Journal Essay: The Polar Journal: An overview of Colombia’s Antarctic programme

"An overview of Colombia’s Antarctic programme"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
The Polar Journal
Opinion
Published Online: 28 November 2018

(Please contact me if you'd like a free PDF copy: 
 wilder.a.sanchez at gmaill.com)

ABSTRACT

This paper provides an overview of the history and growth of Colombia’s Antarctic programme and how it has rapidly progressed in recent years. The country carried out its first Antarctic expedition with a domestically manufactured vessel during the 2014–2015 austral summer. Annual expeditions have continued since then, and in early 2018 the government announced its intention to acquire a new vessel and establish a seasonal base by 2025 at the latest in a location yet to be determined. This rapid succession of achievements demonstrates Colombia’s seriousness about its Antarctic programme. Nevertheless, a major challenge will be to secure funding for its Antarctic programme, thus 2018 will be a critical year as the country will hold general elections, and it will be imperative for the next administration to consider the programme a priority in order to maintain its momentum. It is important to understand the intention and objectives of non-claimant nations with growing Antarctic programmes and for the international community to harness this interest so that they can carry out meaningful contributions in order to protect Antarctica.

KEYWORDS: Colombia, navy, Antarctica, Latin America, 20 de Julio

Providence: The US and Latin America’s “Troika of Tyrann

"The US and Latin America’s “Troika of Tyranny""
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Providence
28 November 2018
Originally published: https://providencemag.com/2018/11/us-latin-america-troika-of-tyranny-john-bolton/

 
“For God will bring every deed into judgment, with every secret thing, whether good or evil.” Ecclesiastes 12:14

National Security Advisor John Bolton gave a speech in Miami in early November in which he labeled the governments of Cuba, Nicaragua, and Venezuela as Latin America’s “Troika of Tyranny.” This statement is not particularly shocking as the Trump administration has routinely criticized all three governments. Tense relations with Managua and Caracas are to be expected, but utilizing this label for Havana exemplifies the Trump White House’s freeze of the Washington-Havana rapprochement that started during the Obama presidency.

The question that emerges now is: does Bolton’s speech signal a drastic change in US foreign policy toward Latin America? Or can we expect more of the same?

The Miami Speech
Bolton gave his speech at the Miami Dade College’s Freedom Tower on November 1, during which he labeled the three aforementioned states as the “troika of tyranny” of the Western Hemisphere. Followers of international affairs will make parallels between this label and the “axis of evil” term President George W. Bush utilized during his 2002 State of the Union address to describe the governments of Iran, Iraq, and North Korea.

The national security advisor stated that “this Troika of Tyranny, this triangle of terror stretching from Havana to Caracas to Managua, is the cause of immense human suffering, the impetus of enormous regional instability, and the genesis of a sordid cradle of communism in the Western Hemisphere.” He added that “we will no longer appease dictators and despots near our shores.”

As for country-specific remarks, when it comes to Venezuela Bolton demanded that the regime release political prisoners, and he called for new elections. The US official also supported new sanctions against the government, arguing that “the United States is acting against the dictator Maduro, who uses the same repressive tactics that have been employed in Cuba for decades.”

Regarding Nicaragua, the country became an international pariah due to repressive measures the Daniel Ortega administration carried out after major protests exploded in April. Hence, it comes as no surprise that Bolton demanded elections, or “the Nicaraguan regime, like Venezuela and Cuba, will feel the full weight of America’s robust sanctions regime.”

Finally, Washington aims to minimize contacts with the Cuban regime and “will only engage with the Cuban government that is willing to undertake necessary and tangible reforms.” Even more, Vox reported the US won’t allow American cash to reach Cuba’s military, security, or intelligence services.

What Is the Significance of Bolton’s Speech?
There are a number of issues worth mentioning regarding Bolton’s speech. The most important is that Bolton stopped short of openly advocating for some type of US intervention in Venezuela. As the Miami Herald reports, “Bolton said in response to questions after the speech that he doesn’t expect the US military would intervene in Venezuela. ‘I don’t see that happening,’ he said.” US politicians at all levels regularly attack the Nicolás Maduro regime and call for drastic changes. For example, on February 9 Senator Marco Rubio tweeted, “The world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.” Hence, Bolton’s statements are not surprising. Nevertheless, it is unclear how effective additional sanctions would be given that the Maduro regime is firmly entrenched. The restraint on talking about military intervention exemplifies how undecided Washington is about how far it is willing to go to get rid of Maduro.

As for Nicaragua, the hundreds of dead civilians, with even more injured and arrested, have made the Ortega regime an international pariah. Hence, it comes as no surprise that Bolton critiqued Managua as well. Sanctions or further diplomatic pressure on Nicaragua is a valid strategy, and at one point back in June, President Ortega did flirt with the idea of calling for early elections in order to appease protesters. Nevertheless, the Nicaraguan government seems to be back in control of the country as the protests have dissipated due to the Managua’s repressive tactics. The anti-Ortega sentiment remains strong in Managua and in Washington, but it is debatable how effective sanctions would be (particularly given the fact that they have been ineffective in toppling the Maduro regime in Venezuela).

