New Perspectives in Foreign Policy Vol 9, Winter 2016

NEW PERSPECTIVES

in foreign policy

A JOURNAL WRITTEN BY AND FOR THE ENRICHMENT OF YOUNG PROFESSIONALS WINTER 2016 | ISSUE 9

Marikana and ANC Regeneration: The Final Straw?

Hayley Elszasz

Cracks in the Ice: Russia’s Strategic Posturing in the Arctic Caroline Rohloff

Violence, Corruption, and Impunity in Central America’s Northern Triangle Renzo Falla

Europe’s Fading Legacy in the Western Balkans James Mina

Japan’s Proactive Pacifism in Action: Supporting International Law and Stability in the South China Sea Andrew Chapman

Co-Editors David Parker and Michelle Melton

About New Perspectives in Foreign Policy New Perspectives in Foreign Policy is published by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) to provide a forum for young professionals to debate issues of importance in foreign policy. Though New Perspectives seeks to bring new voices into the dialogue, it does not endorse specific opinions or policy prescriptions. As such, the views expressed herein are solely those of the authors and contributors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Editorial Board, CSIS, or the CSIS Board of Trustees.

Submit articles to newperspectives@csis.org.

About CSIS For over 50 years, the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) has worked to develop solutions to the world’s greatest policy challenges. Today, CSIS scholars are providing strategic insights and bipartisan policy solutions to help decisionmakers chart a course toward a better world.

CSIS is a nonprofit organization headquartered in Washington, D.C. The Center’s 220 full-time staff and large network of affiliated scholars conduct research and analysis and develop policy initiatives that look into the future and anticipate change.

Founded at the height of the Cold War by David M. Abshire and Admiral Arleigh Burke, CSIS was dedicated to finding ways to sustain American prominence and prosperity as a force for good in the world. Since 1962, CSIS has become one of the world’s preeminent international institutions focused on defense and security; regional stability; and transnational challenges ranging from energy and climate to global health and economic integration.

Thomas J. Pritzker was named chairman of the CSIS Board of Trustees in November 2015. Former U.S. deputy secretary of defense John J. Hamre has served as the Center’s president and chief executive officer since 2000.

Photo Credits

Front cover (left): GovernmentZA / Flickr.com Front cover (right): Wofratz / Wikimedia.org Back cover (left): U.S. Navy photo by Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class Daniel M. Young/Released Back cover (right): Francois Le Minh / Flickr.com © 2015 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.

Center for Strategic and International Studies 1616 Rhode Island Avenue NW, Washington, DC 20036 Tel: (202) 887-0200 Fax: (202) 775-3199 Web: www.csis.org

Marikana and ANC Regeneration: The Final Straw?

Hayley Elszasz IN AUGUST 2012, 34 striking miners

were killed by national police forces at the Lonmin Mine in South Africa.

On June 25, 2015, almost three years later, South Africa’s President Jacob Zuma released the long-awaited Marikana Report outlining the presidentially appointed Marikana Commission of Inquiry’s findings regarding culpability for the Marikana massacre. This massacre was the largest use of lethal force against civilians in South Africa since the end of apartheid; it harkened back to state-sponsored apartheid violence like the 1960 Sharpeville Massacre.1 The report absolved the country’s elected leadership (the president and his ministers) of all responsibility, placing the blame on the police, the Lonmin Mine, the Association of Mineworkers, and the striking miners themselves.2 The release of the commission’s findings resulted in a new wave of disillusionment about the country’s political leadership among South Africans who were

already enraged and dismayed by the massacre itself.3 The Marikana Commission Report has led to even lower confidence in the African National Congress (ANC), the party that has held power in South Africa since the transition to democracy in 1994. As the party associated with liberation from apartheid and successful transition to democratic rule, the ANC has faced little serious electoral competition despite its often disappointing record in service delivery, endemic corruption, and neopatrimonial practices. Still, the Marikana Report indicates a new level of unresponsiveness and is symptomatic of the broader deterioration of rule of law and accountability. The report is likely to result in continued erosion of ANC support, engendering increased future electoral competition, which would enrich and enliven

MARIKANA AND ANC REGENERATION: THE FINAL STRAW?

3

the already quite strong South African The Marikana Report indicates democracy. The story of the ANC has been one a new level of unresponsiveness of gradual deterioration and is symptomatic of the rather than sharp decline; it is likely broader deterioration of rule of that the Democratic law and accountability.

Alliance (DA) will make incremental gains during the 2016 municipal elections, but unlikely that it reaches a majority in the short term.

While it is too soon to say, further ANC electoral deterioration may be a hopeful sign that a more vibrant, competitive political system in South Africa is emerging.

The ANC’s electoral success primarily rests on two pillars: the strength of its reputation as the party of liberation and the effectiveness of its party machinery. Emotional resonance with the party’s liberation history draws many voters4; however, the intricate web of ANC patronage in public-sector positions and policies favoring supporters is a critical component of ANC dominance.

Thus far, no opposition party has been able to overturn the ANC pillars of support, but the Marikana Report’s release may represent a turning point. Marikana aggravated existing internal tensions between the alliance that holds the ANC together,5 generating factionalism within trade unions and furthering the perception that the government is out of touch with the people.6 The ANC’s response to Marikana undercuts its narrative of liberation. Though Marikana is hardly the first scandal to involve the ANC (Nkandlagate is a glaring instance of ANC corruption),7 the report is different because the violence perpetrated at Marikana is reminiscent of tactics used by the apartheid government. Further, President Zuma’s misguided response to Marikana compounded the wounds inflicted, reminding South Africans of “a past in which

MARIKANA AND ANC REGENERATION: THE FINAL STRAW?

4

the state used police to brutally suppress those who were fighting for a better way of life,” according to Mmusi Maimane, the main opposition leader.8 This is more than a critique of the limits of the ANC’s transformative agenda; it extends beyond the ANC’s failure to stem inequality and violence, rather calling to mind a history of state violence against the black working class. As one student reminds us, “The incident resembled the conduct of an oppressive unforgiving police force [South Africans] all know too well.”9 ANC missteps aside, multiparty democracy and party turnover require the existence of a viable opposition.

The opposition in South Africa appears to be gaining strength. The Democratic Alliance (DA) has the potential to threaten the ANC due to its charismatic new leader, prudent response to Marikana, and well-formulated policy agenda. The DA, reinvigorated by the election of Mmusi Maimane in May 2015, has been capitalizing on voter disenchantment with the ANC. Maimane is the first black leader of the DA, which is of great practical and symbolic importance for what is historically considered a white party.

Maimane has undertaken a campaign to spread the party into areas it formerly neglected, including black townships and rural areas.10 The DA has also distinguished itself from the ANC with its response to Marikana, calling for those responsible to face justice.

Maimane announced that the DA would table legislation that will establish a compensation fund for the victims’ families.11 Finally, the DA launched the Vision 2029 campaign, a comprehensive picture of what DA rule could look like, proving that it has a coherent plan for a prosperous, safe, and equitable future.12 Maimane could be correct when he asserted, “The days are numbered for the ANC government.”13 While the ANC may find its legitimacy in question and its hegemony no longer guaranteed, the party also draws electoral support from being a formidable political machine, entrenched with over 20 years of unchallenged incumbency at the national level. Although the DA’s party machinery is growing in size and sophistication, the question remains whether it can overcome

MARIKANA AND ANC REGENERATION: THE FINAL STRAW?

5

South Africa is a model for other African nations, and it is in U.S. interest for a vibrant democratic culture to succeed throughout the continent. The reality remains, however, that the United States has very little leverage over internal South African politics—long-term change must originate from within.

the ANC’s patronage web and the DA's reputation as a party for the wealthy elite. Neither party seems wholly prepared for a mounting populist challenge, currently led by the obstructionist, demagogic Economic Freedom Fighters party. EFF support is relatively small, but their leadership has tapped into an angry, youthful electorate that neither the ANC nor the DA has adequately engaged. Patronage and the services provided by the ANC government may prove to be the decisive factors keeping the ANC in power for the near future.

