that, mainly in the past, several movements were often assisted or orchestrated by security forces to undermine civilian governments, able to create chaos but easy to bring back into order when needed. Boko Haram fell into this category at least until 2009 when a backlash from security forces lead to the murder of his leader Yusuf. Since then Boko Haram was lost of sight, let dangerously to reorganise underground and to become the movement that is today. Nigerians accused PDP and security forces of inertia and incapacity of dealing with the group, and the abduction of 200 schoolgirls in Chibok in 2014 was an international humiliation that could not save President Goodluck and the ruling party from failure.
Whether Buhari will be able to achieve all this, it will be a matter of time, but at least one element is sure: the time of inaction is finished and, as per his tradition, Buhari will certainly act swiftly on the main Nigerian issues. The only problem will be to see whether Buhari will distance himself from the past and will use his quality of a strong leader/action man within the federal and democracy framework. The real danger for Nigeria could be Buhari exceeding his powers with consequences far more dangerous than 20 years ago. Nigerians know that and his enemies know even better.
The meeting between US President Barak Obama and the Cuban leader Raul Castro, held in Panama during the Summit of the Americas, was the first formal talks between the two countries in more than fifty years.
Cuba was participating at the summit for the first time, a move welcomed by all Latin American countries and judged a signal of the clear intentions to pursue the road of reconciliation.
Both leaders confirmed their intentions to reopen a channel for discussion and at the same time confirming the limits of it. President Obama described the meeting as candid and fruitful confirming that the two countries will obviously have differences and mutual interests, with the right of disagree. Cuban leader Raul Castro also repeated the same line quoting that “we are disposed to talk about everything, with patience. Some things we will agree with, and others we won’t”. He also defended the Cuban revolution and its political system but at the same time he described President Obama as an honest man who is not responsible for the past wrong doings.
The meeting, however, was not an official talk to take decisive steps towards the normalisation, and instead was for many the official declaration of intentions and a formal reintroduction of Cuba into the Summit of the Americas.
The fact that the road is going to be long and full of obstacles in not a heresy and on both parts there are suspicions and dangers ahead.
Still Ahead Between Cuban Justified Diffidence and US Certified Ambiguity
Cuba is open to a dialogue to restore full diplomatic relations and move away from hostility but is not ready to discuss any political change in the structure of power. For Cuba the immediate necessity is the end the embargo that is strangling the island and its people, a remnant of the Cold War which is not only outdated but inhumane and hypocrite.
Cuba’s cautious overture is also based on the fact that it still sees the US as a danger to its stability and independence, a common view shared with other Latin American countries. Cuba’s declaration of openness to discuss everything but with the right of disagree is a clear message that every meeting should be on the same level and that Havana will not accept diktats or attempts to limit its independence. This position has been especially reinforced by the Lider Maximo Fidel Castro who, breaking silence lasting months, expressed diffidence towards the US, declaring that he does not trust them. Nevertheless, he also supported his brother’s policy and the necessity to open a dialogue with the Washington.
Therefore for Cuba the positive conclusion of this process will rely especially on US shoulders and their willingness to lift the embargo, clear Cuba from the states sponsoring terrorism, the acceptance of Cuba’s political system.
On the other side the US are on the verge of an historical move, but it also expect from Cuba some concessions such addressing political structure, how to liberalise opposition to the government, cooperation in human rights investigations. For the first time in decades there is a clear sign in the US that the embargo may see its last days, as it cuts across the political spectrum although with different views and perspectives. Nevertheless, it is also true that US politics towards Latin America have not been all roses and ribbons, and Fidel Castro’s views are not unrealistic and found support across the continent. This is especially true when we take into account the relations with some of the governments in the region. From the reluctant acceptance of moderate leftist governments in Brazil, Uruguay and Chile, to the sometimes hostile approach to Peronist Argentina, to the open opposition to the socialist-radical block that put relations with Washington on a red line.
Presidents Evo Morales of Bolivia and Rafael Correa of Ecuador on several occasions accused the US of political interference and neo-colonial approach even with assassinations attempts, whilst ties between Venezuela and Washington remain fractious since the successful Bolivarian revolution of former president Hugo Chavez. Especially the relations with Socialist Venezuela and President Nicolas Maduro for many analysts resemble the old US tactic of political interference for a change of regime. The US imposed sanctions last month on a group of Venezuelan officials it accuses of human rights abuses. President Obama also issued an executive order declaring Venezuela a threat to US national security that Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has described as “disproportionate”.
