January 3, 2017:
Even with the rapid growth of religion inspired violence since the 1980s the end of the Cold War in 1991 led to a sharp (by over 20 percent so far) drop in violence worldwide. That decline was not news but the increasing activity of Islamic terrorists was. While the terror attacks themselves were news the current and historical causes of the Islamic terrorism was not.
The post-Cold War trend towards less violence is stalled because of the continued unrest in Moslem nations or areas with a significant Moslem minority. This began in 2014 when over a decade of declining violence was reversed because terrorism deaths were up by about 20 percent that year and nearly as high in 2015. This was mainly because of ISIL (Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant) in Syria and Iraq and Boko Haram in Nigeria. ISIL sees itself as the new leaders of the Islamic world and employs extreme violence in pursuit of that goal. As a result one thing Saudi led Sunnis, Iran led Shia, the West and even al Qaeda can agree on is that ISIL is evil and a threat to all that must be destroyed. Meanwhile Boko Haram actually caused more deaths in 2014 than ISIL but ISIL was much better at publicizing its murderous activities. In 2015 the Islamic terrorist related deaths declined in large part because Moslem nations have finally become less tolerant of the Islamic radicalism, especially when it is practiced on them instead of non-Moslems. The decline in terrorism related deaths is welcome, because they get the most publicity. Keep in mind that most war deaths are not caused by terrorists and even in 2014 terrorism related deaths (mostly Islamic terrorism) accounted for 20 percent of all war related deaths. Islamic terrorism gets the most publicity but less glamorous disputes do most of the killing.
What gets the most media attention are the fearsome catastrophes headline writers can conjure up. All media thrives on FUD (Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt) and the scary headlines in 2017 will feature China (and the possible collapse of the economy there and the worldwide impact), South Asia (the threat of nuclear war between Pakistan and India) and East Asia (the crumbling North Korean dictator may have usable nukes in 2017 and might use them). Meanwhile the threat of Islamic terrorism activity in the West will remain a headline staple. Not many people in the West get killed by Islamic terrorists, especially compared to Moslem countries. But the Internet changed all that. By making it possible for anyone to hustle FUD video and audio round the clock at no cost and little personal risk, Islamic terrorists finally had the promotional tool they always needed but never realized was possible until suddenly, in the 1990s, there it was. The rise of 24 hour global TV news operations in the 1980s helped the Islamic terrorists but they could not control their message. With the Internet then could and soon learned how to do so for maximum impact on potential victims, donors and recruits. It was a breakthrough in the history of media, one that the more traditional media would like to see disappear. That won’t happen although the Islamic world is slowly coming to the realization (as the Christian world did five centuries ago) that all this religion based violence was not really helping Islam in any way and was generally something that should be opposed. That’s a revolutionary concept for Islam because the very term “Islam” means “submission” and Islamic scripture is full to encouragement to get non-Moslems to submit, even if you have to kill a lot of the kaffirs (slang for non-Moslems) in the process. The rapid and continuous spread of news about Islamic terrorism has also made Moslems aware that most (as in over 90 percent) of the victims have been Moslems. Such reforms have been stoutly resisted for over a thousand years but this time it is different. That sort of thing garners few headlines but if this trend continues it will change the world.
Clash Of Cash And Culture
While Islamic terrorism grabs most of the headlines, it is not the cause of many casualties, at least not compared to more traditional wars. Thus the current spike in deaths is not due so much to more Islamic terrorism but because ISIL has taken control of territory in Syria and Iraq and is waging conventional military operations to defend and expand it. Same situation in Nigeria with Boko Haram.
The vast majority of the military related violence and deaths in the world comes from many small wars, insurrections and other lethal conflicts that get little media attention outside where they take place. Some of the underreported wars are not so little but are not noticed by the mass media. While causalities from international terrorism are relatively few, the dead and wounded from all the other wars actually comprise over 80 percent of all the casualties. The Islamic terrorism looms larger because the terrorists threaten attacks everywhere and at any time, putting a much larger population potentially in harm's way, and the more numerous potential victims are unhappy with that prospect. In the West, and most Moslem nations, Islamic terrorism remains more of a threat than reality. In fact, casualties from terrorist attacks were declining before ISIL and Boko Haram gave them a momentary boost. Most of the victims are in Pakistan, Nigeria, Syria, Iraq and Afghanistan, where Islamic terrorists have been operating for decades. In all of these places, except for Afghanistan, Islamic terrorism related deaths were down in 2015 and that trend is continuing.
There are a lot of people dying from armed and organized (sort of) violence word-wide. But most of this violence involved one, or both sides operating as armed civilians. One of the bloodiest of these irregular conflicts is the one going on in Mexico, where drug gangs battle over who shall control the lucrative drug smuggling routes into the United States. Most of the killings are done by drug gang gunmen in civilian clothes. The death toll is over 85,000 since 2007. That's right up there with the wars that get a lot more media coverage (Afghanistan, Pakistan, Syria, Sudan and Somalia). That's no accident, as the Mexican drug war includes a lot of violence against the media, mainly local print and electronic outlets. The drug gangs don't want any unfavorable coverage and are willing to kill those who dare to say unkind things. This is common in many of the wars where one, or both sides are basically outlaws and able to do as they please.
Despite the growing military power of China, and the saber rattling from Russia, the major military powers continue the Great Nuclear Truce (GNT) that began in the 1950s, when Russia got nuclear weapons, and suddenly realized they could not afford to use them without risking more destruction than past foes like the Nazis, French or Mongols inflicted. As more countries got nukes, the "we can't afford to use them, but they're nice to have" attitude, and the unprecedented truce, persisted. There have been wars, but not between the big players (who have the largest and most destructive conventional forces). Thus a record was broken in 1986, as there had never before (since the modern state system developed in the 16th century) been so long a period without a war between a major powers (the kind that could afford, these days, to get nukes). Since the Cold War ended in 1991 there have been fewer wars (in the traditional sense) in general.