Bolton’s comments about Cuba are also noteworthy because they effectively put an end to whatever attempt at a rapprochement had commenced during the Obama presidency. Embassies in both countries reopened in 2015, and then-President Obama even met with then-President Raul Castro in 2016. But when President Trump came to power, he made it clear very quickly that he was not interested in continuing to improve bilateral ties. The mysterious attacks in 2017 that sickened US diplomas in Cuba were the perfect reason for the Trump White House to switch to a more aggressive stance vis-à-vis Cuba. Shortly after this event, The US expelled a total of 15 Cuban diplomats. If there was any hope that dialogue between the two governments could commence once again, Bolton’s speech effectively ended it.

Final Thoughts
Will Bolton’s speech have some long-term repercussions? The remarks were inflammatory and included plenty of quotable phrases and statements, but it did not represent a change of US foreign policy objectives. New sanctions are only to be expected regarding Nicaragua and Venezuela; as for Cuba, improved bilateral relations seem utopian once again.

The 2002 “Axis of Evil” speech will be forever linked to the US invasion of Iraq that took place a year later. How will the “Troika of Tyranny” remark be remembered a year from now?

—
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses on geopolitical, military, and cybersecurity issues in the Western Hemisphere. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.

IPD: Brazil-Africa Relations during the Bolsonaro Presidency

"Brazil-Africa Relations during the Bolsonaro Presidency"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez and Scott Morgan
International Policy Digest
21 November 2018
Originally published: https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/11/21/brazil-africa-relations-during-the-bolsonaro-presidency/

Incoming Brazilian President, Jair Bolsonaro, has been labeled by the global media as the South American version of President Donald Trump. One more reason to add to the list of resemblances between the two may be a potential disengagement with Africa once the Brazilian politician assumes the presidency in January.

How has the dream of former President Lula da Silva (2003-2011) for South-South cooperation soured? He was in power when the concept known as the BRICS was first coined by Jim O’Neill. This term evolved into an initiative in which Brazil joined the Russian Federation, India and China (South Africa joined later) to form a new bloc that would provide investment opportunities to emerging economies without some of the conditions that other donors such as the United States and the European Union often add. The leaders of these five states, including Brazilian President Michel Temer, most recently met in South Africa for their annual summit.

Alas, Bolsonaro’s interest in strengthening ties with the U.S. and Europe may put in jeopardy Brazil’s participation in the BRICS initiative, as well as Brasilia’s engagement with Africa.

Brazil and Africa have a long history, dating back to the era of slavery. As a 2016 report by the German Marshall Fund explains, “around 11 million black Africans were forcibly brought to the American continents during the slave trade period. Brazil received approximately 4 million, making it the country with the most slaves in the world.” Brazil opened embassies and consulates in various African states in the 1960s as Brasilia supported self-determination and the end of colonization.

When Lula came to power, he wanted to make Brazil a global leader, and he also encouraged South-South cooperation. At first it was the five Portuguese speaking countries (Sao Tome and Principe, Angola, Guinea-Bissau, Cape Verde and Mozambique) that were the initial points of contact as Brasilia sought to step out onto the World State under the tenure of the Worker’s Party. Lula was also a frequent visitor to Africa: a 2010 BBC article about Lula’s final trip to Africa as head of state explains how he visited “27 African countries on 12 different occasions, more than all his predecessors combined.” But under the term of Dilma Rousseff the government considered closing some embassies in Africa.

As for what can we expect once Bolsonaro comes to power? A 26 October article in Quartz Africa suggests that, “if little is known about Bolsonaro’s views on foreign policy in relation to Africa, his running mate, General Hamilton Mourão, has been very clear. During a recent speech he criticised Lula da Silva and Dilma Rousseff’s South-South diplomacy claiming that it had resulted in costly association with “dirtbag scum” countries (African) that did not yield any ‘returns.’” Scholarships that help African Students travel to Brazil to study could also be in jeopardy. This is problematic, as a relatively cheap and very effective way to promote cultural ties is to have such exchanges take place at the educational level.

Nevertheless it is assumed that the military initiatives and commercial contracts between Brazil and some of its African contacts will continue. For example, in July, the Brazilian aerospace company EMBRAER and Sahara Africa Aviation “signed a multi-year Pool Program Agreement for spare parts and support covering more than 500 components for their two recently acquired Embraer ERJ 145 jets.” Similarly, Denel Dynamics of South Africa and Brazil’s Mectron, Avibras, and Opto Eletrônica are jointly developing the A-Darter short-range imaging infrared (IIR) air-to-air missile (AAM) system. In other words, there are valid and practical reasons for Brasilia to continue its engagement with Africa.

Moreover, there is the question of Brazilian participation in UN peace missions on the African continent, now that the UN mission in Haiti, MINUSTAH, in which Brazil had a prominent role, is over. For some time, there was the belief that the Temer presidency was going to deploy troops to the Multidimensional Integrated Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSCA), a crucial but struggling mission (the authors of this commentary published an article in IPD, titled “Brazil to Join UN Mission in Central African Republic, MINUSCA,” in December 2017 about that possibility) however this has yet to occur. Brazilian Air Force Colonel Alexandre Corrêa Lima has joined the international staff of the United Nations Integrated Multidimensional Stabilization Mission in the Central African Republic (MINUSMA, in French), arriving in early September, but no massive deployment has occurred.