The summit also highlighted differences between President Rafael Correa of Ecuador and the US. The Ecuadorian president said the US had failed to live up to its ideals by declaring: “Let’s talk about human rights. In Ecuador we don’t have torture, the death penalty or extrajudicial renditions”. In response, President Obama said the US does not claim to be perfect and to be open for change.
However, and it may sound a paradox, it is not only the above international dimension or the US incoherent approach to Latin America that can harm this process, it is also the uncertainty surrounding next year US presidential elections that could postpone or even block the dialogue altogether.
Make it or Brake it: How US Elections Could Affect the Dialogue
Unlike Cuba, where the one party system will not create surprises at the leadership, in the US the next year presidential elections will see the end of Obama’s administration and a new chapter opening. The Democrats will have in Hillary Clinton their main candidate, but even her victory will not automatically pave the way for an acceleration of the process which will depend on how the Congress will shape and whether Democrats will regain the majority. Nevertheless, Hillary Clinton is the best chance for Cuba to continue the dialogue as she has been behind the thaw and long ago she advanced the necessity to end the embargo. Whether is a necessarily economic move, a change of regime in disguise or simply an electoral move to obtain the so called “Latino votes”, Obama’s thaw surely scored the first strike by dividing the Republican field and giving to Hillary Clinton an important gift. This is not anymore a monolithic block when discussing the Cuban issue and it may surprise that the two candidates Mr Rubio and Jeb Bush, by supporting hardliners, may find themselves reaching for full votes in Florida but losing the moderate and immigrants votes elsewhere. Inside the Republican Party there will be a struggle on how to balance carefully the choices and where to put its weight, especially after Obama attacked Israeli PM Netanyahu’s policy and the Jewish community vote is now more important than ever. By backing the status quo, that some republicans see as an outdated and counterproductive policy both economically and diplomatically, they may end up losing more than accepting a change which will open a wider support across the continent. The fact that many republicans are not concerned by Cuba is backed by rhetoric with which they attack Obama’s policy on the Iranian nuclear programme, its relations with Israel and especially what they consider a softer approach to Russia.
While a Republican victory is still considered for Cuba the worst case scenario, at the same time we will should probably not hurry in conclusions and not forget that history has many times put the historic changes in the unlikely hands of those “gifted with stubbornness” and Republicans may be on the verge of something similar.
President Obama will have a hard job ahead for the last year of his presidency to try and push further the dialogue and end the embargo which will be the start of an irreversible process. However, for President Obama, more than Cuba’s reluctance to open political dialogue or Fidel Castro’s heavy shadow, the main battle is at home, where the contenders for the presidency, and the factions inside the parties, will use this opportunity for increase or blow up their chances of becoming the first US president to visit Havana since the revolution.
The relations between US and India have not always been easy but without doubt the two countries are increasingly looking at strengthening their partnership. Although they still maintain some differences, it is a common strategic interest that is bringing them together.
Key recent developments include the rapid growth of India’s economy and bilateral trade, the close links between the Indian and American technology industries, a geopolitical coalition to balance the rise of an increasingly aggressive China, the weakening of U.S.-Pakistan relations over various ongoing disputes. Today, India and the US share an extensive cultural, strategic, military, and economic relationship culminated with President Barack Obama being the first US president to be chief guest of the 66th Republic Day celebrations of India held on 26th January 2015.
Nevertheless, for many years the two countries were at the opposite of the geopolitical spectrum. US support of Pakistan and China reflected the necessity to counterbalance the Soviets and their relationship with India, with the latter looking at Moscow for support although its non-aligned status. Reason why Barak Obama while on one side hailed the India military partnership on the other he could not for a moment not feeling uneasy seeing Russian military hardware parading under his eyes.
The US never abandoned India as an option or stop to consider its importance. Since the end of WWII US promoted India’s independence as a tool to improve conditions in colonial countries and avoid creating a fertile terrain for Soviet influence and, until Kennedy presidency, the US tried to cultivate a relation especially to avoid communism spreading in Asia after China’s revolution. But this system collapsed due to the tensions between USSR and China and following the assassination of Kennedy that opened a new era in American policy. Nixon presidency changed US perception of India, and they started to consider China as the best option to counter the Soviets and Pakistan to tap India’s wings as a response for their relationship with Moscow.