The down side is a lot more low level conflicts (rebellions, civil wars) but overall a lot less death and destruction. Most people are unaware of this situation, because the mass media never made a lot of the GNT, it was something that was just there and not worth reporting. Besides, "nukes (bombs, power plants, medicine) are evil" sells if you are in the news business. Calling any incident, with a lot of gunfire and a few dead bodies, a "war" has also been misleading. The fact is, worldwide violence has been declining since the end of the Cold War and the elimination of Russian subsidies and encouragement for pro-communist (or simply pro-Russia or just anti-West) rebels and terrorists. The media also has a hard time keeping score. If you step back and take a look at all the wars going on, a more accurate picture emerges. So take sensational reporting of the “Chinese threat” with a bit of skepticism.
Most current wars are basically uprisings against inefficient, corrupt and oppressive police states or feudal societies which are seen as out-of-step with the modern world. Many are led by radicals preaching failed dogmas (Islamic conservatism, Maoism and other forms of radical socialism) that still resonate among people who don't know about the dismal track records of these creeds. Iran has replaced some of the lost Soviet terrorist support effort. That keeps Hezbollah, Hamas, and a few smaller groups going, and that's it. Terrorists in general miss the Soviets, who really knew how to treat bad boys right.
Listed in alphabetical order. Text underneath briefly describes current status. Click on country name for more details.
The Taliban believed that the Afghan security forces would fall apart in 2015 because most of the foreign troops were gone and those that were left were not fighting. The expected Taliban victory did not happen but there was a lot more Taliban violence. The Afghan soldiers and police stood and fought, but took heavy casualties. Most Afghans consider the biggest threat to be the drug gangs. These gangs, largely run and staffed (like the Taliban) by Pushtun, want to create a heroin producing Islamic terrorist and gangster sanctuary in Central Asia. If you want to know how that works, look at Chechnya in the late 1990s and Somalia during the last decade. No one has come up with any cheap, fast or easy solution for that. Meanwhile, Afghanistan's core problem is that there is no Afghanistan, merely a collection of tribes more concerned about tribal issues than anything else. Ten percent of the population, mostly living in the cities and often working with the foreigners, believes in Afghanistan the country. But beyond the city limits, it's a very different Afghanistan that is currently motivated by growing prosperity brought on by a decade relative peace and the persistent “traditional” violence. By Afghan standards, an unprecedented amount of cash has come into the country since September 11, 2001. Between economic growth, the growing heroin sales, and foreign aid, plus lower losses from violence, it's been something of a Golden Age. This despite decades of war. For example, it's often forgotten that the 1990s civil war was still active on September 11, 2001. The Taliban (or, more accurately, Pushtun religious nationalists from the southwest) have been trying to make a comeback ever since. The key Taliban financial resource; heroin in Helmand and Kandahar provinces, remains the key to this war. Even many Pushtun do not like this development and more Taliban factions are negotiating some kind of settlement with the government. In other words, everything is pretty normal by Afghan standards. Afghanistan has become politically unpopular in the West and the easiest way out (for Western politicians) is to get out and let their successors deal with the aftermath. Afghanistan has become another can foreign leaders are “kicking down the road.”
The Arab Spring made only a slight impact here and Islamic terrorists are few and very much on the defensive. Islamic terrorist violence declined again in 2016 and most Algerians are more concerned with corruption and bad government. The popular rejection of Islamic terrorists was largely because many Algerians are still traumatized by the 1990s war against Islamic terrorists. With so many civilians hostile to Islamic radicalism and willing to phone in a tip via the growing cell phone network, Algeria has become a very dangerous place for Islamic terrorists. Algerian Islamic radicals tried to capitalize on the Arab Spring unrest in neighboring Tunisia and Libya. But in both those countries, the popular uprising was against the local dictators and for democracy, not for an Islamic religious dictatorship. Islamic political parties were popular, but not Islamic radicals. The uprisings in Tunisia and Libya weakened the local security forces, and made it easier for Islamic radicals to move around and recruit. Algeria was able insulate itself from this. Many expect another, and larger, Arab Spring in Algeria eventually but so far the geriatric government is making concessions and trying to reform itself. This is delaying another revolution rather than preventing it. Meanwhile Tunisia next door, the first Arab state to rebel in 2011, is so far the only one to do so successfully.
This area has become quieter over the last decade and we are no longer covering it regularly as a separate category. There will still be coverage as needed in other sections as needed. There is some Islamic terrorist activity there and the usual border disputes and crippling corruption. One ominous development is the growing number of mosques and religious schools being built and maintained by Saudi Arabia. These facilities teach a very hostile (to non-Moslems and any Moslems who do not agree) form of Islam that has been the source of so many Islamic terrorists since the 1980s. The locals are increasingly hostile to the Saudis for this and the Balkans did not become the Islamic terrorist sanctuary many feared.
This area has become quieter over the last decade and we are no longer covering it regularly. There will still be coverage as needed. Efforts to get some serious Islamic terrorist activity going has failed so far. Most of the nations involved used to be part of the Soviet Union and still have effective secret police and local dictators to encourage ruthless suppression of any dissent. People are putting up with it so far but popular anger at the corruption and inefficient government is growing.
This area has become quieter over the last decade and we are no longer covering it regularly as a separate category. Chad has even become a major supplier of peacekeepers throughout Africa, especially in Nigeria against Boko Haram. There will still be coverage as needed in other sections or in its own section if unrest reappears inside Chad.