As an important democratic partner and economic powerhouse within Africa, South Africa, and the health of its multiparty democracy, is of great concern for the United States. South Africa is a model for other African nations, and it is in U.S. interest for a vibrant democratic culture to succeed throughout the continent. The reality remains, however, that the United States has very little leverage over internal South African politics—long-term change must originate from within. While the ANC has lost touch with the broader population, as exemplified by its botched response to Marikana, the United States should continue building its own relationship with this population by engaging with youth groups, civil society, and universities—the next generation of leaders. The hope is that engaged civil society groups will demand increased accountability from their politicians and that the future of the South African democracy will be one of competition and transparency.

Hayley Elszasz is a former intern with the Africa program.

MARIKANA AND ANC REGENERATION: THE FINAL STRAW?

6

The Sharpeville Massacre occurred in March 1960 when a group of black South Africans protesting the Pass Laws were fired upon by the police, leaving 69 people dead. Mmusi Maimane, “Marikana Reflects the Accountability Deficit of Zuma’s Administration,” Daily Maverick, July 6, 2015, http://www.dailymaverick.co.za/opinionista/2015-07-06marikana-reflects-the-accountability-deficit-of-zumas-administration/#.Vbe6tflVhHw. 2 “Editorial: Number One’s Unforgivable Sins,” Mail & Guardian, July 3, 2015, http://mg.co. za/article/2015-07-02-editorial-number-ones-unforgivable-sins.

3 Ibid.

4 Azad Essa, “South Africa’s ANC in Landslide Victory,” Al Jazeera, May 11, 2014, http://www.aljazeera.com/news/africa/2014/05/south-africa-anc-landslidevictory-2014510165856126664.html.

5 The ANC is made up of the tripartite alliance between the ANC, the Congress of South African Trade Unions (COSATU), and the South African Communist Party (SACP).

6 Gillian Jones, “Shadow of Marikana Hangs over Cosatu Congress,” Mail & Guardian, September 13, 2012, http://mg.co.za/article/2012-09-13-shadow-of-marikana-hangs-overcosatu-congress.

7 Nkandlagate refers to Zuma’s extravagant improvements to his estate Nkandla, for which he used over R246 million (~US$ 17 million) of public funds. Debate is ongoing about whether, and how, Zuma should pay back the opulent spending.

8 Maimane, “Marikana Reflects the Accountability Deficit of Zuma’s Administration.”

9 Azad Essa, “South Africans React to Mining ‘Massacre’,” Al Jazeera, August 18, 2012, http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/features/2012/08/2012818133435524653.html.

10 Norimitsu Onishi, “First Black Leader of South Africa’s Opposition Seeks to Unseat the ANC,” New York Times, July 24, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/25/world/africa/ mmusi-maimane-south-africa-democratic-alliance-anc.html.

11 Maimane, “Marikana Reflects the Accountability Deficit of Zuma’s Administration.”

12 The Democratic Alliance official website, http://www.da.org.za/.

13 Onishi, “First Black Leader of South Africa’s Opposition Seeks to Unseat the ANC.” 14 Andrew Harding, “South Africa: What Does Maimane’s Win Mean for the DA?,” BBC News, May 10, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-32682037.

1

7

Europe’s Fading Legacy in the Western Balkans James Mina OVER THE PAST FIVE YEARS, the

European Union has dealt with a seemingly endless series of crises.

European leaders have had their hands full with Greece and the sovereign debt crisis, the Ukraine crisis and a resurgent Russia, negotiating with the United Kingdom over the terms of its EU membership, and an enveloping migration and refugee crisis. But as they have busily worked to confront these challenges, European leaders have also neglected their own geographic backyard, the Western Balkans. Recent political and social tremors in the region suggest that the European approach to the Balkans may be failing and that, after almost two decades of stalled progress, the promise of eventual EU membership is losing its luster. If left unchecked, these developments could rapidly escalate into divisive conflicts and reignite inter-communal tensions in this diverse region, precipitating another crisis at a time when the European

Union is already struggling to manage the other urgent crises in its immediate neighborhood.

Often overlooked by the rest of the world, the Western Balkan countries (Serbia, Bosnia and Herzegovina, the Republic of Macedonia, Montenegro, Albania, and Kosovo) have played a pivotal role in European security throughout modern history. In 1914, that “damn foolish thing in the Balkans” set European powers on a crash course resulting in the outbreak of the First World War. Seventy-five years later, the bloody dissolution of Yugoslavia produced a series of wars between 1991 and 2001 that culminated in the first genocide in Europe since 1945 and drove NATO to conduct its first-ever combat operations. After a decade of near-constant violence in the 1990s, U.S. and European-led negotiating efforts eventually helped to calm the mood in the region.

While NATO and European military deployments in places like Kosovo

EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

8

and Bosnia played a critical role in deescalating these conflicts, it was ultimately the impact of NATO’s and the European Union’s enlargement policy that helped build and maintain the peace.1 Since those conflicts ended, the prospect of EU membership—and all the economic, political, and societal benefits that were presumed to come along with it—has helped to keep these fragile, heterogeneous countries stable. Enlargement has been the cornerstone of the EU’s policy toward the region in the post-conflict years. The promise of democratic freedoms and higher standards of living drove many Western Balkan countries to begin making difficult judicial and constitutional reforms in order to align with the EU’s common standards, and it has also helped to bandage deep wounds and foster cooperation between bitter enemies. Yet ironically, European Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker stated in 2014 that “the EU needs a break from enlargement,” and “no further enlargement will take place over the next five years,” placing the EU’s enlargement policy into serious doubt.2 A series of troubling incidents suggest that the EU’s Western Balkans policy lacks stability as well as durability. In February 2014, widespread antigovernment protests erupted across Bosnia and Herzegovina. Spurred by the country’s endemic poverty, stalled political reforms, and a deeply entrenched tradition of corruption,3 the protests quickly turned violent and several government buildings were torched (including the presidential offices). On one day alone, more than 130 people were injured in clashes between police and protestors in what has been hailed as the worst outbreak of violence since the 1990s.4 Although the violence has subsided, a divided Bosnian legislature has been unable to enact any meaningful reforms, as power remains divided between the three largest groups (Muslim Bosniaks, Orthodox Serbs, and Catholic Croats) under the terms of the 1995 Dayton Accords. In particular, the semiautonomous Republika Srpska, a Serbian Orthodox constituent region of Bosnia that seeks political union with Belgrade, has consistently obstructed the functioning of the federal government. In April, the president of the Republika Srpska, Milorad Dodik, indicated it aims to hold an independence referendum by 2018, setting the stage for future instability.5 EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

9

Bosnia is not the only trouble spot. Earlier this year, a high-level government corruption scandal rattled the (former Yugoslav) Republic of Macedonia, challenging the tiny country’s political stability. For months, Prime Minister Nikola Gruevski and his administration had fended off widespread corruption allegations ranging from election fraud and murder cover-ups to mass wiretapping operations, but large-scale antigovernment protests erupted when the opposition began releasing a string of recordings in February 2015, lending credibility to some of these allegations (it is estimated that nearly 10 percent of the capital turned out to protest).

Prior to the protests, however, an attack along the Kosovar border by ethnic Albanian militants linked to the antigovernment groups left 22 dead (including 8 police officers), adding an element of ethnic tension to an already tenuous political situation. Several days later, the offices of one of the country’s largest ethnic Albanian parties were bombed. After narrowly avoiding civil conflict between the Slavic majority and large Albanian minority (which totals 20 percent of the population) in 2001, these attacks have reintroduced a dangerous ethno-nationalist undertone into national politics. Although the United States and European Union helped to facilitate talks between the government and opposition, the resulting agreement is complex and fragile and political uncertainty remains high. Circumstances could rapidly deteriorate and there is potential for the ethnic and political issues to become even more closely intertwined.

While these violent tremors went largely unreported in Western media, the Western Balkans returned to the headlines this year due to the massive influx of refugees flowing through (and from) the region. While a large portion of Europe’s asylum seekers are refugees from Syria, Afghanistan, Iraq, and Eritrea, endemic poverty has also driven record numbers of Albanian Kosovars to seek a better life abroad. Despite the significant funding that Europeans have pumped into Kosovo (EU institutions alone have provided more than €2 billion in aid since 1999—an amount equal to nearly one-third of its current GDP),6 Pristina has been unable to translate this into improved living standards for its citizens. Of the 185,000 asylum seekers that crossed into Europe in the first quarter of 2015, 26 percent hailed from Kosovo, making this tiny country a EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

10

significant contributor to the refugee and migrant crisis currently consuming Europe, although most of these economic migrants eventually will be returned to Kosovo.7 Public agitation and disillusionment in the Western Balkans stem from deep-seated frustration over the inability of governments to combat the region’s endemic political and economic stagnation.