This situation, with high and lows, changed at the end of the Cold War when, having the Soviet threat disappeared, US and India found themselves in a new geopolitical scenario.
India position: Pragmatism rather than hypothesis
India reasons for rapprochement with US are based on countering the two traditional threats: Pakistan and China. The first perceived as regional and the other global, with the second far more dangerous for India’s stability and independence.
Countering Pakistan is something that India considers, under a basic strategic direct goal, a necessity having the unresolved dispute in Kashmir. US, in the past a strong Islamabad ally, has recently moved away from Pakistan due to security concerns, Taliban’s role and increase of Islamist insurgence, distrust in the security forces especially following the Osama bin Laden legacy. India saw in this cold relation the opportunity to deprive Pakistan of the most powerful ally, the only one basically to counter effectively India on a diplomatic role. Pakistan, by losing the US support, left to India a strong advantage both under a strategic and diplomatic sphere, allowing New Delhi to have two members of the UN Security Council on its side against China.
Nevertheless, India convergence is also a pragmatic choice and designed to clearly mark a line on where the US should stand as they face a common and most powerful threat: China.
China has always been the greatest danger for India’s security, its borders and, due to Beijing military superiority, a real danger for its integrity. Whilst keeping the Soviet Union-Russia relations on the table India has always considered the necessity to counterbalance its diplomatic gap against Pakistan and China. Now this has changed for two fundamental reasons: the first is that the US share a common ground of strategic necessity in Asia and the other is that Russia, although still seen as strategically important, has also developed stronger Chinese ties on the international scenario and this open questions on whether India could still count on them in case of a new tension between New Delhi and Beijing.
The new US policy in the Pacific has therefore opened a new opportunity for New Delhi by still fostering ties with Russia but on the immediate they see in US actions a real strategy to keep China under control.
US: India not only for China containment
US diplomatic and strategic plan for Asia is shaping: abandoned Pakistan for concerns over reliance, trust and security, and facing the prospect of a powerful rise of China in the Pacific created the perfect conditions to open a direct dialogue with India. A strong relation with India respond to many US questions: how to counter Islamic insurgency in the area, how to avoid Kashmir being hijacked by Islamist, how to counter Pakistan deteriorating security, how to counter China with a powerful regional country and lastly how to isolate further Russia.
The US primarily abandoned Pakistan after debacles in security and India is seen as a better option to keep under control the neighbour and at the same time have a valuable support in the area as west of Pakistan is basically a no-go area for Washington. Pakistan does not offer anymore security in counter terrorism whilst India proved better in supporting the US since 2001. But the main reason, as for India, is the perception of China. The shifting of policy towards the Pacific to contain China has seen the US engaging in a difficult but important diplomatic offensive. Washington strengthened the ties with its traditional allies Taiwan, South Korea, Philippines, Indonesia, Thailand and Japan, but also they understood the need to find new strong players also on diplomatic and military level. Under this view the US abandoned their remnants of Cold War ostracism and understood that traditional enemies could now be the aces they were looking for: Vietnam and India relations can become that sort of radical, resolute and incorruptible block to counterbalance Chinese rising in the Pacific. India under this paradigm opens for the US even a broader assumption: India although strategically and geographically not Pacific-centric represents nonetheless a valid card in the view of China stepping into the world scenario as a superpower. India is seen by Washington as an important piece in the plan to isolate China and create a sort of “cordon sanitaire”, more military rather than economic, as it happened to Bolshevik Russia. The problem for the US is that their approach to international relations is always subordinated to other aspects that may be of primary importance for Washington but secondary for their partners, and most of the times they foster unbalanced relationships, thus paving the way for divergences.
The US necessity to counter China by increasing India’s support has also opened a new scenario: break India’s diplomatic and military relations with Russia. When US-Russia relations are at the lowest levels since the end of the Cold War, Washington consider the Indian reproach an opportunity to further weaken Russia on a global scale both economically and militarily. The US, as India, are looking at the growing relations between Russia and China as a real danger for geopolitical equilibrium in Asia, and are therefore considering ways to contain the repercussions. However, is on this point that the US and India may found themselves again apart.