China continues its post-Cold War policy of aggressive territorial claims and risking war with its neighbors. This has more to do with internal politics (distracting an increasingly wealthy and concerned population from local problems with corruption, pollution and ineffective government). The South China Sea has been declared, by China, to be part of China This violates international agreements on such matters but China disagrees and is becoming more aggressive enforcing these claims. Same situation in other coastal waters bordering South Korea and Japan. Old territorial claims on India have been revived, but are not pursued as aggressively because India has modern nukes, ballistic missiles to deliver them and a large military. While the government tries to shift attention to external problems the government is trying to introduce reforms and reduce corruption. But so far it’s not enough and the Chinese people are proving difficult to control now that they have more education, better economic prospects and access to the Internet. Meanwhile China continues its long-range plan to become a military superpower. That means world class weapons designed and built in China require long-term efforts but the Chinese believe they will get there during the 2020s and 2030s. Every year China offers new weapons to the world market that are visibly more advanced. The actual performance of Chinese military technology is suspect as much of it is based on Russian stuff. During the Cold War Russian weapons always seemed to be what the losers used. But China keeps trying to improve and is making more progress than the Soviets ever did. The world is seeing more Chinese in peacekeeping missions as well as growing Chinese threats to peace. The bottom line however is keeping the communist dictatorship in power and that may be the ultimate reason for China avoiding war.
The crises has shifted to neighboring Venezuela because Colombia has largely won its war against decades of leftist rebellion. Peace talks with the major leftist rebel group FARC are finally done, the peace deal signed and now the implementation is underway. The second largest leftist rebel group (ELN, a third the size of FARC) now wants to talk peace as well. All these leftist rebels got going in the 1960s but by the 1990s were rapidly losing popular support. It got worse after 2000 because by then the drug gangs and leftist rebels had merged in many parts of the country, and the war was increasingly about money, not ideology. A new reform government took advantage of this and organized an offensive that sharply reduced crime and gave the economy a chance to become the most successful in South America. Next door in Venezuela the situation was quite the opposite. After a decade of corruption and inept government most Venezuelans were done with ideas of radical populist president Hugo Chavez. This former soldier got elected in 1999 and died in March 2013. Along the way Chavez trashed the Venezuelan economy and democracy. His handpicked replacement was even worse. The old Chavez dream of Venezuela becoming a socialist dictatorship supported by oil revenue eventually faded along with cash reserves and the national credit rating. While Venezuela is now looking forward to reconstruction (rather than civil war) under a non-socialist government the leftists still in the government are desperately trying to hang on, even at the risk of civil war.
The UN and local church leaders seem to have persuaded the current president to give up his efforts to turn the country into another one party dictatorship based on corruption and exploiting ethnic divisions. Even if this New Year’s Eve deal actually works Congo will still have all the corruption and exploitable ethnic divisions to deal with. Solutions have been sought since the 1960s and in 2013 the UN tried something novel, for the UN. To deal with all domestic and foreign rebel groups the UN finally authorized a special “combat brigade” of peacemakers. This brigade was given a license to kill, and kill as often as needed to eliminate the last few rogue militias operating in the east. This solved many of the peacekeeping problems out there. Despite that multiple tribal and political militias, plus an increasing number of bandits, continue to roam the eastern border area, perpetuating the bloodiest (and least reported) war of the 21st century (about six million dead). There is similar, but less intense unrest in other parts of the country (especially the separatist minded southwest). The Congolese government finds it cannot (and to a certain extent, will not) cope with the continuing corruption and lack of order in the east and southwest. The reason is money, the millions of dollars available each year to whoever has gunmen controlling the mines that extract valuable ores and allow the stuff out of the country. The inept and corrupt government is part of the problem as the current (now outgoing) president was, since 2015, preoccupied with his failed effort to change the constitution so he could legally become president-for-life via endless rigged elections. The population is not eager for more violence, not after endless mayhem since the mid-1990s. Congo remains mired in deadly chaos while much of the rest of the world gets organized and achieves a much better standard of living. Elsewhere in Central Africa the Burundi civil war threatens to reignite because the current president is trying to defy the constitution and become president-for-life. In the Central African Republic years of chaos (following the overthrow of a corrupt and incompetent dictator) has evolved into another Moslem versus Christian (and non-Moslems in general) conflict.
This area has become quieter over the last decade and we are no longer covering it regularly as a separate category. There will still be coverage as needed in other sections, mainly Somalia. In 2016 there was more political unrest in Ethiopia which led to the withdrawal of some Ethiopian peacekeepers from Somalia.
India is largely at peace and prospering while neighboring Pakistan continues struggling with the Islamic terrorist groups it created and supported for so long. Islamic terrorist violence inside Pakistan was way down in 2015, but that came at a cost. In 2014 a recently elected Pakistani civilian government (and public opinion) finally got the Pakistani military to go after the terrorist sanctuary of North Waziristan. The military was pressured to do this in part by the increasingly Islamic terrorist violence inside Pakistan often by Islamic terrorists based in North Waziristan. This offensive succeeded in killing over 3,500 Islamic terrorists (at a loss of about 500 soldiers) so far and sent many more Islamic terrorists running for sanctuary in eastern Afghanistan and other parts of Pakistan (especially elsewhere in the tribal territories as well as the city of Karachi). It was no surprise that the army did not move to destroy Islamic terror groups that only attacked foreign nations (like Afghanistan and India). This has contributed to growing hostility towards the military within Pakistan and growing international criticism. This backlash began in 2011 when a U.S. raid into Pakistan killed Osama bin Laden. This angered many Pakistanis because it showed that the generals had lied about their involvement with sheltering bin Laden. That raid also made it clear that the military was unable to detect or stop the "invading Americans", or stop local Islamic radicals from later carrying out "revenge attacks" that left hundreds of Pakistani civilians dead. This led to a continuing series of confrontations between the Pakistani military and the civilian government and growing hostility towards the economic and political power of the military. In response the generals created more confrontations with India and in 2016 declared that Islamic terrorism was no longer the major threat to Pakistan (as the military agreed it was since 2013) and that the threat was once again India. This merely increased Indian (and American and Afghan) anger at Pakistani support of Islamic terrorism. Meanwhile India further diminished the Pakistani military by continuing to consider China the main security threat to South Asia. India has to deal with some internal unrest, which does far less damage than what Pakistan has to deal with. In fact Islamic terrorist violence (mainly in Indian Kashmir) is less of a problem than tribal rebels in the northeast and Maoist (communist) ones in eastern India. Both these threats are being slowly diminished while Pakistan continues to make unofficial war on its neighbors. Another problem is that the Pakistani economy is becoming more dependent on Chinese investment, diplomatic support and arms exports. The Pakistani pro-Islamic terrorist attitudes have left it with few allies besides China, Iran and North Korea. Pakistan needs help, but mostly from Pakistanis as the ills that torment Pakistan can only be resolved from within.