There are plenty of questions about what can we expect once President Bolsonaro assumes power next year. The future of Brazil-Africa relations may not be at the top of anyone’s list of Brazilian foreign policy priorities right now, but given how Brazil’s history of South-South cooperation could abruptly come to an end in the near future, it should be.

The views expressed in this article are those of the authors alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the authors are associated.

Providence: Trump, Bolsonaro, and the Future of US-Brazil Relations

"Trump, Bolsonaro, and the Future of US-Brazil Relations"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Providence
20 October 2018
Originally published: https://providencemag.com/2018/11/trump-bolsonaro-future-us-brazil-relations/

“Do not be deceived: ‘Bad company ruins good morals.’” 1 Corinthians 15:33
Jair Bolsonaro will become Brazil’s next president after winning the South American nation’s October 28 runoff elections. The seasoned politician is well-known for a series of controversial and offensive statements, which include homophobic, sexist, and racist insults, as well as support for Brazil’s former military dictatorship. And yet, he emerged victorious with around 58 million votes.

Can the US government work with such a leader? Answering this question requires a discussion about the eternal conflict in international relations: choosing between national interests and morality.

(Some of) Bolsonaro’s Declarations
In spite of successfully campaigning as an “anti-establishment” candidate, Bolsonaro is anything but that. In 1991 he became a federal deputy for Rio de Janeiro to the lower chamber of Congress, and he has been reelected six times since then. He is also a retired army captain.

Throughout his tenure in Congress, he has often made extremely controversial and offensive remarks. For example, he stated in a 2011 interview with Playboy that he “would be incapable of loving a homosexual son… I would prefer my son to die in an accident than show up with a mustachioed man.” He also insulted female lawmaker Maria do Rosario in 2003, stating “I would not rape you, because you’re not worthy of it,” and then pushing her away (video in Portuguese). Similarly, he has critiqued quilombolas, individuals of African descent, declaring that “they don’t do anything. I don’t think they’re even good for procreation anymore.”

Nevertheless, his ideological stances have also earned him support from certain segments. For example, his constant praise of the Brazilian military, even his controversial support of the 1964–85 military regime (he has said that “the dictatorship’s mistake was to torture and not kill”), has earned him support from the armed forces. It certainly helps that he is a retired officer himself, while his vice president, Hamilton Mourão, is a retired army general.

President-elect Bolsonaro will take power on January 1, 2019, and his main priorities will likely be domestic, such as improving citizens’ security, improving the economy, and battling corruption. This last issue was a pillar of his presidential campaign, as he profited from the population’s anger at the never-ending series of corruption scandals, such as Operation Car Wash (Lava Jato), which led to the impeachment of former President Dilma Rousseff in 2016.

Can the US Government Work with President Bolsonaro?
The short answer is yes. Leaving his offensive remarks aside, President-elect Bolsonaro has said what that the Trump White House wants to hear in terms of foreign policy. For example, he has repeatedly criticized Venezuela. Likewise, there are ongoing discussions about whether Brazil may move its embassy from Tel Aviv to Jerusalem, following the US example, in order to improve bilateral ties with Israel (particularly regarding defense issues).

Trade between the two countries is high and benefits the US (which President Trump will like). According to the US Trade Representative, “the US goods trade surplus with Brazil was $7.8 billion in 2017, a 93.6% increase ($3.8 billion) over 2016 [and it] has a services trade surplus of an estimated $19 billion with Brazil in 2017, up 9.6% from 2016.” Even more, there is also the multibillion-dollar deal between Boeing and EMBRAER (a powerful Brazilian aerospace company), which could be extremely lucrative for both sides. Even more, Paulo Guedes will be the new super minister of the economy, a move that has increased confidence from international investors, as he is regarded as one of the “Chicago Boys.”

Washington-Brasilia relations soured during the Obama-Dilma Rousseff era when Edward Snowden revealed that US intelligence agencies were monitoring foreign leaders, including the Brazilian president at the time. Bilateral relations have improved since then, but they could always be better, particularly at a time when the US needs strong allies in Latin America as the socio-economic and political crisis in Venezuela worsens. In other words, the pieces are in place for a Washington-Brasilia rapprochement. Trump and Bolsonaro’s similar attitudes and ideologies bolster this theory, and some specialists to argue that they would get along quite well should they ever meet.

With that said, from a moral point of view, Washington should not work with Bolsonaro. His aforementioned statements mean that state protection and support for minorities and the LGBTQ community in Brazil will be at risk once he assumes office. There is also concern about the future of Brazil’s indigenous communities and Amazonian environment, given Bolsonaro’s support of agro-businesses.

Similarly, the president-elect’s repeated praise for the 1964–85 military regime, which is known for torture, disappearances, and executions, is also concerning. He appears to plan to take strong measures to combat crime and lawlessness. However, one of Brazil’s (many) problems is its history of law enforcement officers who carry out human rights abuses, including extrajudicial executions. Latin America does not need another leader who supports draconian measures in the name of public safety.

Final Thoughts
There are plenty of common objectives at the foreign policy and trade levels that could ensure the US and Brazil under Presidents Trump and Bolsonaro could have a mutually beneficial relationship. Even an alliance could be in the making. Nevertheless, Bolsonaro’s lengthy history of racist, sexist, homophobic, and violent statements makes him the type of leader that the White House should stay away from.