To be sure, Balkan governments deserve the lion’s share of the blame for their inability to improve domestic conditions. At the same time, for all the good it has done in the region, the EU’s enlargement policy has largely failed to help the countries in the Western Balkans overcome many of their endemic problems.

The EU’s enlargement policy is right to enforce common standards, but at the same time these standards are onerous upfront, forcing members to make painful changes before seeing tangible benefits.

The EU sets forth a series of rigorous terms and conditions that countries must live up to before even being considered a candidate for accession, and then initiates a laborious adoption process that finalizes a country’s policy harmonization with European legal and regulatory standards in more than 30 issue areas. Europe has maintained that if a country wants EU membership badly enough it will meet the conditions of membership; indeed, this was the case in many of the former Eastern Bloc countries. But in the Western Balkans, the region’s weak democratic institutions and tradition as well as its deeply entrenched networks of corruption, nepotism, and patronage pose significant obstacles. Many of the reforms mandated by the EU require top-down restructuring, meaning that the progress it demands is entirely dependent on the willingness of leaders and ruling groups to relinquish power to democratic institutions and enhance transparency—something most leaders are reluctant to do.

In recognition of these misaligned incentives, Brussels does provide funding and technical expertise to help facilitate these adjustments (the European Commission extended €11.5 billion in pre-accession assistance to the Western Balkans and Turkey from 2007–2013 and has budgeted another €11.7 billion for 2014–20208). However, the aid is also conditional in ways that often don’t recognize the fundamental political issues hindering EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

11

accession efforts. The EU’s new assistance package to Bosnia, for example, is contingent upon Sarajevo’s compliance with a rigorous reform program—a half-hearted approach that failed to account for Bosnia’s political paralysis and only reinforces the country’s problems. Despite the desires of the Bosniak-Croatian Federation, the Republika Srpska has refused to comply with certain terms, meaning that the aid remains untapped.9 A bigger problem is that even if countries are successful in their reform efforts, there is no guarantee that these efforts will bear fruit. The Republic of Macedonia has been an official candidate for EU membership since 2005—yet even after a decade, the EU has not initiated formal negotiations and there is no clear timetable for accession (primarily due to its unresolved name issue with Greece).

The EU’s annual accession progress reports are repetitive and full of bureaucratic obfuscation, each year praising the “considerable progress” that each country has made while simultaneously pointing to the “substantial obstacles that remain.” Such delays, perceived indifference, and seemingly insurmountable barriers have stalled “accession momentum” within the region and fed into a perception that the EU is simply disinterested in the Western Balkans and its incorporation into the broader European family.

Perhaps the greatest issue, however, is that it is not clear that EU membership is either attainable or, for that matter, still desirable. The enlargement policy was effective in the past because EU membership was perceived as a path to a more stable, peaceful, and prosperous future. But the crises of the past five years greatly damaged the credibility of the European project, particularly as its economic and freedom-of-movement credentials have been tarnished. Looking at the realities within the European Union today, the exuberance surrounding membership appears to have diminished and it is no longer certain that accession will make a state better off. After receiving three bailout packages, Greece is now more indebted than ever and back in recession.10 In Spain, the Eurozone’s fourth-largest economy, nearly one in every five people is still unemployed.11 The British are so fed up with Brussels bureaucracy that they are holding a referendum on whether to leave the Union all together.12 EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

12

The bloc’s smaller and weaker economies (including two former Yugoslav republics) have also been slow to recover economically.

Once the economic role model for the EU’s post–communist candidates, Slovenia narrowly avoiding becoming the Eurozone’s sixth bailout country in 2013 after extending €3 billion to prop up its floundering banks.13 In Croatia, unemployment has nearly doubled since joining the EU in 2013, jumping to 17.3 percent from 9.2 percent in 2009.14 Both countries have also struggled to combat corruption at the highest levels, with a former two-term Slovenian prime minister being convicted of corruption charges.

The EU’s economic track record is not the only point of Perhaps the greatest issue, concern. Brussels’ inability to however, is that it is not address the urgent migration clear that EU membership is crisis has also fueled doubts either attainable or, for that about its problem-solving capabilities at the panmatter, still desirable.

European level. Rather than bridging differences, the EU’s indecisiveness on this matter has in fact contributed to a resurgence of political tensions in the Western Balkans, as the former Yugoslav republics and EU members alike trade blame for failing to control migrant flows. Perhaps more than anything, these recent border closings and calls for the building of razor-wire walls between EU members have symbolically reflected both the physical and spiritual disintegration of the European project.

Against this backdrop, it is hardly surprising that enthusiasm for accession appears to be waning in the Western Balkans. While Balkan publics currently remain supportive of joining the European Union, they have grown increasingly unsure whether they will actually be better off in the EU. Polling figures show that less than half of Serbs believe that EU membership would be “a good thing” for their country, with 42 percent of respondents favorable.15 Montenegrins and Macedonians also responded cautiously, with only narrow majorities responding optimistically with 50 percent and 57 percent respectively. To be sure, the Western Balkans EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

13

economies are still well below European standards of economic development and would benefit from increases in GDP and greater foreign investment (Croatia’s deflated per-capita GDP is nearly twice that of Serbia’s). But the linkage between EU membership and prosperity and stability has rapidly begun to decouple, coincident with increased turbulence in the Western Balkans.

While the situation in the region remains highly unstable, the subsidence of the recent violence suggests that it is not too late for Europe to refocus on the Western Balkans. To be effective, there must be renewed EU engagement in the region, and there have already been positive signs in this regard. The new EU Enlargement Commissioner Johannes Hahn personally mediated talks between the Macedonian government and opposition in July.16 Angela Merkel also toured the region in July 2015 to visibly demonstrate Germany’s commitment to the region and indicated her desire to accelerate the accession processes for Serbia and Albania. EU Commission President Juncker has expressed his willingness to open accession talks with Serbia before resolving the Kosovo dispute. It will require a sustained effort to uphold this newfound vigor, and Europe must be prepared to make its presence in the region visible and tangible.

Europe also needs to develop a new policy approach. Accession will continue to be a part of Western Balkans policy, but the EU can no longer rely on the promise of eventual club membership alone to keep the peace. Europe must understand that there are limits to incentivizing good behavior by offering “carrots” for progress, particularly when these incentives seem unattainable. It appears that the limits of the current process to encourage progress have already been reached in many countries without stimulating deep systemic reforms or combating the region’s entrenched tradition of corruption.

Europe should reorient its focus to help Balkan countries overcome their fundamental roadblocks. To be clear, change must come from within. But while Europe cannot force progress in these countries, it can do more to enable it. For instance, rather than focusing on top-down assistance and funding as it has in the past, Brussels should place greater emphasis on strengthening civil EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

14

societies in the Western Balkans and empowering local electorates.

Institutions are only as strong as they are allowed to be, and it will take fresh leadership that is committed to the region’s democratic success to reinforce them. In the two years since Edi Rama replaced Sali Berisha as Albania’s prime minister after the latter’s 20 years in power, the country has managed to achieve official EU candidate status. This progress can be replicated elsewhere.

Changes in the local political culture may also help to combat corruption and pass critical economic and regulatory reforms, which are necessary to attract foreign capital and spur growth.

But a fresh policy approach is only half of the answer. In reality, the aspirational weight that was attached to attaining EU membership has been greatly reduced. This is not merely an idealistic casualty; as recent developments in the Western Balkans indicate, it bears serious security risks. Should Europe’s “gravitational pull” continue to weaken, so too will the force that has maintained the fragile peace in the Western Balkans. Above all else, the European Union was an instrument created “to make war unthinkable,” and toward that end it has so far been successful (so much so that it was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize in 2012). But Europe’s lack of strategic vision for its own future as well as its neighbors and its reluctance to reinvent itself is perhaps the greatest source of its current dysfunction, and this has become painfully evident over the past five years to members and nonmembers alike. In order to keep fulfilling its peacekeeping mission and regain some of its appeal in the Western Balkans (and throughout the broader region), the European Union will need to prove that it still can make its members wealthier, safer, and more stable, and it must be willing to change in order to do so.