This area has become quieter over the last decade and we are no longer covering it regularly. There will still be coverage as needed, mostly about counter-terrorism efforts (quite successful so far). Islamic radicals remain active and the government apparently does not want to provoke them.
The religious dictatorship running the country sees itself as on the way to some major victories in Syria, Iraq, Lebanon and Yemen. In July 2015 Iran got a treaty that would lift the many sanctions it operated under. That won’t solve the current cash crises because Saudi Arabia triggered a massive (more than 70 percent) drop of the price of oil in 2013. That, plus all the new economic sanctions in 2012 resulted in more inflation and unemployment. Iran is busy trying to comply with the 2015 treaty to get most of the sanctions lifted and so far that is working. Even then international economists believe it will be several more years before the Iranian economy gets moving again. Still unresolved are the other problem that bothers Iranians; an Islamic conservative minority with veto power over any attempts at reform from within. Independent reformers are considered enemies of the state by the ruling clerics. Most Iranians just want a better life. There are some more complications. Half the population consists of ethnic minorities (mainly Turks, Kurds and Arabs), and some of these groups (Arabs, Kurds and Baluchis) are getting more restive and violent (for different reasons). Meanwhile, the Islamic conservatives are determined to support terrorism overseas and build nuclear weapons at home, rather than concentrating on improving the economy and living standards. Expensive efforts to aid pro-Iran groups in Syria, Yemen, Iraq and Lebanon have worked but have to be presented as examples of the ancient Iranian empire being reborn. The government sees these foreign adventures as a way to distract an unhappy population. The nukes are still important because Iran has been increasingly vocal about how Iran should be the leader of the Islamic world and the guardian of the major Islamic shrines (Mecca and Medina) in Saudi Arabia. Iranians believe that having nukes would motivate the Arabs to bow down. The Arabs have been kicked around by the Iranians for thousands of years and take this latest threat very seriously.
As 2016 ended security forces continued to push back the ISIL (al Qaeda in Iraq and the Levant) offensive that began in early 2014 and was halted a year later. Now Mosul is under attack and about to fall. ISIL is something of a passing problem while the major woe remains the widespread corruption and mismanagement the government created or tolerated after elections put the Shia majority in power a decade ago. The root cause of the continuing terrorist violence is diehard Sunni Arabs who refuse to accept democracy and Shia domination. Another problem is growing terrorist support from Sunni Arabs elsewhere in the region who fear growing Iranian efforts to spread Shia Islam via Iraq. After 2003 Shia politicians found it convenient to exploit the intense hatred the majority (60 percent of Iraqis are Shia and 20 percent Kurd) feel for the Sunni Arab minority. Iraqi Sunni terrorists got a big boost from the 2011 uprising in Syria, which was led by the Sunni Arab majority there (against the ruling Shia Arab minority). Iraqi Sunni Arabs enthusiastically aided the Syrian rebels and eventually formed a faction (ISIL) dominated by Iraqi Sunnis. ISIL was more ruthless and appealed to hard core Islamic terrorists, especially foreigners and because of that that grew to be major threat in both Syria and Iraq. The Iraqi government was officially neutral (but actually doing much of what Iran asked to support the Syrian government). Meanwhile there were growing tensions between the Kurds in the north (over northern oil fields) and the Arab majority. That was put aside (temporarily) after Mosul fell to the ISIL and the Kurds moved in and grabbed nearby Kirkuk (and its oil fields). The Kurds have since shown themselves the most competent and reliable military force in Iraq. By the end of 2016 the Kurds were advancing on Mosul with the support of their main backer (the United States) along with a coalition of NATO and Arab countries who provide air support. The Kurds were better prepared for war and the oil money is very important to preserving their autonomy. Less corrupt than the Arabs, the Kurds are the one group in Iraq the West can depend on. Moreover the Kurds don't trust the Arabs. To make matters worse for the Iraqi government, Turkey backs, or at least tolerates, the Kurds. The Turks don’t trust the Arabs either. Considering the current situation in Iraq, most Iraqis don’t trust Iraq either. Despite all that there is enough unity to push back ISIL.