Alas, geopolitics tends to favor national interests and the personal preferences of those in power, rather than morality and respect for human rights. In short, sadly, national interests tend to trump human rights.

—
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses on geopolitical, military, and cybersecurity issues in the Western Hemisphere. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.

Presentation: Hudson Institute: Cybersecurity Threats in Latin America

"Cybersecurity Threats in Latin America"
 Hudson Institute
12 November 2018
Originally published: https://www.hudson.org/events/1627-cybersecurity-threats-in-latin-america112018

On November 12, Hudson Institute hosted a panel to discuss cybersecurity concerns present in Latin America. Threats range from hacking, identity theft, and criminal dark web activities to the exploitation of online services by insurgent groups for propaganda purposes. These concerns have prompted a number of government initiatives to crack down on cybercrime including the creation of cyber-security agencies within police and armed forces and improved citizen awareness initiatives. However, more should be done in order to deter attackers and minimize consequences of these threats.

Panelists included Analyst and Jane’s Defence Weekly Contributor Wilder Alejandro Sanchez; author Richard Stiennon; and Organization of American States Cyber Security Programme Manager Belisario Contreras. The discussion was moderated by Hudson Senior Fellow Ambassador Jaime Daremblum.

Speakers

Belisario Contreras Speaker

Manager, Cyber Security Programme, Organization of American States (OAS)

Richard Stiennon Speaker

Author, There Will Be Cyberwar: How The Move To Network-Centric War Fighting Has Set The Stage For Cyberwar (IT-Harvest Press 2015)

Wilder Alejandro Sanchez Speaker

Analyst and Jane's Defence Weekly Contributor

Amb. Jaime Daremblum Speaker

Senior Fellow and Director, Center for Latin American Studies, Hudson Institute

Defence IQ: The future of drone and counter-drone technology

"The future of drone and counter-drone technology"

Wilder Alejandro Sanchez

Defence IQ

8 November 2018

Originally published: https://www.defenceiq.com/defence-technology/news/new-drone-and-counter-drone-technology

As drones become smaller and faster, new solutions will be required to disable them. Here are a few handheld counter-drone systems that may end up in the hands of armed forces around the world

 How will drones shape future warfare?

The Association of the United States Army (AUSA) held its annual exposition of military technology from 8-10 October in Washington DC. The meeting brought together some of the largest and most well-known firms of the military industrial complex from the US and abroad. Two particularly interesting technologies that were showcased at AUSA were unmanned aerial vehicles (UAVs) as well as the latest anti-drone systems.

AUSA 2018: New UAVs

There were several UAVs that were showcased at the AUSA expo.  Here is a rundown of some of the most promising platforms.

RECOMMENDED: Small is beautiful: Nano drone tech is advancing

• InstantEye MK-3 Gen-4-D1/D2 sUAS, produced by Instant Eye Robotics. This is a small UAV (sUAV) that weighs 3lbs, has a maximum payload of around 3lbs, and an endurance of up to 30 minutes. Its major appeal is that it requires a single operator and can go from stowed to operational in around one minute. In addition, it is EUD/tablet compatible and has integral gimbaled EO/IR cameras. On February 2018, the company announced that it had sold 800 InstantEye Mk-2 GEN3-A0 sUAS systems to the US Marine, on top of a previous order.
  
• Orion UAS, produced by Elistair. This platform has an operating altitude of 80m/262ft, a data rate of up to 200mbps, a GPS system, a HD 1080p daylight camera, an optical x30 zoom and a black box. What makes this UAV so interesting is that it is tethered, which means it can fly continuously for hours on end, making it perfect for protecting sensitive areas. This will be particularly useful for law enforcement operations, and for setting up quick telecommunication systems in disaster areas.
  
• SkyRanger R60 and SkyRaider R80D, produced by Aeryon Defense USA. The SkyRaider has an endurance of 30-50min, and a max ground speed of 31mph, with payloads of up to 4.4 lbs. Meanwhile, the SkyRanger has similar characteristics but a payload of 1.5.lbs. Both systems have tablet-based controls and are equipped with HDZoom 30. They are suitable for search and rescue operations and reconnaissance.

 

Anti-drone technology

Drone legislation is still scarce and differs from country to country. General laws relating to privacy, aviation, data protection and the like are applicable to drones, but it could be questioned whether the industry can provide sufficient safeguards to deal with new challenges and threats.

Unsurprisingly, drones can be utilized for nefarious activities like illegal surveillance of sensitive infrastructure. ISIS has also manufactured rudimentary drones as improvised explosive devices (IEDs) in Syria. Similarly, they have been flown by criminals to transport drugs or to smuggle contraband into prisons. In symmetrical war, countering drone swarms will be a top priority for armed forces.

Be sure to check out our guide to countering drones: This is how militaries can defend against drones
As a result, a diverging market has also emerged from this booming industry, the market for disabling drones. Some unconventional solutions have already emerged, for example, in Holland, local police forces have joined forces with Guard From Above, a raptor-training security firm based in the Hague that trains eagles to grab drones mid-air. However, there are other gadgets to keep in mind.