James Mina is a research associate with the Europe program.

EUROPE'S FADING LEGACY IN THE WESTERN BALKANS

15

Albanian Prime Minister Edi Rama recently stated in Newsweek, “Today, we have a peace in this region that we did not have in our history. . . . [T]his peace is the result of the aspiration of all people in the area to be part of Europe.” Will Nicoll, “Edi Rama’s Albanian Renaissance,” Newsweek, August 18, 2015, http://europe.newsweek.com/edi-ramasalbanian-renaissance-331699.

2 Jean-Claude Juncker, “A New Start for Europe: My Agenda for Jobs, Growth, Fairness and Democratic Change,” Political Guidelines for the next European Commission, July 15, 2014, http://www.eesc.europa.eu/resources/docs/jean-claude-juncker---political-guidelines.pdf.

3 Maja Zuvela and Daria Sito-Sucic, “Where West failed, people power spurs change in Bosnia,” Reuters, March 6, 2014, http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/03/06/us-bosniaprotests-insight-idUSBREA230M220140306.

4 Dan Bilefsky, “Protests over Government and Economy Roil Bosnia,” New York Times, February 7, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/08/world/europe/protests-overgovernment-and-economy-roil-bosnia.html.

5 Maja Zuvela, “Biggest Serb party in Bosnia threatens 2018 secession,” Reuters, April 25, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/04/25/us-bosnia-serbs-secession-idUSKBN0N G0NB20150425#owBlT0a4UKxiZe6P.97.

6 European Union Office in Kosovo/European Union Special Representative in Kosovo, “Political & economic relations,” http://eeas.europa.eu/delegations/kosovo/eu_kosovo/ political_relations/index_en.htm.

7 Eurostat, “Asylum in the EU in the First Quarter 2015,” News Release, June 18, 2015, http:// ec.europa.eu/eurostat/documents/2995521/6887997/3-18062015-CP-EN.pdf/4457b05026f9-4cf1-bf27-9ffb73ff8c7b.

8 European Commission, “Overview—Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance,” European Neighborhood Policy and Enlargement Negotiations, January 10, 2015, http://ec.europa. eu/enlargement/instruments/overview/index_en.htm.

9 “Bosnian Serbs Refuse Reform Program Demanded by EU,” Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty, June 10, 2015, http://www.rferl.org/content/bosnia-serbs-reject-eu-reformprogram/27065547.html.

10 Jan Strupczewski, “Greece in recession in 2015, 2016, sharp upturn in 2017: Commission,” Reuters, November 5, 2015, http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/05/us-europeeconomy-greece-idUSKCN0SU1ZE20151105#LWtJ5su53ODqcgtV.97.

11 Raphael Minder, “Spain’s Unemployment Falls, and Rajoy’s Prospects Rise,” New York Times, October 22, 2015, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/23/business/international/ spains-unemployment-falls-and-rajoys-prospects-rise.html.

12 “A guide to the UK’s planned in-out EU referendum,” BBC, November 18, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-politics-32810887.

13 Peter Spiegel, “Slovenia plans EUR3bn bank recapitalization to avert bailout,” The Financial Times, December 12, 2013, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/0edf1d34-6319-11e3a87d-00144feabdc0.html#axzz3qSErPszk.

14 Eurostat, “Unemployment statistics, Table 2: Unemployment rate 2003–2014 (%),” October 30, 2015, http://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/statistics-explained/index.php/Unemployment_ statistics.

15 European Commission, “Public Opinion in the European Union, Fieldwork: May 2015,” Standard Eurobarometer 83, Spring 2015, 26, http://ec.europa.eu/public_opinion/archives/ eb/eb83/eb83_anx_en.pdf.

16 Sinisa Jackov Marusic, “Hahn Brokers Deal Ending Crisis in Macedonia,” Balkan Insight, July 15, 2015, http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/macedonia-warring-leaders-struck-crisis-deal.

1

16

Cracks in the Ice: Russia’s Strategic Posturing in the Arctic Caroline Rohloff THE ARCTIC HAS BECOME A VENUE

for Russia’s force posturing and global power projection vis-à-vis the West, and figures prominently in Russian policy because it offers a large, virtually untouched geographic space in which Russia can demonstrate its strategic deterrent, military, and proposed energy development capabilities.

Although the United States and Russia share common interests and concerns in the Arctic, there is a divergence in their policy approaches that has the potential to lead to broader and potentially more serious strategic misunderstandings.

Without understanding both the historical and strategic significance of the Arctic to Russia’s national interests and identity, as well as the divergence between U.S. and Russian Arctic policies, the United States cannot effectively interpret and respond to Russian behavior while continuing to foster cooperation on shared Arctic issues.

The Arctic features differently in each of the countries’ security frameworks. The United States has largely taken for granted that the Arctic will remain a region of international cooperation, and it does not figure prominently in U.S. policy beyond environmental and climate issues and scientific research. As a result, U.S. foreign policy has developed around the notion that the Arctic is exempt from geopolitical and geo-economic tensions and there is little to no emphasis on security issues, outside of the relatively generalized statements to defend national interests in the various U.S. Arctic policy statements.1 For Russia, by contrast, the Arctic is becoming an ever-greater policy prioritization, with important security dimensions.

This is unsurprising, as Russia is the largest Arctic state with 20 percent of its GDP, 22 percent of its exports, and its strategic nuclear force based in the region.2 As a result, Russian

CRACKS IN THE ICE: RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC POSTURING IN THE ARCTIC

17

Russia is the largest Arctic state with 20 percent of its GDP, 22 percent of its exports, and its strategic nuclear force based in the region.

policy has emphasized security and energy resource development.

Russia’s current strategic behavior in the Arctic is characterized by a dichotomy between its military modernization and an effort to maintain multilateral cooperation in the region, which creates an unstable atmosphere of ambivalence.

On the one hand, many Russian officials are expressing their desire to maintain the Arctic as a zone of peace and are affirming that “the Arctic is a territory of dialogue, not a place for name-calling and reckoning political scores.”3 Moreover, Russia has largely continued its collaborative relations with other Arctic nations through projects addressing environmental changes in the Arctic, including the Arctic Council’s Task Force for Action on Black Carbon and Methane, and the recent agreement between the five Arctic coastal states to prevent unregulated commercial fishing in the Central Arctic Ocean.

Yet, Russia’s military actions in the Arctic and the increased centralization of its Arctic policy send a more antagonistic message.

Since the beginning of 2015, Russia has conducted two large-scale, unannounced military exercises in the Arctic as a demonstration of force in response to NATO’s increased presence in Europe. The first exercise involved roughly 45,000 troops, 41 warships, and 15 submarines, and called the Northern Fleet to “full combat readiness,”4 and in the second exercise, Russia conducted a “massive surprise inspection” with 12,000 forces and 250 aircraft.5 In addition to these exercises, Russia is strengthening and modernizing its strategic nuclear capabilities in the Arctic at the same time that President Putin is reminding the world that “Russia is one of the leading nuclear powers... and should always be ready to repel any aggression toward Russia.”6 There is a real possibility of a political escalation between the West and Russia in the Arctic, which is compounded by existing tensions over Ukraine, and which may catch the United States off guard. The CRACKS IN THE ICE: RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC POSTURING IN THE ARCTIC

18

Arctic is seen by Russia as a strategic extension of its power projection elsewhere and is not viewed in isolation—a contrast from the U.S. tendency to view the Arctic as a snow-globe that is shielded from geopolitical tensions and disputes. The ongoing conflict in Ukraine reveals a fundamental division in how the West and Russia understand the post–Cold War transatlantic security architecture, of which the Arctic is a small but important part.7 As a result of Russia’s annexation of Crimea and its destabilization efforts in eastern Ukraine, The United States and NATO is bolstering its Russia must first accept the forces in Eastern Europe divergence in their policy and the Nordic-Baltic region. Russia, however, approaches and then find perceives this move shared interests that can as an encroachment on its borders and foster cooperation. has responded by rapidly mobilizing and modernizing its forces in the Arctic region, partly to secure its northern border against any further NATO encroachment and also to demonstrate its military power to the West.

