The CAR’s population is primarily split between into two regions: most of the country’s minority Muslim population inhabits the Sahel, while the majority Christian community is located mainly in the savanna. The present conflict between both groups erupted in 2012 and continues today. The conflict was ignited when Muslim rebels of the Seleka group seized power from the Christians. In response, Christians formed the anti-Balaka faction. Since 2012, government forces have become involved, leading to a number of severe humanitarian crises that threaten to destabilize the country further.

Nearing the Tipping Point

In 2013, then-Secretary-General of the United Nations Ban Ki-Moon stated that the Central African Republic had experienced a “total breakdown of law and order” that threatened both its security and stability and that of its neighbors. While government forces remain in control of the capital of Bangui, armed groups have taken over 70 percent of the country, subjecting civilians to regular attacks. The nature of the conflict has heightened ethnic tensions, as hundreds of localized groups beyond the Seleka and anti-Balaka factions taking control of territory throughout the CAR.

Fighting between the two rival groups and government forces has made life difficult for civilians, who are increasingly fearful of leaving their homes or allowing their children to attend school. The conflict in the CAR is at a tipping point and threatens to push the country into a state of famine. Peacekeeping and mediation efforts have stagnated, making it essential to promote an alternative approach to providing conflict resolution and humanitarian assistance in the CAR. Intervening organizations must engage at the community level to stem the flow of fighters entering the conflict.

Conflict at the Community Level

The violence in the Central African Republic has affected communities large and small. Towns and villages have been destroyed as young men are increasingly attracted by the possibility of income from joining a militia. Political disruption, violence, and a weak economy have perpetuated a lack of adequate medical services, hindered internal migration, and prevented communities from modernizing necessary infrastructure. Disease is nothing new to the CAR, but the conflict has exacerbated the inaccessibility of healthcare leading to increased mortality rates.

As violence spreads, higher numbers of CAR citizens have been forced to flee to refugee camps. As of 2018, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency estimated that almost 550,000 individuals had been internally displaced. The conditions in these refugee camps are less than adequate. In regular communities, access to medical facilities is limited, and transit to and from first aid areas is minimal. However, individuals in refugee camps are faced with “little or no humanitarian assistance,” and are often left to fend for themselves.

The Evolution of Humanitarian Issues in CAR

As of 2018, half of the CAR’s population requires humanitarian aid, more than two million people. The CAR is mostly comprised of rural communities that lack access to medical facilities or basic first aid, the capital of Bangui, for example, has just one major hospital. According to the CIA, many suffer from treatable diseases, such as malaria or malnutrition, due to a weak healthcare system exacerbated by violent conflict. With a poor transit system destroyed by a conflict that makes it difficult for rural residents to travel for medical care, mortality rates remain high. Even if they can make it to a medical facility, those who suffer life-altering injuries resulting from the conflict are often unable to afford medical services and pharmaceuticals.

The ongoing conflict has weakened the country’s economy, leaving 75 percent of the population impoverished. Attacks at a local level have increased, which have primarily come in the form of violent attacks on refugee sites and on educational and healthcare facilities. Growing numbers of internally displaced peoples has made it challenging to provide clean water at refugee camps, and obstacles to trade and farming have inflated the prices of food and other essentials.

Humanitarian aid groups face difficulties in their attempts to assist the affected population. Threatened with violence and robberies, the movement of humanitarian groups within the CAR has been limited. As of September 2018, seven of these groups have withdrawn their services from the nation.

A Solution Starts at the Local Level

To decrease the attractiveness of joining armed groups, there is a need for solutions at the community level to improve economic and living conditions. As shown by the largely ineffective peacekeeping missions in the region, external mediation with the government and militias has been difficult.

A focused and localized approach within the CAR’s communities could have a more lasting effect, providing other outlets for civilians while stemming the flow of new militia recruits. As such, there are five recommendations to engender an improved situation in the country:

1. Expand local peace agreements and non-aggression pacts

Recently, a number of peace agreements and non-aggression pacts at a local level have had a stronger effect on reducing violent conflict within rural communities. These peace deals bring prominent community actors and organizations together, including women’s organizations, religious leaders, and local government authorities, to mediate peace offers between rival groups.