The Smart Shooter

One solution demonstrated at AUSA 2018 was the from Israeli company Smart Shooter. They have two systems, one called SMASH 2000, and a more advanced iteration called SMASH 2000 Plus. SMASH is an advanced optical sight that can be attached to small arms. The system utilises look and track and target detection technology, to substantially increase precision aiming and reduce time-to-hit.

The SMASH 2000 Plus variant has a “drone mode” that allows the operator to target a UAV in flight both during day and night time. The company’s website explains that “the SMASH fire control system puts a precision anti-drone capability at the fingertips of its users, featuring built-in targeting algorithms that can track and hit even very small drones skimming along at high speed, at ranges of up to 120 meters, with the first shot.”

Depending on the version of the system, its options also include, counter-drone/UAS mode, recording and debriefing, among others. Many in attendance at AUSA, including myself, can testify to how easy it is to master the system. The international media has provided has also responded positively to the technology on offer.

At AUSA 2018, one US army personnel member with combat experience noted, “I like the Smart Shooter idea, especially if the sight also works on individuals and armoured targets. It seems to enhance our capability to put targets down without adding too much weight.”

The DroneKiller

Another anti-drone product showcased at AUSA 2018 is aptly named DroneKiller, produced by IXI EW. This system is a standalone handheld device that employs software-defined radio technology to disable drones. There are two versions of this device, a handheld “rifle” and a system that can be attached to a rifle. It has a range of up to 1,000 meters, operates on seven frequency bands and can be in an active mode for up to two hours, with eight hours in standby. It weighs 7.5lbs and is surprisingly comfortable to carry.
The market potential for this product is strong, in fact, Japan has bought over 100 units of the DroneKiller in preparation for the Summer 2020 Olympics in Tokyo.

How will drones affect the equipment carried by future infantry?

For anti-drone technology in conflict zones, the main goal is to equip soldiers with anti-drone capabilities while keeping their equipment weight to a minimum. In the context of defence, the DroneKiller “rifle” iteration may struggle to find buyers as it is effectively another weapon that a soldier will have to carry on the field. A system that can be attached or detached, like the Smart Shooter or the smaller variant of DroneKiller, may have better prospects

It is equally important for anti-drone technology to be relatively future-proof, as Drones in the future will maintain higher altitudes, be equipped with advanced cameras with improved zooming systems, and they will be far smaller. Many commentators at the conference lamented that we may get to a stage where drones become invisible to the naked eye, highlighting the need for indeification systems.

Indeed, the future of drone/anti-drone technology for combat operations will also have repercussions for composition and organisation of the typical infantry squad. Let’s take a quick look at a US Army infantry rifle squad, which consists of nine soldiers. There have been plenty of discussions and reports about how the squad of the future should be organized, for example, see: US Army Major Hassan Kamara’s commentary “Rethinking the U.S. Army Infantry Rifle Squad,” published by Military Review.
In his essay, Major Kamara explains how “technology and automation seem to have increased the workload of the squad on contemporary battlefields, with more equipment for the same nine people to manage and operate in addition to legacy warfighting functions. With regards to technology and the infantry squad of the future is, Kamara concludes, “emerging military technology that will grow to enhance the capability of the squad, like armed drones and other robotics, make a strong case for increasing the number of soldiers in the infantry squad with another team of riflemen.”

This is a very interesting prospect to consider. Will future capabilities require one member of an infantry squad to be solely responsible for counter-drone activity? In conjunction, will one operator carry a sUAV, a DroneKiller for example, and be the main individual tasked with dealing with enemy drones? Will more police forces utilise systems Smart Shooter-like systems with drone locks?

The infantry rifle squad of the future, be it from the US army or any other, may very well need a “drone-only” operator, which may mean adding one more member to the squad or replacing someone that has other tasks.

Final Thoughts

Drone and anti-drone technology will continue to evolve simultaneously. The next generation of UAVs will be lighter, smaller, more complex and able to multi-task, depending on the client’s need. And with that will come the necessity for the industry to figure out new, more effective ways of shooting these platforms down.

IPD: Reforming Kazakhstan’s Education System and its Foreign Policy Implications

"Reforming Kazakhstan’s Education System and its Foreign Policy Implications"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
International Policy Digest
8 November 2018
Originally published: https://intpolicydigest.org/2018/11/08/reforming-kazakhstan-s-education-system-and-its-foreign-policy-implications/

President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan gave a speech on 5 October in which he declared that the Central Asian nation’s education system will be reformed, and “expenditures on education, science and healthcare [will be increased] from all sources up to 10% from the GDP within 5 years.” This is a major promise that will have consequences not only for the country’s education sector, but also its foreign policy.

An Overview of the Education System
Recent statistical analyses provide a good overview of the Kazakh educational system: Kazakhstan was ranked in 56th place in higher education and training, and in 59th place in health in primary education out of 137 countries analyzed by the 2017-2018 Global Competitiveness Index, published by the World Economic Economic Forum. Meanwhile, the 2018 Statistical Update of the Human Development Index, published by the United Nations Development Program, mentions how the Central Asian state currently ranks in 58th place out of 189 countries studied, with 11.8 mean years of schooling. Meanwhile, the World University Rankings 2019, organized by the Times Higher Education, which brands itself the “leading provider of higher education data for the world’s research-led institutions,” lists two Kazakh universities: Al-Farabi Kazakh National University and L.N. Gumilyov Eurasian National University, in its rankings.