While it would be foolish to ignore Russia’s mobilization efforts in the Arctic, particularly the rapid series of large-scale military exercises and assertive nuclear rhetoric, the United States must also recognize that Russia has a legitimate interest in developing the region. In order to prevent an escalation of tensions or a conflict in the Arctic, which could arise from a misunderstanding or accident in connection with a military exercise or strategic air patrol, the United States and Russia must first accept the divergence in their policy approaches and then find shared interests that can foster cooperation. Since much of Russia’s current force posturing in the Arctic is part of the broader geopolitical standoff, the United States should begin by redeveloping a core group of experts and officials who can strengthen the United States’ understanding of Russian strategic interests and behavior, with a particular focus on the Arctic. As the Ukraine conflict revealed, there is the risk that tensions can arise, not just from Russia’s behavior, but CRACKS IN THE ICE: RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC POSTURING IN THE ARCTIC

19

also from the West’s inability to understand how Russia interprets the West’s foreign policy aims.8 Therefore, the United States should also clearly articulate its red lines in regards to unacceptable behavior in the Arctic.

Finally, the Arctic states (Denmark, the United States, Canada, Norway, and Russia) should develop new avenues of multilateral communication and coordination, particularly since security issues are not within the purview of the Arctic Council. As recommended in a recent CSIS report, this could include the creation of an Organization for Enhanced Cooperation in the Arctic that would address three themes, including environmental protection, economic development, and security.9 The United States should also promote enhanced confidence-building measures with Russia, such as joint military and coast guard operations through the new Arctic Coast Guard Forum, as well as further strengthening joint efforts on oil-spill response. Although the United States and Russia have fundamentally divergent policy approaches to the Arctic, this does not have to lead to conflict or be a barrier to building cooperation in the region.

Caroline Rohloff is a former research associate with the Europe program.

CRACKS IN THE ICE: RUSSIA'S STRATEGIC POSTURING IN THE ARCTIC

20

See U.S. Department of the Navy, “The U.S. Navy Arctic Roadmap 2014–2030,” February 2014, http://www.navy.mil/docs/USN_arctic_roadmap.pdf; U.S. Department of Defense, “Arctic Strategy,” November 2013, http://www.defense.gov/Portals/1/Documents/pubs/2013_ Arctic_Strategy.pdf; and White House, “Implementation Plan for the National Strategy for the Arctic Region,” January 2014, https://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/docs/ implementation_plan_for_the_national_strategy_for_the_arctic_region_-_fi....pdf.

2 Lincoln Edson Flake, “Russia’s Security Intentions in a Melting Arctic,” Military and Strategic Affairs 6, no.1 (March 2014): 105, http://www.inss.org.il/uploadImages/systemFiles/MASA61Eng%20(4)_Flake.pdf.

3 Alexander Darchiev, “Arctic cooperation must continue,” Embassy, June 5, 2015, http://www. embassynews.ca/opinion/2015/06/03/arctic-co-operation-must-continue/47168.

4 Thomas Grove, “Russia starts nationwide show of force,” Reuters, March 16, 2015, http://www. reuters.com/article/2015/03/16/us-russia-military-exercises-idUSKBN0MC0JO20150316.

5 “Russia begins massive air force exercise,” BBC News, May 26, 2015, http://www.bbc.com/ news/world-europe-32877936.

6 Alexei Anishchuk, “Don’t mess with nuclear Russia, Putin says,” Reuters, August 29, 2014, http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/29/russia-putin-conflict-idUKL5N0QZ3HC20140829.

7 Andrew Monaghan, “A ‘New Cold War’? Abusing History, Misunderstanding Russia,” London: Chatham House, May 2015, 5, http://www.chathamhouse.org/sites/files/ chathamhouse/field/field_document/20150522ColdWarRussiaMonaghan.pdf.

8 Ivan Krastev, “Russian mistakes and western misunderstandings,” Financial Times, June 17, 2015, http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/6b79c31a-14fb-11e5-9509-00144feabdc0. html#axzz3hNdXNNIo. 9 Heather Conley and Caroline Rohloff, “The New Ice Curtain: Russia’s Strategic Reach to the Arctic,” Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, August 2015, http://csis.org/files/publication/150826_Conley_NewIceCurtain_Web.pdf.

1

21

Japan’s Proactive Pacifism in Action: Supporting International Law and Stability in the South China Sea Andrew Chapman THE SOUTH CHINA SEA (SCS) IS

home to some of the world’s most important maritime trade routes and some of its most high-profile territorial disputes. In particular, a sustained Chinese island-building campaign has exacerbated tensions and posed a series of challenges for the United States. Japan can assist the United States in responding to these challenges. Like the United States, Japan has a strong interest in expanding support for international maritime law, protecting freedom of navigation and overflight, promoting regional stability, and balancing against China’s rising power. Moreover, Tokyo’s strong naval capabilities, economic resources, and popularity among the nations of Southeast Asia provide an opportunity for Japan to play a constructive role in the SCS.1 While there are risks that may stem from Japan’s engagement, and most notably from Japanese and Chinese vessels operating in close proximity, the potential benefits for Tokyo and the

region support greater Japanese involvement. Prime Minister Abe should take this as an opportunity to translate his commitment that Japan proactively contribute to peace into action.2 Like the United States, Japan is not a direct claimant in the SCS: its stated interest is in ensuring that disputes are handled in accordance with relevant international law, rather than in the outcomes of the disputes.3 In this case, the relevant law is the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). Both China and Japan are signatories to UNCLOS, which obliges participants to pursue the settlement of disputes by peaceful means. However, China’s actions in recent years, including prompting a standoff with Vietnam over the placement of an oil rig in disputed waters in 2014 and seizing of the disputed Scarborough Shoal from the Philippines, have threatened this principle.4 Moreover, although Beijing has remained ambiguous

JAPAN'S PROACTIVE PACIFISM IN ACTION: SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL LAW AND STABILITY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

22

Like the United States, Japan has a strong interest in expanding support for international maritime law, protecting freedom of navigation and overflight, promoting regional stability, and balancing against China’s rising power.

about whether or not the manmade island it has built on Subi Reef generates a territorial sea, its assertion that a U.S. Navy vessel “illegally” entered waters near the island in lateOctober 2015 runs counter to international law.5 If recognized, this assertion could undermine the legal basis for freedom of action in the SCS, another shared interest of the United States and Japan.

In the face of these challenges and in the wake of the USS Lassen’s October 2015 freedom of navigation operations (FONOPs), there are a number of ways in which Japan can enhance its own efforts to support international law and bolster those of the United States. First, Japan can provide both public rhetorical support for U.S. actions and demonstrate its commitment to supporting international law. Following the FONOPs, Prime Minister Abe expressed Tokyo’s support for Washington’s actions and recognized them as consistent with international law.6 Japan also backed up its support with action in the form of a joint-exercise. One day after the U.S. FONOPs, Japan’s ministry of defense announced that a Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) escort vessel “will proceed with a U.S. carrier to waters just north of Borneo in the South China Sea, and participate in communications and ship transfer drills with American forces.”7 Although the MSDF stated that the exercise was long planned, the running of the exercise within the SCS and so soon after the U.S. FONOPs sent a strong signal of support for the U.S. operation and U.S.-Japan cooperation.8 Second, Japan’s activities can support efforts to prevent coercion from becoming the method by which territorial disputes are settled. One way to do this is for Japan to increase its own presence in the region JAPAN'S PROACTIVE PACIFISM IN ACTION: SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL LAW AND STABILITY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

23

in order to demonstrate its commitment to supporting adherence to international law in the SCS. In the bilateral arena, Japan is already working out a Visiting Forces Agreement (VFA) with the Philippines, which would allow Japan to use bases in the Philippines to refuel aircraft and vessels.9 During the next fiscal year, Japan’s Maritime Self Defense Force (MSDF) is planning a port call to Vietnam’s Cam Ranh Bay, near the disputed Spratly Islands.10 This would help expand the possibility for Japan to develop further VFAs and port-call agreements with other countries in the region. Another way for Japan to contribute is to help weaker actors acquire greater maritime domainawareness (MDA) capabilities. Japan has already made agreements to sell coast guard vessels to Vietnam and the Philippines and reduced the cost burden for the Philippines through low-cost loans.11 In the future, Japan could strip its soon-to-be retired P-3C maritime patrol aircraft of sensitive equipment and sell them to countries like Vietnam and the Philippines that lack sufficient MDA capacity of their own.12 Third, Japanese engagement with the region on nonmilitary issues demonstrates how cooperation on maritime issues under international law can contribute to regional prosperity and stability. Japan’s counter-piracy operations provide an example of where such actions are already underway in a manner consistent with the UNCLOS.13 In Southeast Asia, Japan proposed and contributes funding to the Regional Cooperation Agreement on Combating Piracy and Armed Robbery against Ships in Asia (ReCAAP) information center.14 Japan could work to expand the counter-piracy activities of ReCAAP members, either through ReCAAP itself or through alternative channels. Working to reduce piracy would demonstrate one way that cooperation under the framework of international law can provide for the common good of the region.