India has always been proud of its independent military policy and strategic role and, although fostered relation with the Soviets in the past, never abandoned its neutralist policy. As France within the US allies, India does not want to be in a subordinate position, consider the rapprochement a necessary cooperation for a common goal but not as an umbrella to shade under and accept military diktats. This explain why India although seek US diplomatic and military support against China and Pakistan, on the other still value Moscow friendship. India’s pragmatic policy is to counter immediate and direct threats and avoid being pushed into the new worldwide tension between Russian and US which resembles of the Cold War times. In a word India still considers itself non-aligned.
India and US are part of a new diplomatic and geopolitical strategy under way in the 21st century. India is a rising regional power and likely to be a serious candidate for superpower, exactly like China. But whilst India design is based on traditional security concerns over Kashmir-Pakistan-islamist insurgency and the Chinese stability threat, the US have a broader strategic plan involving China on a global scale as well as Russia. India has also not changed the policy of non-alignment, seen as a proud independent way forward for an Indian role, while the US although looking for new partnership are generally cold regarding military cooperation on same level. The new partnership is therefore strong on convergent auspices and prospects, but may end breaking up if especially the US do not take into full account India’s immediate necessities and understanding their international strategy.
The question of succession emerged following inevitable natural courses and political necessities of the ruling party. Mugabe is now 90 and is very unlikely that due to health problems will be able to maintain power at the next presidential elections in 2018. On the other, the possible scenario of a sudden incapacity of Mugabe to govern without a succession plan in place evoked the fear of a possible collapse of the regime.
Therefore, when Zanu-PF started the long debate exploring the options available, the battle for power was restricted to the representatives of the two dominant factions within party: Joice Mujuru and Emmerson Mnangagwa. The first is a popular figure who identifies as a moderate; the second is a hard-liner with powerful links to the military and security establishment.
Zimbabweans, and international analysts, were already debating on the two political figures when a sudden and dramatic change in Zanu-PF delicate balance came out in the open. The sacking of Mujuru and the rise of Mugabe’s wife within the party ranks have reset the political system and speculations are rising on the real significance of Mugabe’s strategy.
Grace Mugabe: Mujuru’s destroyer-Mnangagwa ally?
On 09th December 2014 President Mugabe officially sacked Zanu-PF Vice President Joice Mujuru after accusing her of corruption and plotting to kill him. He also dismissed seven government ministers in connection with the alleged plot including State Security Minister Didymus Mutasa (another long-time ally of Mugabe) and Energy Minister Dzikamai Mavhaire, who was seen as close to Mujuru.
Vice President Mujuru represented a wing of the party that is wary of the years of economic and political stagnation in the country and within the party. They favor a moderate approach with the opposition and have strong support among the unprivileged members of ZANU-PF. This bloc advocates an open-market and reviving relations with the international community, including Western powers. When in December 2013 Mujuru won the party’s provincial elections, she was tipped as one of the likely successors. The obstacles were identified in the unstable party allegiances, concerns over widespread corruption, and her heterogeneous front that lacked ideological cohesion as well as support in key state institutions such police, army and judiciary — the main foundations of Mugabe’s longstanding power. But even before that Mujuru has been destroyed by the rising to power of Mugabe’s wife, Grace.
Grace Mugabe, using the mighty power of state propaganda, conducted a campaign against her for months at public rallies, telling the vice-president to resign or apologise. She openly accused her opponent while state media made sensational claims of senior government officials going abroad scouting for a hit man to assassinate Mugabe. Mrs Mugabe in October openly refused to shake Mrs Mujuru’s hand at an official ceremony and at rallies openly said that the vice-president should be sacked from government because she was described as “corrupt, an extortionist, incompetent, a gossiper, a liar, ungrateful, power-hungry, daft, foolish, divisive and a disgrace”, accusing her of collaborating with opposition forces and neo-colonialists to undermine the country’s independence.
Mrs Mujuru tried to defend herself confirming her loyalty to Mugabe and describing the accusations as “repugnant” and “ridiculous”. She accused state media of publishing lies as part of a plot to destroy Zanu-PF. Her options are now limited: staying in the party will lead to an obscure, isolated and discredited figure but leaving could be far more dangerous especially if she joins the opposition. The intelligence services are known to keep files of “dirt” for use against those who defect.