The Kazakh government has replaced its Soviet-era educational system for a more Western-oriented system. For example, Nazarbayev University “is a unique American-based model institution, which originally worked with a team from the University of Pennsylvania to design its academic and governance procedures.” The university’s profile boasts that it has 446 professors and instructors, as well as 103 teaching assistants, from more than 50 nations. This interest in giving Kazakh students a more global perspective can be found in another of the government’s education-related projects: the Bolashak scholarship, via which Astana has sent thousands of its young university students abroad, a Kazakh equivalent of the Fulbright program. Similarly, the Bolashak Teaching program brings foreign students to aid teachers in Kazakhstan for four-week periods.

In terms of actual numbers of students, according to the U.S. website Export.gov, “there are 496,209 students enrolled in higher education institutions in 122 universities nationwide in Academic Year 2017-2018, with the highest concentrations of students in Almaty, Shymkent, Astana and Karaganda. Additionally, slightly more than 85% of the students are self-funded and 14.7% are on state scholarships.” The country has an estimated 18 million citizens, hence this is a significant part of the overall population that are currently carrying out higher education studies.

The October Speech
It is in this situation that President Nazarbayev announced a number of initiatives to further improve the education sector. These proposals should be regarded as an addendum to the 2011-2020 Development Plan of the Education Sector, already underway:

• Review qualification requirements, training methods, the labour remuneration system for teachers and other employees of kindergartens.
• The teaching system and methods of Nazarbayev Intellectual Schools will become a single standard for state schools. Moreover, he explained that “professional analysis and guiding of children in terms of choosing the most in-demand professions should be carried out starting from secondary school.”
• An additional 50 billion tenge (roughly $135 million) from the budget 2019-2021 will be allocated to support regions facing the biggest deficit of school places and problems with three-shift schools or those in critical condition.
• Develop a Law on the Status of Teachers.
• Raise the bar to the quality of education in academic institutions in the higher education system. He explained that it is “crucial to establish partnerships with the world’s leading universities while attracting best foreign senior managers.”
• A think-tank for the development of artificial intelligence technology will be opened at Nazarbayev University.

In other words, the current goal is to reform all levels of the Kazakh educational system, from kindergarten to universities, with an ongoing partnership with international universities.

One interesting fact to point out about the aforementioned proposals is the interest in artificial intelligence (AI) technology. Major universities across the world are making a stronger effort to developed their computer science programs, with a special focus on taking computing studies to the next level: in mid-October, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology announced plans for a “a new college backed by a planned investment of $1 billion.” The key factor is that this new college will focus on “bilinguals,” namely “people in fields like biology, chemistry, politics, history and linguistics who are also skilled in the techniques of modern computing that can be applied to them.” It is expected that this initiative will develop machine intelligence to further support various fields.

Given the aforementioned examples, it is critically important for Kazakhstan to not be left behind in the race for the future of machine intelligence; thus, greater support for computer studies is necessary. Nazarbayev University already has research labs like Advanced Robotics and Mechanotric Systems, the Astana Laboratory for Robotic and Intelligence Systems, hence there’s already a foundation for further AI research.

Education and Foreign Policy
The Kazakh government’s plan to improve the education sector is an important goal since a better educated population will only help the country’s development – coincidentally, Astana’s objective is to become one of the world’s 30 most developed economies by 2050, a goal that can only be reached if the population is well educated. The Bolashak scholarship program is a similarly noteworthy program as it provides the Kazakh youth with an international education at top Western schools, which will help the country’s future leaders have a global vision.

As Dr. Jane Knight correctly discusses in her 2016 commentary “International education, 
global understanding,” there is a strong correlation between high education and foreign affairs. As she explains:

In this changing world of contemporary 
diplomacy, higher education has a significant role and contribution to make. Higher education’s long tradition of scholarly collaboration and academic mobility complemented by today’s innovations of research and policy networks, international education hubs, joint programmes, global and binational universities, have a lot to contribute to strengthening international relations among countries and regions through the generation, diffusion, and exchange of knowledge – in short, knowledge diplomacy.

This correlation is particularly significant for Astana, as the country is regarded as the leader of the Central Asian nations, with a foreign policy that includes attempts at conflict mediation. Additionally, the government recently inaugurated the Astana International Financial Center, which aims at making the Kazakh capital a financial hub for Central Asian investment, complete with English Common Law to appear even more attractive to Western companies. Given these ambitious goals, it is important for future Kazakh diplomats, politicians, economists, scholars and other policy makers to have a strong education.

Final Thoughts
President Nazarbayev’s 5 October speech explained his vision for improving the quality of life in Kazakhstan, naturally improving the country’s education sector, from kindergarten to universities, will be a pillar of this vision. To its credit, the Kazakh government has made a true effort to provide good education to its citizens, including providing them the opportunity to study abroad via the Bolashak scholarship program. Alas, there is still more that can, and should, be done, like cracking down on the culture of corruption – President Nazarbayev declared in his October speech that the fight against corruption will continue, “we need to spread the capital’s experience in implementing the anti-corruption strategy as part of “Corruption-free Regions” projects,” he stated. Hopefully this pledge will trickle down to corruption in universities.