Despite being the most prosperous, productive and democratic nation in the region, the Moslem world and many non-Moslem nations remain dedicated to destroying Israel. For example in late 2015 Fatah (the Palestinian group that rules the West Bank) got another terror campaign against Israel going by convincing many Palestinians that Israel was threatening to seize the “Dome of the Rock” in Jerusalem. This was a complete fabrication but Fatah was able to convince hundreds of Palestinians to make suicidal attacks on Israelis using rocks, kitchen knives or vehicles. So far fewer than 40 Israelis and foreigners have been killed, but so have about six times as many Palestinians. Fatah declares this a success but recent opinion polls indicate most Palestinians would not vote Fatah back into power again. There are unlikely to be any elections because Fatah and Hamas (the more radical group that controls Gaza) cannot agree and are spending more effort attacking each other than in going after Israelis. Hamas is losing popular support in Gaza where its 1.6 million Palestinian subjects are angry at not being able to vote Hamas out of power and being forced to submit to more and more Islamic lifestyle rules. Neither Palestinian faction is interested in real peace talks with Israel. That's because Palestinian leaders continue to preach endless war against Israel and destruction of the Jewish state. Any peace deal is seen as a stepping stone towards that ultimate goal. Some Palestinians keep trying to make any kind of peace, in order to reverse the economic disaster they brought on themselves as a result of their old (begun in 2000) terror campaign against Israel. Polls show that Palestinians are tired of terrorism even though they still support it in order to destroy Israel, which remains an article of faith among Palestinians. Meanwhile Egypt has undergone another revolution with a military coup ousting the elected Islamic Brotherhood government and elections in early 2014 putting another general in power. The Islamic Brotherhood managed to make itself very unpopular in only a few months by breaking campaign promises and moving to turn Egypt into a religious dictatorship. Despite the 2013 coup Islamic terrorists remain active and the Moslem Brotherhood threatens to join them. The Moslem Brotherhood was outlawed by the end of 2013 and Egypt continues to have a hard time returning to normal, much less reforming the government and economy. Most of the terrorist violence in Egypt is coming from groups based in Sinai and Gaza. For that reason Egypt has isolated Gaza even more and sent thousands of additional soldiers and police into northern Sinai. While the Arabs have endless problems the Israeli economy prospers partly because of a very effective counter-terrorism campaign. This annoys Arabs most of all but also led to a growing number of Arab countries increasing their unofficial ties with Israel to better deal with Islamic terrorism. Since 2015 a growing number of Arab nations admitted such relationships existed and have even allowed Israel to establish official trade offices in Abu Dhabi. Much of this has to do with cooperating against mutual enemy Iran, but there is also a growing consensus that Israel is not going away and much effort is being wasted in trying to make that happen. Iran will always be an enemy of the Arabs and, after all, Arabs and Israelites are all Semites. This has also resulted in Turkey seeking to restore diplomatic and other relations with Israel.
North Korea insists on keeping its nuclear weapons program and China has lost patience with its unruly neighbor. This may prove decisive in eliminating the North Korean threat. In early 2016 China did the unthinkable and began enforcing the many trade sanctions North Korea is under. This caused an economic crisis in North Korea but so far the North Korean leadership has not changed its mind about its nukes and openly boasts that they will have combat ready (reliable ballistic missiles and warheads) nukes in 2017. That is unlikely given the North Korean track record. Then again the North Koreans continue to make progress, which pleases the mass media worldwide and continues to annoy the neighbors.
This area had become quieter after 2003 and we no longer cover it regularly as a separate category. There will still be coverage as needed in other sections like Iraq, Israel and Syria. The 2011 Arab Spring movement changed all that and the Kurds are once more at war with Turkey, Syria and Iran.
The past has caught up with Libya and the “country” is still torn apart by the aftereffects of the 2011 uprising. In 2015 that violence went from a two way (Islamic radical groups versus more moderate ones) to three way (with the addition of the ultra-radical ISIL). By the end of 2015 the UN had gotten the two (Tripoli and Tobruk) major coalitions to agree to a merger that was supposed to take place in early 2016. That merger has been delayed by continuing factional infighting and the more pressing need to shut down the growing ISIL presence. That was accomplished in late 2016 but the rival Tripoli (UN approved) and Tobruk (popular in eastern Libya) governments are still trying to work out how to create a unified government. Through all this oil exports have shrunk and the Central Bank cash reserves are shrinking to nothing. If peace and unity are not achieved soon the government will no longer be able to import food and other essentials. Even by Middle Eastern standards Libya is setting a new records in self-destructive behavior. At the end of 2016 more Libyans were agreeing that the situation was indeed becoming desperate and more compromise was the only solution.
A final peace deal with the rebellious Tuareg in the north was signed in early 2015 and is holding into 2017. Despite that Islamic terrorism is spreading to the more populous south but not to the extent that it threatens government control. The Tuareg peace deal was stalled for over a year because the black majority in the south did not want to grant as much autonomy as the Tuaregs demanded. The two groups have always been at odds but were only united in the same country by the colonial French in the 19th century. Like most African countries, dividing the nation is not an acceptable option and the colonial borders are considered sacrosanct. The current mess began when France took swift action in January 2013 and led a military operation to clear Islamic terrorists out of northern Mali. Aided by Chad and a growing number of other African peacekeeping contingents, this operation is expected to continue for years. The French acted because in 2012 Tuareg tribal rebels (with the help of al Qaeda affiliated Islamic terrorists) in northern Mali chased out government forces and declared a separate Tuareg state. The Mali army mutinied (because of lack of support from the corrupt government) down south and took control of the capital. The army soon backed off when neighboring nations threatened to intervene. T
he thinly populated northern two-thirds of the country has a population of less than two million, out of 15 million for all of Mali. The north was very poor in the best of times, and over a year of violence there has halted tourism (a major source of income, especially in the three major cities up there) and the movement of many goods. Mali still has internal problems (mainly corruption) and continued unrest in the north. A lot depends on whether the majority in the south can reduce corruption and deal fairly with the Tuaregs and other minorities (like Arabs) in the north. The elected Mali government is back in power but appears to be as corrupt as ever and under growing pressure from donor nations to either clean up the corruption or see most of the aid disappear.