2. Address the conflict’s religious and ethnic characteristics at the source

To prevent the conflict from strengthening at the national level, it is critical to address the issues at the core of the conflict at the local level. That means promoting tolerance in communities and helping local religious leaders and other respected leaders to influence their communities to pursue reconciliation. Since the conflict in CAR is of a religious nature, it is imperative to intervene with education for youth so as not to perpetuate divisions between ethnic and religious groups.

3. Provide alternative employment to young men

Young men in the CAR are the most likely to impede future peace agreements between rival groups. Thus, it necessary to provide alternative outlets for these individuals to prevent them from perpetuating the conflict at the national level. To keep them from joining armed groups, local groups and international mediators will need to create and provide new forms of employment in numerous communities. This is already happening in a number of CAR’s communities, but it is essential to expand these practices across the nation.

Currently, many work projects “involve restoring public goods, including schools, clinics, bridges, roads, as well as churches as mosques,” according to a piece published by Foreign Policy. The benefit of this is not only to make potential militia fighters unavailable while rebuilding the country’s infrastructure but to provide tangible skills and training in community roles that can develop into careers and boost both local and national economies. With the potential for a job, young men are provided with other income options that make joining militias less attractive.

4. Invest in technology and medical facilities in rural areas

Technology will bridge the equality gap between the people of cities and rural communities and will distribute vital information to rural dwellers who have little access to resources on politics and economics.

Rural communities desperately need access to medical facilities, especially with the spread of disease in areas hospitable to insects like tsetse flies and mosquitoes. This requires the creation of new medical facilities and improved transportation and communications infrastructure.

5. Crackdown on the sale of weapons

National and local governments must impose stricter regulations on the transfer of military-grade weaponry throughout the CAR. These weapons often end up in the hands of local rebels, who incite violence in communities, further exacerbating the conflict. To limit these sales, it is essential to shut down the black markets that distribute weapons to rebels.

Looking to the Future

The situation in CAR will take time to resolve. Promoting tolerance at the local level while helping respected leaders to arrange reconciliation, promoting understanding, and helping respected leaders facilitate dialogue between rival groups. While international assistance is necessary, successful mediation will require a broader effort from community actors and CAR citizens to resolve this conflict at the grassroots level.

Local Approach Needed in Central African Republic as Humanitarian Crisis Looms was originally published on Global Security Review.

The ISI Directorate in Pakistan has enjoyed unparalleled power since its creation in 1948. As the ISI Director-General is selected by the Military Branch, the agency has remained steeped in army and military affairs for seventy years. From its outset, the ISI has backed terrorist organizations that provide strategic depth within India and greater influence in Afghanistan.

These efforts are designed to promote Pakistan’s regional hegemony—all while wreaking havoc on the national security interests of both India and Afghanistan. ISI support and aid for several terrorist organizations, including the Afghan Taliban and the Haqqani network, have resulted in international condemnation of the ISI’s failures to prevent “systematic and persistent human rights violations,” albeit with little effect.

The ISI Regularly Fails to Implement Counter-Terrorism Policy

Within Pakistan, terrorist attacks have declined in recent years following legislation and ISI counter-terrorism policies enacted between 2013 and 2016. However, the ISI’s continued covert support for extremists has fostered a growing radical community and new splinter groups that have spread throughout the region.

After former President Musharraf’s pledge to join the War on Terror, the ISI vacillated between continued sponsorship of extremist groups in support of its interests and cracking down on radical anti-ISI groups within Pakistan. Ultimately, due to inconsistencies in its counter-terrorism campaign, Pakistan’s intelligence agency was quietly listed as a terrorist organization in U.S. military documents, instructing that ISI officers be treated the same as terrorists.