Finally, improving the Kazakh education system will also have positive consequences for the country’s foreign policy. As this article briefly discussed, Astana has reason to be proud for its objectives and accomplishments in the realm of international affairs. Additional positive changes to Kazakhtan’s education sector will help better prepare the future leaders of the country for tomorrow’s challenges.

The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.

Providence: The Possibility of US Intervention in Venezuela

"The Possibility of US Intervention in Venezuela"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Providence
23 October, 2018
Originally published:  https://providencemag.com/2018/10/us-intervention-venezuela/

“For which of you, desiring to build a tower, does not first sit down and count the cost, whether he has enough to complete it?” (Luke 14:28)

As the crisis in Venezuela continues and with Nicolás Maduro showing no intention of ever stepping down from power, diplomatic pressure from various Latin American governments and the Organization of American States has done nothing to shake the confidence of the chavistas in Caracas. In this situation, the US media has reported that US officials have met with anti-Maduro military officers, apparently to discuss a regime change in the South American state. But what does history and the Bible tell us about planning before acting?

Meetings and Statements
According to a September 8 article in the New York Times, the White House held “secret meetings with rebellious military officers from Venezuela over the last year to discuss their plans to overthrow President Nicolás Maduro.” The article described various meetings, during which Venezuelan military officers requested communication equipment to coordinate their coup, which Washington did not provide; nor did it, according to the article, endorse the conspirators’ plans.

As for President Donald Trump’s opinion about Venezuela, back in 2017 he talked about a “military option” to deal with the situation there. Then, while attending the United Nations General Assembly in September 2018, he once again mused that “all options are on the table,” adding that “the strong ones and the less than strong ones—and you know what I mean by strong.” At the same time, he has said that he is willing to meet with President Maduro.

Other senior officials have made direct or vague statements about the use of military force in Venezuela. For example, Vice Admiral Craig Faller, who has been nominated to lead Southern Command (which oversees US military operations in most of Latin America and the Caribbean) has stated that “we are not doing anything other than normal, prudent planning that a combatant command would do to prepare for a range of contingencies.” On the other hand, Republican Senator Marco Rubio tweeted in February that “the world would support the Armed Forces in #Venezuela if they decide to protect the people & restore democracy by removing a dictator.”

It is unclear exactly what role the US would play should something actually occur in Venezuela. Would the US back a coup carried out by Venezuelans? Or, as President Trump seems to think, could US troops land in Caracas? There are regional precedents for these speculations: in 1964, Washington sent a carrier group, led by the USS Forrestal, to Brazil to support, if necessary, a military coup against President João Goulart. As for more “traditional” regime change operations, in 1989 the US invaded Panama to overthrow the late dictator Manuel Noriega.

Discussion
Regime change operations are problematic, whether covert or overt. They should not occur without, as the Bible verse at the beginning of this essay states, lengthy discussions and analyses in order to attempt to predict and prepare for different outcomes, both positive and negative. After all, a government may intervene in another nation with the best of intentions, such as to remove a repressive regime that has brought the country to financial ruin while perpetuating its own power, but the consequences may not be as expected. The US experienced this not long ago when then-Vice President Dick Cheney said that “my belief is we will, in fact, be greeted as liberators” as US troops prepared to go to Iraq to overthrow Saddam Hussein, and when then-President George W. Bush declared “mission accomplished.” History proved them wrong.

In Venezuela, the problem is not just President Maduro, but also other officials like Vice President Delcy Rodriguez, the cabinet of ministers, the unconstitutional National Constituent Assembly (including its president, Diosdado Cabello), and the military leadership, like Defense Minister Vladimir Padrino, a key supporter of the regime. Any attempt at regime change would have to oust all of those individuals, as well.

Even more, should violence break out (whether between rival factions or against a foreign military), it is unclear how the Venezuelan military and other security agencies would react. We know there is some level of discontent within Venezuela’s National Bolivarian Armed Forces; in recent years Caracas has arrested many military officers, accusing them of plotting coups. But how the military would react if a coup or foreign intervention occurred is unknown. Again, it is unwise to be blindly optimistic.

As a final point, another regime change operation backed by US involvement would have regional (if not global) repercussions. In addition to the aforementioned examples, other US interventions include Guatemala in 1954, the Dominican Republic in 1965, Grenada in 1983, and numerous (failed) attempts against the Castro regime throughout the Cold War. Hence, although Washington would be helping to remove a very unpopular regime—Maduro’s allies in the hemisphere have been reduced to Bolivia, Cuba, Nicaragua, and a handful of Caribbean islands—this would trigger memories of indiscriminate US interventions in the region within living memory. How Latin American and Caribbean citizens and governments would react, and what this would mean for Western Hemisphere geopolitics, is anyone’s guess.

Final Thoughts
The general consensus in the Western Hemisphere, with few exceptions, is that the Maduro government is a dictatorship that wants to perpetuate itself in power. Washington has hinted that “all options are on the table” when it comes to dealing with Caracas and has already imposed sanctions against high profile individuals. Recent media stories about meetings between the US government and opposition military leaders to discuss some sort of regime change in Caracas are likely true. After all, Washington has a lengthy history of intervention in the Western Hemisphere.

Alas, interventions, whether via military or other tactics, are tricky, and the decision making and planning process cannot be rushed. Washington and most of the hemisphere strongly desire Maduro’s removal, but prudence is found in thinking about the future rationally.

