The post-9/11 era popularized the phrases “weak states,” “failing states” and “failed states.”  Those were places where terrorist organizations evolved and eventually took over the country.  Somalia emerged as the archetype (if that is the right adjective) failed state.  Even if the world wanted to forget Somalia, it could not, when that country became a stronghold for pirates.  While children in Manhattan, New York, Dubai, or Copenhagen aspire to become successful business executives when they grow up, children in Mogadishu dream of becoming pirates.  Somalia hit the world news when, on November 18, 2008, pirates hijacked the Saudi-owned supertanker, The Sirius Star.  The Saudi government promptly equated piracy with terrorism.

Somalia deteriorated into its present state, thanks to the decision of the Bush administration in 2006 to back the invasion of that country by the Ethiopian forces.  At that time, it had a “relatively diverse Islamic movement that had briefly gained control of the Capital, Mogadishu.”  The U.S. panicked and prompted the Ethiopian troops to install a government headed by a warlord “who allowed the United States to launch counterterrorism operation in the moderate Muslim nation.”  Today, Somalia’s most potent insurgency is as-Shahab (Youth).  That movement is expected to take over control when Ethiopian occupiers leave that country.  Citizens of that unhappy land have a simple but fateful choice today:  join the Islamists or flee.  Since not everyone who wishes to flee can, Somalia may become the cesspool of Africa’s eventual drowning into the vortex of chaos stemming from terrorism.

ITCHING FOR A FIGHT?

The spillover effect of the Mumbai terror attacks of last November may lead to military skirmishes between India and Pakistan.  India and the U.S. want Pakistan to dismantle its terrorist infrastructure.  The crux of the conflict is whether Pakistan can really do that.  India’s interpretation is that it can but will not. 

Pakistan’s position is that it is also a victim of the same scourge and is facing an uphill battle inside its own territory.  In fact, the recent evidence points towards the involvement of Jaish-e-Mohammad in the Marriot bombing of September 2008 in Pakistan. 

That terrorist group, which has strong affiliations with al-Qaida, is also high on India’s list.  Its members were involved in attacking India’s parliament in 2001.

There are several factors still poisoning the atmosphere between the traditional enemies.  Pakistan wants to resolve the Kashmir conflict, while India deems it settled.  The chief and only interest of the United States is that Pakistan totally obliterates the terror network.  That position is also strengthening India’s position vis-à-vis Pakistan.  However, both the U.S. and India know that they cannot push the current Pakistani government too far.  The alternative to that government is almost a tsunami of instability, which neither Washington nor New Delhi desires.  But there is a war lobby inside India—the Hindu fundos (extremists)—that is itching for a fight with Pakistan, for it knows that Pakistan is at the weakest point of its entire existence. 

India’s finest Prime Minister in its entire history, Dr. Manmohan Singh, has once again emerged as the sage that he really is when he observed: “The issue is not war, the issue is terror and territory in Pakistan being used to promote, aid and abet this terror. Nobody wants war.”  Even though the fundos disagree with the Indian Prime Minister, they will have to wait for that fight another day.

WHEN “REGIME CHANGE” APPEARS AN ATTRACTIVE OPTION

Robert Mugabe, the curse of Zimbabwe, refuses to fade away.  His propaganda minister, 

Sikhanyiso Ndlovu, recently bragged that his county won against the anti-Mugabe diplomatic campaign of America.  He went on to mutter that the United States was firing “blanks” toward his country while his country was firing “real shots against imperialism.” 

Thinking of how to bring an end to the ongoing misery of Zimbabwe, one wonders whether “regime change” can become a legitimate concept if applied under the auspices of the African Union, or better yet, under the U.N.?  But neither organization has the guts to implement it, for there are other actors in Africa that are equally qualified for such an option. Sudan, for instance.  In the meantime, citizens of Zimbabwe will continue to face cholera, starvation, and other miserable ways of dying.

RUSSIA’S CONFUSED PATH TO SUPERPOWERDOM

The Russian rubber-stamp parliament has approved the extension of the presidential term from four to six years.  Its rationale: Russia’s size and complexity justifies a longer term for its president.  No one is saying publicly that a longer term under an incompetent president means a longer period of misery and decay for Russia. 

The real reason for this extension appears to be that the current version of Russia’s ”czar,” Vladimir Putin, wishes to be re-coronated as president.  There is no doubt that Russia is craving to become a superpower.  What is vexing is that it also sees the return of authoritarianism as a vital precondition for its transformation into a superpower.  The most qualified current candidate under such a condition is Putin.