Government efforts to reduce drug cartel violence and crime has been much more successful than doing what the public wants the most; reducing corruption. After 2012 a newly elected government quietly backtracked on its promises to halt the war on drug gangs. This change of attitude occurred when it because obvious that there was a real need for this “war”. This could be seen out in the countryside where growing drug gang violence led to the formation of many armed militias, who confronted the local cartel gunmen and told them to either fight or leave. Noting the success of the militias the government eventually made them legitimate rather than treat them as outlaws. On the downside the success of these militias also brought unwelcome (for the government) attention to the corruption of government and police out in the countryside. The militias were as much a protest against corruption as they were against drug cartel activity. Moreover the extent of the militia movement also made it clear how the cartel violence was not a nationwide threat while corruption was. Nearly all the cartel violence (which accounts for three percent of all crime) occurs in under five percent of the 2,500 municipalities. But the often spectacular Cartel War violence gets the headlines, making it appear that the entire country is aflame. Because so much of the violence is on the U.S. border it seems to Americans that Mexico is a war zone. The end of one-party rule in 2000, the subsequent growth of drug gangs and increasing corruption in the security forces has triggered unprecedented levels of violence and unrest in the areas involved. The non-PRI government eventually went to war with the drug gangs, and the outcome is still in doubt. The PRI (the party that controlled the government for most of the 20th century until finally eased out by reformers in 2000) got back in power in 2012 and promised changes, but has found that determination is more needed than change. PRI also discovered that corruption (much of it perfected over 70 years when PRI controlled power) was THE big issue for all Mexicans. The cartel violence was a minority concern. Worse the 2012 PRI government was soon being accused of bringing back the old PRI corruption. Now there is fear that the decades old PRI support for corruption is back in play. PRI has had to pay more attention to popular demands for less corruption and that will not be easy because the corruption is deeply entrenched and widespread.
The expected big changes because of the return of democracy in 2010 are slow to appear. The first nationwide elections since 1990 (when the generals refused to accept the results and banned any more voting) were held in late 2015. The anti-military coalition won enough votes to change the constitution and the military said it would accept the vote. Despite the return to democracy the most corrupt institution in Burma is still the military and that can be seen in how the 2010 constitution that returned democracy explicitly granted military leaders (including all the retired officers) immunity from prosecution for past crimes. The military was also given control of the defense ministry and a fixed number (25 percent) of seats in parliament. In effect, the military leaders who once ran the country are still in charge of the defense budget and immune from prosecution for all the crimes they committed in the past. The 2015 elections meant that real reform, like changing this pro-military constitution, was now a possibility. Even before the late 2015 elections reforms were slowly being made despite the fact that the 2010 elections replaced the military dictatorship with many of the same people, out of uniform and trying to hide the fact that they rigged the vote. And then there are the continuing rebellions of the rural tribes along the borders, especially in the north. Since 2015 China has been threatening to intervene if Chinese investments in the tribal north were not protected and allowed to resume operating. In response Burma began depending more on India to help with security in the north and some protection from Chinese threats. Temporary peace deals were made but the tribal rebels are still producing major quantities of methamphetamine, and increasing amounts of heroin, to support continued fighting. China is not happy with many of these drugs (particularly heroin and meth) coming into China. That is difficult to change because the tribes are poor and the drug money is very attractive. China is also concerned with the popular opposition to major Chinese economic projects (dams and pipeline) in the north but the fundamentals remain the same. The government has also done little to suppress a 2013 outbreak in anti-Moslem violence. Overall, economic and political progress is slow but there has been regular progress despite the continued problems with the military.
In 2016 the outbreak of Islamic terrorism in the north was largely extinguished, but not before several years of fighting had destroyed the economies of northeastern Nigeria. All this was caused by group of Taliban wannabes (Boko Haram) in the north whose activity grew rapidly in 2014. It took over a year for the government to finally mustered sufficient military strength in to cripple but not destroy the Boko Haram threat. This did not get much media attention outside Africa, even though in 2014 Boko Haram killed more people than ISIL in Syria and Iraq. The main cause of Boko Haram gains in 2014 and 2015 was corruption in the army, which severely crippled army effectiveness. By itself Boko Haram was too small to have much impact on a national scale but the inability to deal with this problem puts a spotlight on the corruption that has hobbled all progress in Nigeria for decades. A new president (a former general who is Moslem) was elected in early 2015 and is trying to change the corrupt army culture but it is slow going. More bad news is expected because of too many tribal divisions, not enough oil money and too much corruption create growing unrest throughout the country. This is especially bad down south in the oil producing region (the Niger River Delta). There a 2009 amnesty deal that reduced violence against oil facilities has fallen apart and in early 2016 the violence returned local politicians and business leaders had taken over the oil theft business from the disarmed tribal rebels, and the former rebels wanted that business back. Meanwhile, the northern Moslems want more control over the federal government (and the oil money). The situation is still capable of sliding into regional civil wars, over money and political power. Corruption and ethnic/tribal/religious rivalries threaten to trigger, at worse, another civil war and, at least, more street violence and public anger.
POTENTIAL HOT SPOTS
Various places where the local situation is warming up and might turn into a war.
While decades of effort have finally reduced the internal threat of leftist and ethnic rebellions, most Filipinos are more concerned about endemic corruption and the resulting economic stagnation. There is also the Chinese threat, with more Chinese warships showing up in what had been, until recently, unquestionably Filipino coastal waters. Most Filipinos see China as a threat but not as large as the internal problems with corruption, Islamic terrorism and unemployment. A new president (Rodrigo Duterte) took power in mid-2016 pledging to do what most Filipinos wanted, not what the politicians wanted. Duterte had been doing this locally (as mayor of a major city) since the 1990s and was ready to try and make it happen nationally. This has led to condoning vigilante tactics by the police to suppress the drug gangs as well as an unexpected adoption of an anti-American foreign policy and a willingness to make deals with China. This weakened the coalition with Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, Vietnam and the United States to oppose the Chinese threat. Duterte told the Americans he would not risk war with China over it. Duterte told the Islamic minority in the south (led by MILF) that he would get behind the 2015 peace deal (that gave it more autonomy but not its own country and the expulsion of non-Moslems) and help get it approved by the legislature if MILF helped destroy Abu Sayyaf (the ultra-radical Islamic terrorist group in the south that is responsible for most of the kidnappings and terror bombings down there). Abu Sayyaf has integrated itself with the clan culture down there and become very difficult to eliminate. The Moslems have, as always, lots of clan feuds and internal violence which will survive the autonomy deal with the government. Duterte may not be the solution to the many problems the country faces but he is the most radical, and promising, one to come along in decades.