Grace Mugabe, 49, once her husband’s secretary, is now a senior party figure, having been appointed leader of Women Zanu-PF and speculation is building that she may seek to succeed Mr Mugabe when he retires or dies. Grace Mugabe has grown into a powerful businesswoman and sees herself as a philanthropist, founding an orphanage on a farm just outside the capital, Harare, with the help of Chinese funding. She is described as tenacious and ambitious with her fans applauding her style and forthright nature, while her detractors have nicknamed her “Gucci Grace” and “DisGrace” because of her alleged appetite for extravagant shopping. Along with her husband, is subject to EU and US sanctions, including travel bans. She is usually modest and reserved in interviews but her recent political career also shown a sharp and direct approach to adversaries. She is very popular within Zanu-PF youth league mainly for her stand against corruption and charitable work but senior leaders see her approach as ruthless, a danger to party unity, politically naïve, materialistic and distant from her husband more ideological background. Her spectacular rise generated speculation of becoming a potential successor, an ambition she has not declined although indirectly supported the other candidate, Justice Minister Emmerson Mnangagwa, by spending generous words and describing him as “loyal and disciplined”.
Mnangagwa, a powerful, feared and questionable figure, presides over the so-called “hard-liners” or “old guard” that have played a strong and dominant role in Zimbabwe’s history. Mugabe’s long reign of power would not have been ensured without the support from this formidable repression apparatus that is seeking to maintain its privileges. Although Mnangagwa does not have support from the party’s base level, he has established strong ties with the intelligence and military. His role has grown along the years and strengthened by Mugabe’s strategy of putting the military and security sector in command. But can Grace comments be interpreted as a further acknowledgement of his chances to become Mugabe’s heir or are part of a wider plan?
What is Mugabe’s strategy?
Different theories have been put forward to explain Grace’s role and Mugabe’s actual goals. The first theory is that Mrs Mugabe has no chance of becoming president, and has been used by Mnangagwa’s faction to stop Joyce Mujuru group. The second theory is that President Mugabe is promoting his wife primarily in order to keep all the Zanu-PF factions under his control and a third that see Mrs Mugabe as a real presidential candidate due to her husband endorsement.
All theories have some truths but probably the most correct is that they are all part of Mugabe’s strategy, one of his famous tricks and political games. Mugabe does not trust anyone except himself and his actions in these months can find roots in the party’s orthodoxy and practices similar to those adopted in the Great Purge in USSR where fabrication of accusations, plots and purges helped destroying political opponents. But if Mugabe is not Stalin in proceeding further with the physical annihilation of the opponents, nevertheless he achieves the same results. Mujuru’s political views and openness towards dialogue with the opposition and international powers, has been seen as a major danger for the party élite and its privileges. Mujuru’s camp has been deemed as “expendable” to preserve power and Mugabe’s position which could have been under question in a more liberal regime. Mugabe at the same time cannot directly appease Mnangagwa as whilst he could ensure continuity of power and keep foreign powers and opposition parties at bay, on the other could become too strong and plunge Zimbabwe into a military dictatorship.
Mugabe therefore resorted once gain to his preferred policy of divide et impera by taking control over the succession process and weakening the potential candidates. Grace served the purpose at the right time by attacking Mujuru without Mugabe’s direct involvement and propelling into politics a figure that can attract some sectors of the civil society. Her charitable work appeals to the same people from whom Mujuru found support and she is also unquestionable from hardliners due to her relationship with Mugabe. Recovering the grassroots within the party and isolating the Mujuru’s “deviationists” will strengthen the party élite and at the same time preserve Mugabe’s circle of power. But Mugabe’s tactic also weakens Mnangagwa’s old guard introducing a familiar figure legitimated by a powerful investiture that the hardliners cannot just ignore. The strategy is to keep the party under his feet, unbalanced and where factions are not able to prevail on the other without his consent. Mugabe is in a way building a safety net where a Zimbabwe under Grace Mugabe could be internationally acceptable rather than a Zimbabwe bordering military dictatorship, but at the same time by keeping the old guard in charge of security and stability. This can also open to a theory in which Mugabe uses both for the same purposes, by adopting a Korean model. Creating a “Zimbabwean Kim dynasty” he can ensure continuity of power and privileges for himself and his circle of power and on the other by protecting the military first policy can still count on Mnangagwa’s faction as the tutor of order.
Whether these theories are right or wrong would be only a matter of time to find out, but it is certain that this could be the last attempt of Mugabe to shape Zimbabwe’s future under his own desires and a mistake in his calculation can have disastrous effects for the entire country.