Expanding Japanese operations and engagement in the SCS is not without risk. China in particular has already protested Japanese involvement in the SCS, complaining that Tokyo is “stirring up dispute among regional countries and creating tension at sea.”15 Even more concerning, China could respond to expanded Japanese involvement by increasing paramilitary and military naval and air activities near the disputed islands between the two countries. However, the benefits are

JAPAN'S PROACTIVE PACIFISM IN ACTION: SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL LAW AND STABILITY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

24

worth the risk. Japan has a vital national interest in supporting existing international maritime law. Its strong naval capabilities and popularity in Southeast Asia will help generate support for U.S. actions within the region and reinforce the unity of the U.S.-Japan alliance. While Tokyo’s actions may cause tension with Beijing, by conducting operations strictly in adherence with international law and continuing to stress openness to measures designed to reduce the likelihood of inadvertent conflict, Japan can demonstrate its capacity to function as a responsible stakeholder in the SCS. In addition, Japan can calibrate its engagement, focusing on VFAs and case-by-case defense equipment transfers rather than establishing a permanent Japanese military presence in the SCS (an action likely to be perceived by China as a long-term threat). Tokyo can also stress its continued commitment to peace and opposition to militarism, a commitment strongly attested to by the Japanese public’s continued wariness toward recent security legislation and defense equipment exports.16 By maintaining its support for international law, supporting U.S. operations in defense of international law, and assisting weaker SCS claimant countries to improve their capabilities, Japan can both support its national security interests and reduce the likelihood of conflict in the SCS. Moreover, by showing its willingness to contribute to the provision of global public goods, Tokyo can help demonstrate the benefits of cooperation, create new opportunities for positive engagement, and continue to put the concept of proactive pacifism into practice.

Andrew Chapman is an intern with the Japan Chair.

Bruce Strokes, “How Asia-Pacific Publics See Each Other and Their National Leaders,” Pew Research Center, Global Attitudes & Trends, September 2, 2015, http://www.pewglobal.org/2015/09/02/howasia-pacific-publics-see-each-other-and-their-national-leaders/.

2 In December 2013, Prime Minister Abe’s administration released Japan’s National Security Strategy in which it adopted a policy of “Proactive Contribution to Peace” (or “Proactive Pacifism”) based on the principles of international cooperation. See Prime Minister of Japan and His Cabinet, “National Security Strategy,” December 17, 2013, http://japan.kantei.go.jp/96_abe/documents/2013/__icsFiles/ afieldfile/2013/12/17/NSS.pdf.; and Kitaoka Shinichi, “The Turnabout of Japan’s Security Policy: Toward ‘Proactive Pacifism’,” Nippon.com, April 2, 2014, http://www.nippon.com/en/currents/d00108/.

3 Challenges in the SCS also have a particular importance for Japan, as the successful use of coercion in the SCS could influence the resolution of Japan’s own territorial row with China in the East China Sea. 1

JAPAN'S PROACTIVE PACIFISM IN ACTION: SUPPORTING INTERNATIONAL LAW AND STABILITY IN THE SOUTH CHINA SEA

25

Ernest Z. Bower and Gregory B. Poling, “China-Vietnam Tensions High over Drilling Rig in Disputed Waters,” CSIS Critical Questions, May 7, 2014, http://csis.org/publication/critical-questions-chinavietnam-tensions-high-over-drilling-rig-disputed-waters; and Keith Bradsher, “Philippine Leader Sounds Alarm on China,” New York Times, February 4, 2014, http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/05/ world/asia/philippine-leader-urges-international-help-in-resisting-chinas-sea-claims.html?_r=3.

5 See Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's Regular Press Conference on October 27, 2015,” October 27, 2015, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/ mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1309625.shtml; Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the People’s Republic of China, “Foreign Ministry Spokesperson Lu Kang's Regular Press Conference on October 28, 2015,” October 28, 2015, http://www.fmprc.gov.cn/mfa_eng/xwfw_665399/ s2510_665401/2511_665403/t1309900.shtml; and Michael J. Green, Bonnie S. Glaser, and Gregory B. Poling, “The U.S. Asserts Freedom of Navigation in the South China Sea,” CSIS Critical Questions, October 27, 2015, http://csis.org/publication/us-asserts-freedom-navigation-south-china-sea.

6 Kyodo News Service, “Abe backs U.S. over warship patrols in S. China Sea,” Mainichi Shimbun, October 28, 2015, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20151028p2g00m0dm027000c.html.

7 “MSDF ship to join U.S. naval exercises in South China Sea,” Mainichi Shimbun, October 29, 2015, http://mainichi.jp/english/english/newsselect/news/20151029p2a00m0na017000c.html.

8 “Japan, US naval drill underway in South China Sea,” NHK World News, October 29, 2015, http:// www3.nhk.or.jp/nhkworld/english/news/20151029_23.html.

9 Masaaki Kameda, “Tokyo, Manila eye ‘visiting forces’ pact to rein in China,” The Japan Times, June 5, 2015, http://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2015/06/05/national/politics-diplomacy/japan-will-helpboost-philippine-coast-guard-abe/.

10 “Japan plans Vietnam port call to check Chinese expansion,” Nikkei Asian Review, October 30, 2015, http://asia.nikkei.com/Japan-Update/Japan-plans-Vietnam-port-call-to-check-Chinese-expansion.

11 Isabel Reynolds and Maiko Takahashi, “Aquino Welcomes Japan’s Efforts to Broaden Security Role in Asia,” Bloomberg Business, June 24, 2014, http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-06-24/ aquino-welcomes-japan-s-efforts-to-broaden-security-role-in-asia.

12 Hiroshi Waguri, “South China Sea Civilian Patrol Capability and the U.S.-Japan Alliance,” Asia Maritime Transparency Initiative, July 29, 2015, http://amti.csis.org/south-china-sea-civilian-airpatrol-capability-and-the-u-s-japan-alliance/.

13 As noted in UN Security Council Resolution 1897 (2009), UNCLOS “sets out the legal framework applicable to combating piracy and armed robbery at sea.” See Oceans & Law of the Sea, United Nations, Division for Ocean Affairs and the Law of the Sea, “Piracy under International Law,” April 4, 2012, http://www.un.org/depts/los/piracy/piracy.htm.

14 Miha Hribernik, “ReCAAPing Japan’s Counter-piracy Multilateralism,” Center for International Maritime Security, July 9, 2013, http://cimsec.org/recaaping-japans-counter-piracy-multilateralism.

15 “China rebukes Japan’s meddling in South China Sea issue,” Xinhua, June 12, 2015, http://www. chinadaily.com.cn/world/2015-06/12/content_20988939.htm.

16 In a September 2015 poll, 54 percent of respondents said they were against the security bills, while 29 percent supported them. See “ASAHI POLL: 68% say Diet passage of security bills in current session not necessary,” The Asahi Shimbun, September 14, 2015, http://ajw.asahi.com/article/behind_news/ social_affairs/AJ201509140020. A March 2014 poll by Kyodo news found that 66.8 percent of the public was opposed to loosening restrictions on defense equipment exports. See “Boueisoubichou hassoku de kasokukasuru—kanmin agete no bukki yushutsu (With the Inauguration of ATLA, Weapons Exports Will Be Sped Up),” Shukan Kinyobi, October 23, 2015, http://www.kinyobi.co.jp/ kinyobinews/?p=5549.