—
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses on geopolitical, military and cyber security issues in the Western Hemisphere. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.

Providence: US-Central America Relations: Using Aid as a Foreign Policy Tool Will Backfire

"US-Central America Relations: Using Aid as a Foreign Policy Tool Will Backfire"
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez
Providence
2 November 2018
Originally published: https://providencemag.com/2018/11/us-central-america-relations-using-aid-as-a-foreign-policy-tool-will-backfire/

A caravan of thousands of people, mostly Hondurans, is currently in southern Mexico as it attempts to reach the US in search of a better life. This situation has prompted harsh criticism from President Donald Trump, who has threatened to cut financial aid to Honduras and the other Central American nations where the migrants originate from. This is a bad idea that will backfire rather than help the situation.

Caravans and Statements
The caravan originated in San Pedro Sula, a Honduran city well known for high levels of gang-related crime and violence. This mass of human beings has already walked through Honduras and Guatemala and has entered Mexico. While most of these individuals are Hondurans, others have joined as it made its way north, from neighboring countries like El Salvador and Guatemala—these three nations are known as the “Northern Triangle.” How many migrants constitute the caravan is unclear; estimates put the number at between 4,500 and 7,000.

At the time of this writing, thousands of caravan members have entered Mexico, and many have others have applied for temporary visas or refugee status. Nevertheless, many have entered without proper documentation by crossing the Suchiate River or turning to human traffickers. According to CNN En Espanol, some 3,000 Hondurans are returning home rather than facing additional risks to reach the US President Trump, who campaigned on an anti-immigration platform, has demanded that the caravan not reach the US. On October 22 he tweeted, “Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador were not able to do the job of stopping people from leaving their country and coming illegally to the US. We will now begin cutting off, or substantially reducing, the massive foreign aid routinely given to them.” In a separate tweet, he declared that “criminals and unknown Middle Easterners are mixed in” the caravan.

President Trump has often accused undocumented Latin American migrants of being violent criminals. Furthermore, there is no evidence that “Middle Easterners” are part of said caravan.

Discussion
In short, blackmailing the three Northern Triangle governments into stopping their citizens from migrating is a bad foreign policy strategy.

First of all, these three nations have historically been faithful US allies; in fact, the US military has facilities at the Palmerola base in Honduras, home of Joint Task Force Bravo; and the Cooperative Security Location in Comalapa, El Salvador. Moreover, in an example of desiring to support its ally, Salvadoran troops fought in Iraq as part of the US-led coalition. Hence, it makes little geopolitical sense to alienate reliable US partners in the region, particularly at a time when Washington requires regional support and cohesion to deal with hemispheric problems, such as Venezuela—in fact, Guatemala and Honduras voted in favor of a US-backed resolution in the Organization of American States that attempted to suspend Venezuela earlier this year.

Secondly, these three nations are poor, and they rely on foreign assistance. Should the US cut off aid, the situation would get worse, not better. For example, ForeignAssistance.gov explains that in 2019 Washington plans to provide $65.75 million to Honduras; these funds will be utilized to (hopefully) improve democracy, human rights, and governance, as well as economic development and education. Meanwhile, USAID reports that in 2016 a total of $127 million was donated to Honduras across all US agencies, with the main targets being programs on violence prevention, counter-narcotics, and strengthening justice and human rights. In other words, the money will be used precisely to improve the situation that prompted the caravan to leave its homeland in the first place.

Additionally, there is the obvious question of how exactly these Northern Triangle governments could stop their citizens from leaving. None of these countries have particularly large militaries or police forces—which contributes to the ongoing wave of violence in the region, which in turn prompts migration—that can be deployed along their common borders. Moreover, the region’s geography does not help the situation, as it is a dense jungle with several rivers, not to mention the Sierra Madre de Chiapas mountain range. In other words, a border wall across these countries is not a possibility.

Without a doubt, there is a valid concern of whether US economic aid to the Northern Triangle nations is having a positive effect nowadays. For example, in 2019 Washington plans to provide $69.41 million to Guatemala in foreign assistance, with $20 million going to the rule of law, civil society and good governance. This is ironic as Guatemalan President Jimmy Morales is behaving in an increasingly dictatorial manner, exemplified best by his refusal to allow the head of Commission Against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG), Iván Velásquez, into the country. The reason for this is CICIG’s work on cracking down on corruption in Guatemala, which includes the president himself.

Final Thoughts
Violence, poverty, and lack of opportunities for a good life prompted a new caravan of thousands of people to leave Honduras en route to the US, where they hope to have a good life. Mass migration is certainly a problem that governments need to deal with, but punishing the countries where these migrants come from is not a solution, particularly given that these nations are reliable US allies. Cutting economic aid will make the situation worse, not better, because such a policy won’t address the causes of why this migration occurred in the first place.

As a corollary to this analysis, it is important to point out that on October 23 Infobae.com reported that a new caravan is being organized, this one out of El Salvador. If President Trump cuts foreign assistance to these nations, what leverage will he have left to influence them?

—
Wilder Alejandro Sanchez is an analyst who focuses on geopolitical, military, and cybersecurity issues in the Western Hemisphere. The views expressed in this article are those of the author alone and do not necessarily reflect those of any institutions with which the author is associated.