Since 2014 Russia has been making a lot of headlines but not much else. The economy is a mess, it has fewer allies and the future looks dim. Invading Ukraine and Syria has not helped solve any of the fundamental problems but have made for great propaganda. What went wrong? Russia entered the 21st century with a new elected government dominated by former secret police (KGB) officers who promised to restore economic and civil order. They did so but in the process are turning Russia into a police state with less political and economic freedom. A growing number of Russians opposed this and the government responded by appealing to nationalism. Russia has returned to police state ways and the traditional threatening attitude towards neighbors. Rather than being run by corrupt communist bureaucrats, the country is now dominated by corrupt businessmen, gangsters and self-serving government officials. The semi-free economy is more productive than the centrally controlled communist one but that just provides more money to steal. A rebellion against the new dictatorship has been derailed by astute propaganda depicting Russia as under siege by the West. Yet opinion polls that show wide popular support for this paranoid fantasy has left enough Russians with democratic impulses to continue leading the struggle for better government and needed reforms. For now most Russians want economic and personal security and are willing to tolerate a police state to get it. That atmosphere, plus the anxiety generated by having troops fighting in Syria and Ukraine has scared away a lot of foreign investors and many Russian ones as well. Russia can downplay this in the state controlled media but without all that foreign and Russian capital the economy cannot grow. Meanwhile China, the only real threat to Russia, quietly makes progress in the east. There China has claims on much of the Russian Far East and is openly replacing Russia as the primary economic, military and political force in Central Asia.
RWANDA & BURUNDI
This area has become quieter over the last decade and we are no longer covering it regularly as a separate category. There will still be coverage as needed in the
section when there are details of the new civil wars brewing here.
Al Shabaab, a local Islamic radical group, has been crushed but not completely destroyed. Now the main threat is the corruption and factionalism that have always defined and defiled Somali culture. Since 2013 Al Shabaab has been driven out of most of the territory it controlled for years but remnants remained in thinly populated areas of central Somalia, the far north (Puntland border) and far south (Kenyan border). The defeated al Shabaab has split into factions and most of the international (pro-al Qaeda) group has seized control of what was left. Al Shabaab remnants will linger for a while. An elected Somali government, propped up by foreign aid (most of which gets stolen) has been around since 2012. Despite that Somalia is still a failed state that defies every attempt at nation building. The situation is worse than it appears because Somalia was never a country, but a collection of clans and tribes that fight each other constantly over economic issues (land and water). The country remains an economic and political mess, a black hole on the map. Not much hope in sight. The pirates became a major problem after 2006 and in response the major trading nations launched a counter-piracy effort which since 2012 reduced pirate success (captured ships) considerably. In fact, no large ships have been captured in since early 2012. The northern statelet of Puntland was persuaded (and subsidized) by wealthy seafaring nations to attack the pirate bases. There are not many pirate groups left because of the lack of multi-million dollar ransoms. In the far south (where the second major port, Kismayo is) a third statelet (after Puntland and Somaliland in the north) is trying to form as Jubaland. The UN backed government in the center is trying to prevent this but the problem remains the independent minded clans. There is not a lot of enthusiasm among local leaders for a national government.
An unofficial state of war developed after the south became an independent "South Sudan" in 2011. Although Sudan officially accepted the results of the vote that created South Sudan the battles over disputed border areas continued. Sudan quietly sent troops and pro-government militias to seize disputed border areas. That fighting continues and has been complicated by a 2014 outbreak of civil war between the two major tribal factions in South Sudan. That conflict apparently ended in early 2016 but the tribal rivalries continue tearing South Sudan apart and the unrest and distrust continues. Moslems in Sudan tried for decades to suppress separatist tendencies among Christians in the south while also dealing with Moslem rebels along the eastern coast and western (non-Arab Darfur) deserts. The oil money in South Sudan is a major cause of the current civil strife there and continuing conflict with Sudan and within South Sudan. Meanwhile, battles over land in western Sudan (Darfur) continue to pit Arab herders against black Sudanese farmers. Both sides are Moslem, but the government has long backed the Arabs. The government uses Arab nationalism and economic ties with Russia and China to defy the world and get away with driving non-Arab tribes from Darfur. Sudan was also an ally of Iran and recipient of Iranian weapons for a while. That aid included useful advice on how to best terrorize a population into submission. The government believes time is on its side and that the West will never try anything bold and effective to halt the violence. So far, the government has been proven right, but keeps losing control of Sudan, bit by bit. South Sudan is falling into the same cycle of internal disorder and fragmentation.