4

26

Violence, Corruption, and Impunity in Central America’s Northern Triangle Renzo Falla IN EL SALVADOR, there is a killing

every hour. In Honduras, urban residents are executed if they do not pay criminal gangs for their “protection.”2 In Guatemala, people take justice into their own hands with improvised weapons.3 Although these three countries, collectively referred to as the Northern Triangle, have long struggled with drug trafficking, violence, and corruption, these problems have metastasized over the past decade. Wealthy traffickers linked to Mexican drug cartels now largely control border regions while powerful gangs that regularly kidnap, extort, and assassinate residents have taken over cities. As security conditions have worsened, it is estimated that 9 percent of Northern Triangle residents are leaving their homes in search of security and heading north, exacerbating the humanitarian crisis at the U.S.-Mexico border.4 In response, the U.S. government has doubled the number of border agents in the past 10 years5 and is now spending 15 times more on border enforcement, 1

adjusting for inflation, than it did just 30 years ago.6 However, while a larger and betterfunded border patrol may be useful in the short term, it is a costly and ineffective long-term solution. To effectively secure the border, the United States should address one of the real drivers of immigration—the historically high levels of violence in the Northern Triangle. Although the U.S. government has channeled roughly $500 million in aid to the region between 2008 and 2014 to support law enforcement and counter-narcotics operations,7 this has clearly not stopped the flow of migrants, as asylum applications in neighboring countries over the same period have increased tenfold.8 The only way to reduce violence long-term is to help improve the region’s governance. Specifically, the United States should work for the establishment of international anticorruption commissions in El Salvador and Honduras, modeled on the existing commission in

VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION, AND IMPUNITY IN CENTRAL AMERICA'S NORTHERN TRIANGLE

27

Guatemala. Establishing these commissions is a necessary first step in reducing the violence that is fueling mass emigration.

Without a sustained focus on fighting corruption, policies designed to reduce violence will fail. Corruption has spread to all levels of government, preventing effective law enforcement. For example, police are known to skip work and rent out uniforms and weapons to gang members.9 Even if police do apprehend a culprit, corrupt judicial systems then fail to reach a conviction, removing an essential deterrent to further violence. Between 2010 and 2013, the Northern Triangle countries only reached convictions in 5 percent of homicide cases,10 compared to 81 percent in Europe and 43 percent worldwide.11 Finally, and perhaps most importantly, it is impossible to achieve long-lasting change when corrupt policymakers depend on the status quo for their wealth and power.

In order to break the cycle of corruption in the region, multilateral organizations such as the UN should set up anticorruption commissions in El Salvador and Honduras that are modeled after the successful commission currently operating in Guatemala known as the International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala (CICIG). The CICIG was established in 2007 by the Guatemalan government in partnership with the UN. It is an international institution that operates under Guatemalan law, conducts independent investigations into possible cases of corruption, and strengthens local justice sectors.

Since its inception, CICIG investigations have proven successful.

The commission has helped prosecute a dozen criminal networks and almost 200 corrupt government officials, including two former presidents, ministers, military officers, and police chiefs.12 After its first six years of operation, impunity in Guatemala decreased by 23 percent.13 Recently, CICIG investigations uncovered evidence that sent Guatemalan President Otto PÊrez Molina and Vice President Roxana Baldetti to prison on charges of receiving kickbacks from businesses in exchange for lower import duties.14 The commission’s successful prosecutions have reduced the culture of impunity that allows violent criminal gangs to thrive.

VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION, AND IMPUNITY IN CENTRAL AMERICA'S NORTHERN TRIANGLE

28

The CICIG has been successful because it is authorized to conduct full legal investigations using Guatemalan law, lending it credibility and legitimacy. For example, the commission can request summons, searches, and witnesses in Guatemalan courts without prior approval and can even initiate proceedings against individuals who refuse to cooperate with its work. Furthermore, as an international institution led by international experts, the CICIG is insulated from the endemic corruption within the existing system and is therefore able to investigate and prosecute cases that the local justice system may be unwilling to probe. Most importantly, the CICIG is effective because it sends a clear message that no one is above domestic law, and that corruption can be eradicated in Guatemala without having to resort to international law or foreign courts.

Through training and capacity building, the CICIG is also a low-cost means of addressing the long-term drivers of weak governance. A crucial component of the CICIG’s mandate involves working directly with the local justice system to propose and implement reforms.

Since its creation, the CICIG has collaborated with local partners to develop a wire-tapping unit, a witness protection program, and a new methodology for group investigations of criminal networks, all for the cost of about $12 million a year, or a fraction of U.S aid to Central America.15 In this way, the CICIG is more than just a shortterm solution to corruption—it is a relatively cheap way of directly improving the implementation of the domestic rule of law.

Beyond its specific contributions to the reduction of corruption and impunity, the CICIG also directly discourages emigration by giving Guatemalans hope for their country. According to a recent survey, Guatemalans already trust the CICIG more than all other public institutions, including the church, the police, the justice system, and especially Congress.16 Furthermore, 95 percent of Guatemalans approve of the CICIG’s work.17 With these high levels of support, the CICIG is a symbol of progress as well as a reason for Guatemalans to give life in their country a chance.

CICIG-like commissions in El Salvador and Honduras would be likely to achieve similar success. The commissions could directly address some of the leading causes of impunity in El Salvador and VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION, AND IMPUNITY IN CENTRAL AMERICA'S NORTHERN TRIANGLE

29

Honduras that were also found in Guatemala: pervasive corruption, inadequate investigations, weak witness protection programs, and a lack of judicial resources.18 Moreover, both El Salvador and Honduras have anticorruption laws on the books that are not being enforced.19 Commissions that work within the domestic legal framework, as in Guatemala, would help prosecutors apply these laws to finally bring criminals to justice.

Furthermore, there is already domestic support for such commissions—critical for their success—in both El Salvador and Honduras. In El Salvador, the Nationalist Republican Alliance party (ARENA), one of the two main political parties in the country, has pushed for the creation of a commission similar to the CICIG.20 In Honduras, the Liberty and Refoundation party (LIBRE) and the AntiCorruption Party (PAC), two of the four main parties in Congress, support a commission. In addition, the “Indignados,” a massive youth protest movement, has demanded an anticorruption commission in Honduras through weekly marches and protests.21 Given the success of the CICIG, its relevance for the other two Northern Triangle countries, and its support among many in the region, the U.S. government should provide financing for the creation of anticorruption commissions in El Salvador and Honduras, and should condition a portion of other U.S. assistance on their establishment. These policies would create an incentive for the Salvadoran and Guatemalan governments to adopt the commissions, but more importantly, would embolden opposition activists, civil society groups, and political parties to create change from within.

In the end, anticorruption commissions will not stem violence in or emigration from the Northern Triangle overnight. However, by fighting impunity and improving governance, the commissions are a necessary way of reducing violence in the long term. Through supporting the expansion of commissions to El Salvador and Honduras, the U.S. stands the best chance of improving broken systems of governance that are directly contributing to rising rates of violence and emigration.

Renzo Falla is a former intern with the Americas program.

VIOLENCE, CORRUPTION, AND IMPUNITY IN CENTRAL AMERICA'S NORTHERN TRIANGLE

30

Jonathon Watts, “One Murder Every Hour: How El Salvador Became the Homicide Capital of the World,” The Guardian, August 22, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/22/elsalvador-worlds-most-homicidal-place.

2 Carrie Kahn, “Honduras Claims Unwanted Title of World’s Murder Capital,” National Public Radio, June 12, 2013, http://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/06/13/190683502/hondurasclaims-unwanted-title-of-worlds-murder-capital.

3 Pep Balcárcel, “Beaten, Exiled, or Burned Alive: Mob Justice in Guatemala,” PanAm Post, June 8, 2015, http://panampost.com/pep-balcarcel/2015/06/08/beaten-exiled-or-burned-alive-mobjustice-in-guatemala/.

4 “Plan of the Alliance for Prosperity in the Northern Triangle: A Road Map,” Regional Plan Prepared by El Salvador, Guatemala, and Honduras, September 2014, http://idbdocs.iadb.org/ wsdocs/getdocument.aspx?docnum=39224238.

5 Editorial Board, “Central America’s Unresolved Migrant Crisis,” New York Times, June 16, 2015, http:// www.nytimes.com/2015/06/16/opinion/central-americas-unresolved-migrant-crisis.html?_r=1.

6 Doris Meissner, Donald Kerwin, Muzaffar Chishti, and Claire Bergeron, “Immigration Enforcement in the United States: The Rise of a Formidable Machinery,” Migration Policy Institute, January 2013, http://www.migrationpolicy.org/research/immigration-enforcementunited-states-rise-formidable-machinery.

7 Ed O’Keefe and Marlon Correa, “Guatemalan President: Central America Needs at Least $2 Billion ‘to Attack the Root of the Problem,’” Washington Post, July 25, 2014, https://www. washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2014/07/25/guatemalan-president-central-americaneeds-at-least-2-billion-to-attack-the-root-of-the-problem/.

8 United Nations Refugee Agency, “Children on the Run,” Press release, July 9, 2014, http://www. unhcrwashington.org/children/.

9 Douglas Farah and Carl Meacham, “Alternative Governance in the Northern Triangle and Implications for U.S. Foreign Policy,” Washington, DC: Center for Strategic and International Studies, September 2015, http://csis.org/files/publication/150911_Farah_ AlternativeGovernance_Web.pdf.

10 Suchit Chavez and Jessica Avalos, “The Northern Triangle: The Countries That Don’t Cry for Their Dead,” Insight Crime, April 23, 2014, http://www.insightcrime.org/news-analysis/thenorthern-triangle-the-countries-that-dont-cry-for-their-dead.

11 United Nations Office on Drugs and Crime, “Global Study on Homicide 2013,” https://www. unodc.org/documents/gsh/pdfs/2014_GLOBAL_HOMICIDE_BOOK_web.pdf.

12 Nina Lakhani, “Guatemalan President’s Downfall Marks Success for Corruption Investigators,” The Guardian, September 9, 2015, http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/09/guatemalapresident-otto-perez-molina-cicig-corruption-investigation.

13 James Bargent, “Impunity in Guatemala falls 23% in Six Years,” Insight Crime, August 23, 2013, http://www.insightcrime.org/news-briefs/impunity-in-guatemala-falls-23-in-six-years.

14 Sonia Perez and Alvaro Montenegro, “Accused Leader of Guatemala Corruption Ring Turns Himself In,” Associated Press, October 5, 2015, http://news.yahoo.com/accused-leaderguatemala-corruption-ring-turns-himself-135428384.html.

15 Washington Office on Latin America, “The International Commission against Impunity in Guatemala,” June 2015, http://www.wola.org/sites/default/files/Citizen%20Security/2015/ WOLA_CICIG_ENG_FNL_extra%20page.pdf.

16 Iván Velásquez, “Encuesta Libre: Cicig se gana confianza y aprobación de los guatemaltecos,” Prensa Libre, http://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/decision-libre-2015/cicig-se-ganaconfianza-y-aprobacion-de-los-guatemaltecos.

1

31

Geovanni Contreras, “El 95% de la población aprueba a la Cicig,” Prensa Libre, November 1, 2015, http://www.prensalibre.com/guatemala/guatemala/el-95-de-la-poblacion-aprueba-a-la-cicig.

18 U.S. Department of State, “Country Reports on Human Rights Practices for 2014,” http://www. state.gov/j/drl/rls/hrrpt/humanrightsreport/index.htm#wrapper.

19 Ibid.

20 El Salvador, “Diputados de ARENA Piden a Sánchez Cerén Crear Comisión Anticorrupción,” October 12, 2015, http://www.elsalvador.com/articulo/sucesos/diputados-arena-piden-sanchezceren-crear-comision-anticorrupcion-89959 21 El Diario, “Indignados contra la corrupción protestan cerca de la Casa Presidencial de Honduras,” September 20, 2015, http://www.eldiario.es/politica/Indignados-corrupcion-CasaPresidencial-Honduras_0_432906719.html.

17

32

The Editorial Board MICHELLE MELTON is an associate fellow with the CSIS Energy and National Security Program. She provides research and analysis on a wide range of projects associated with domestic and global energy trends with a focus on U.S. and international electricity markets, regulation, and policy and climate change policy. Prior to joining CSIS, Ms. Melton held a number of positions in the nonprofit, private, and public sectors, including with Statoil, the Government Accountability Office (GAO), and the Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce.

She was also a Peace Corps volunteer in Zambia. Ms. Melton received an M.S. in Foreign Service and an M.A. in International History from Georgetown University and a B.A. from Johns Hopkins University.

DAVID PARKER is an associate fellow with the Brzezinski Institute on Geostrategy at CSIS, where his research focuses on the infrastructure and economic geography of Eurasia and the Asia Pacific and the geostrategic implications of its evolution. He was previously a research associate with the CSIS Simon Chair in Political Economy, where his work focused on economic statecraft and strategy in the Asia Pacific and the economic policies of China, Japan, and South Korea. He is the coauthor of Navigating Choppy Waters: China’s Economic Policymaking at a Time of Transition (CSIS, April 2015). Mr. Parker received an M.A. in international economic relations from the School of International Service at American University with a concentration in international finance, a B.A. in Japan studies with a minor in economics from Tufts University, and studied at Doshisha University in Kyoto.

Contributors ANDREW CHAPMAN is a research intern with the Japan Chair at CSIS. Before coming to CSIS, he worked as a Coordinator for International Relations in Fukushima, Japan, providing language and consultation services to foreign residents. He is currently in the Master of Arts in Asian Studies (MASIA) program at Georgetown University's School of Foreign Service where he studies politics and security of Asia.

Andrew graduated from Tufts University with a Bachelor of Arts in Political Science and Government and a minor in English Literature.

HAYLEY ELSZASZ was a research intern with the Africa Program at CSIS during the summer of 2015. She is a senior at Williams College, where she studies Political Science with a minor in Global Studies and is completing a senior honors thesis on devolution in Kenya. Her research focus is on democratization and governance in Sub-Saharan Africa.

33

Contributors continued RENZO FALLA is currently a project assistant with the Latin America and Caribbean team at the National Democratic Institute for International Affairs (NDI), where he supports citizen security and democracy projects in Central America and Haiti. Previously, he interned with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) and with the Center for Public Leadership in São Paulo, Brazil. Renzo graduated from Harvard University with a BA in Government, focusing on Latin American politics, international law, and development economics. He is originally from Lima, Peru.

JAMES E. MINA is a research associate at CSIS, where he oversees the Europe Program’s portfolio covering European integration, European political economy, and transatlantic security issues. Mina first joined the CSIS Europe Program as a Research Intern in fall 2012, and returned as a member of the program staff in 2013. Since then, his primary research focus has been dedicated to analyzing Southern and Southeastern European affairs and the political and economic aftershocks of the sovereign debt crisis, as well as understanding the impact of Russian influence in Central and Eastern Europe. He recently co-authored a CSIS report, “Understanding the European Consequences of a Modern Greek Odyssey,” and has also been published in Survival. He received a M.A. in International Relations and Economics from the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies with a concentration in conflict management, and obtained a B.A. magna cum laude from the College of the Holy Cross. He has lived in Bologna, Italy for two years and achieved advanced proficiency in Italian. He has also studied Arabic, Spanish, and Latin.

CAROLINE ROHLOFF worked as a research associate with the CSIS Europe Program, where she provided research and program support on a range of issues, including strategic and economic developments in the Arctic, security and defense cooperation in northern Europe, and the evolution of NATO and transatlantic relations. Prior to her time at CSIS, she worked with the U.S. Department of State on European Union affairs. Ms. Rohloff graduated summa cum laude from Illinois Wesleyan University with a B.A. in French and international studies. She received her M.Sc. in European politics from the University of Glasgow.

34

1616 rhode island avenue nw, washington, dc 20036 202.887.0200 | www.csis.org

CONNECT WITH CSIS