The massive violence has been going on since 2011 has also morphed into a proxy war between Iran and the Sunni Arab states (and their Western allies). As of the end of 2016 the Shia (Iran and ally Russia) are winning. In late 2015 Russia sent warplanes, ground troops and lots more military aid in an effort to save the Syrian government, a longtime ally, from destruction. Russia claimed this was an effort to destroy ISIL, not save the Syrian government. That fantasy worked with some rebel groups, who are now cooperating with the government and Russians against ISIL. Because of this, plus ISIL going to war with other rebels as well as the government since late 2014, the rebels have losing and by late 2016 had lost much of the territory they had gained since 2011. The pro-Iran Assad clan is now the likely winner even though they are still hated by most Syrians and most Arabs who see the Assads as traitors for supporting Iran and Iranian efforts to replace Arabs as guardians of the most holy places of Mecca and Medina and leader of the Moslem world. The West never wanted the expense and bother of doing another Libya (air support and special operations troops on the ground) to oust the Assads but was willing to be part of a mainly Arab coalition providing air support for anyone willing fight ISIL in Syria and Iraq and help prevent an Iranian/Assad victory. Syria was one of the many Arab Spring uprisings, but one that did not end quickly (as in Tunisia and Egypt) or evolve into a relatively low-level civil war (as in Libya and Yemen) or get suppressed (Saudi Arabia, Bahrain). The Syrian protests just continued and turned into armed rebellion by late 2011. Syria is, like Iraq under Saddam, a Baath Party dictatorship. But there are two differences. Unlike Iraq, where a Sunni minority dominated a Shia majority, it's just the opposite in Syria. More importantly, Syria has little oil wealth and the government has long depended on subsidies from Shia Iran (and before that communist Soviet Russia) to survive. Despite growing international criticism (even from the Arab League) the Assads refused to stop using violence and other police state tactics to suppress the pro-democracy activity. Since 2011 the violence has left over 300,000 people dead and most died since 2014. The killing diminished a bit in 2015 because of sheer exhaustion and picked up again in 2016 because of the Russian air (and other) support. The growing strength of the rebels had already been crippled by disputes between the many rebel factions. The Islamic radicals (mainly al Qaeda and ISIL) wanted to turn Syria into a religious dictatorship while most Syrians just wanted peace and some prosperity. The stubborn Assad dictatorship, because of reinforcements supplied by Iran (mainly in the form of over 20,000 Shia mercenaries from Hezbollah in Lebanon and Shia volunteers from all over) and Russia now has a chance to win, something some Western nations see as preferable to Islamic terrorists taking over and requiring a Western invasion to remove such a threat. Russia and Iran are quite pleased with the way they have played the situation, especially the 2014 deal to remove Syrian chemical weapons (which the Syrians can rebuild later). The only rebels getting air support are the Syrian Kurds because, like their Iraqi kinsmen, they can be trusted. Western warplanes are over Syria since late 2014, but they are bombing Islamic terrorist rebels, not Assad forces. In August 2016 Turkish ground forces entered northern Syria to seal the border (to ISIL and Turkish separatist PKK Kurds). The Turks were basically helping the Assads and hurting ISIL and all that made an Assad victory more likely.
Islamic terrorism in the south and continuing struggles between democrats and royalists nationwide continue to hamper economic growth and much else. The years of civil disorder in the capital triggered yet another military coup in 2014 and the aftereffects of that are still being felt. The 2014 coup ended the low level civil war over military control of the government. The anti-democracy minority (royalists and many educated urbanites) had used large demonstrations and persuasive appeals to the military to stage another coup. The new military government now keeps delaying new elections because opinion polls indicate military rule is unpopular with most Thais and, as in the past, there will be reprisals against the military once elections are held. Meanwhile Malay Moslems in the south (three percent of the population) continue to cause problems. Since 2013 the government has had someone down there to negotiate with and these talks were soon stalled and remain so. Most Thais are ethnic Thais and Buddhist while the southerners are Moslem and ethnic Malays. In the south Islamic radicalism arrived after 2001 along with an armed effort to create a separate Islamic state in the three southern provinces. Islamic terrorists grew more powerful month by month for several years and refused to negotiate. Security forces persisted and are making progress in identifying and rounding up the terrorists. But there is no quick victory in sight. Even the death of the beloved Thai king in October did not change anything and his much younger successor will be a work-in-progress for a while..
This area has become quieter over the last decade and we are no longer covering it regularly as a separate category. There will still be coverage as needed in other sections (mostly Congo and Somalia) because of Ugandan participation in a growing number of peacekeeping operations in Africa.
Nor much progress here, which favors Iran. In 2015 Yemen unrest became a full civil war when Shia rebels sought to take control of the entire country. Neighboring Arab states quickly formed a military coalition to halt that. The Arab coalition appears to be succeeding because by 2016 pro-government forces were close enough to launch a major assault on the rebel-held capital. As the fighting intensified in early 2015 Iran admitted it had been quietly supporting the Shia rebels for a long time but now was doing so openly, or at least trying. The Arabs, with U.S. support, blockaded air and sea access to Yemen. The U.S. refused to send in ground troops but the Arabs eventually did. The Arab troops made a big difference despite suffering some embarrassing defeats along the way. This was an impressive display of Arab military capabilities, which benefitted from all the money spent on high-tech weapons since the 1990s. Meanwhile the basic problem, that Yemen has been a mess for decades, is unresolved. Because of the 2015 war Yemen is truly broke, disorganized and desperate. The Arab Spring hit Yemen hard and upset the "arrangement" that left one group of tribal, criminal and business leaders in charge for over three decades. The country is fragmented again, just like it has always been. Many Yemenis trace the current crisis back to the civil war that ended, sort of, in 1994. That war was caused by the fact that, when the British left Yemen in 1967, their former colony in Aden became one of two countries called Yemen. The two Yemens finally united in 1990 but another civil war in 1994 was needed to seal the deal. That fix didn't really take and the north and south have always been pulling apart ever since. This comes back to the fact that Yemen has always been a region, not a country. Like most of the rest of the Persian Gulf and Horn of Africa region, the normal form of government until the 20th century was wealthier coastal city states nervously coexisting with interior tribes that got by on herding or farming (or a little of both) plus smuggling and other illicit sidelines. This whole "nation" idea is still looked on with some suspicion by many in the region. This is why the most common forms of government are the more familiar ones of antiquity (kingdom, emirate or modern variation in the form of a hereditary dictatorship.) For a long time the most active Yemeni rebels were the Shia Islamic militants in the north. They have always wanted to restore local Shia rule in the traditional tribal territories, led by the local imam (religious leader). This arrangement, after surviving more than a thousand years, was ended by the central government in 1962. Yemen also became the new headquarters of AQAP (Al Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula) when Saudi Arabia was no longer safe for the terrorists after 2007. Now there is ISIL and an invading army composed of troops from oil-rich neighbors.