The ISI is plagued by a persistent hesitancy to destroy terrorist groups, instead hoping to nurture them and use them in the future against Pakistan’s regional rival, India. According to Pakistan’s police officials, ISI officers regularly halt investigations involving terrorist groups they support, further perpetuating violent extremism so long as it serves to enhance Pakistan’s regional influence.

What This Means for Pakistan, India, and Afghanistan

Why does Pakistan, through the ISI, support terrorist groups? Following the partition of British India and the creation of Pakistan in 1947, Pakistan’s leaders became almost fanatical about one thing: the idea that India sought to destroy the Pakistani state. While this claim has been repeatedly disputed by India and has overall been assessed as unfounded, Pakistan and its ISI have worked to limit India’s regional influence as much as possible.

Often, this has come in the form of support for anti-India terrorist groups—even at the expense of Pakistan’s security and internal radicalization. These terrorist groups have been released to carry out attacks in both India and Jammu and Kashmir while providing protections to the Haqqani network and the Afghan Taliban in Afghanistan—using the state as a proxy in its perceived conflict with India.

In Afghanistan, Pakistan’s primary goal is to prevent India from gaining ground and obtaining too much influence. As the Taliban vies for more control, the ISI has provided it with military aid to ensure Afghanistan remains in a state of perpetual instability. Should the Taliban gain power, Pakistan will have bought itself a staunch ally in the region, with the potential to form a strategic partnership against India. Should the Taliban fail to gain power, Pakistan will have done its best to destabilize the country and prevent a potential strong governmental alliance with India. Pakistan is effectively hedging its bets on radical groups to foment insecurity within Afghanistan, as a more stable neighbor that decides to align itself with India is perceived as a threat to Pakistan’s national security, at least from the Pakistani perspective.

On December 11, 2018, in a surprising turn of events, Pakistan’s Foreign Minister, Shah Mehmood Qureshi, acknowledged that the establishment of an Afghan peace is a “shared responsibility” of Pakistan and its neighbors. A “solution through dialogue” would be a step in the right direction for the region, despite the ISI’s recent subversive actions in Jammu and Kashmir. Currently, the words of Pakistan’s intelligence agency and senior government officials seem contradictory. While the state allegedly seeks peace in the region, the ISI remains committed to subversive activities that will foment ongoing regional insecurity.

The Future of Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Agency

If the attempts at an Afghan peace and a combined effort towards normalization in relations between India and Pakistan are to be successful, the ISI and the Pakistani state must renounce support for the Taliban, the Haqqani Network, and other militant groups to be taken seriously. Such a declaration must occur before terrorism, and interstate conflicts further destabilize the region. According to the International Crisis Group, counter-terrorism in the region will be ineffective as long as the ISI continues to make distinctions between “good” and “bad” terrorist groups.

With is decades-long support for terrorist organizations targeting India, it will be difficult for the agency to break from this pattern any time soon. Instead, it will be up to the state to align its intelligence agency with the government’s regional goals. Without the ISI’s confrontation of extremist ideologies and a reassessment of its alliances, radicalization will continue to threaten regional security and inflame its perceived conflict with India. Until the “threat of India” has been recognized as a falsehood, it’s likely that the ISI will continue to build a haven for extremism.

Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence Contributes to Regional Instability was originally published on Global Security Review.

Both powers are vying for regional hegemony as Iran seeks a foothold in the Arabian Peninsula, while Saudi Arabia works to remain at the top of the region’s hierarchy and protect its national security.

The people of Yemen continue to languish in the world’s worst humanitarian crisis as the conflict persists. The situation has been aggravated by violent attacks against cities alongside growing food insecurity perpetuated by closed ports and embattled infrastructure. The proxy war has fomented widespread instability in Yemen, creating a breeding ground for Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP).

While most Al-Qaeda offshoots have died out or reduced their presence, the AQAP branch has remained intact by taking advantage of Yemen’s instability while continuing to make threats against Saudi Arabia and the West.

Today, a large proportion of U.S. security experts believe that AQAP is the largest terrorist threat to the United States—more so than the Islamic State, the strength of which is consistently sensationalized by the media. Experts believe AQAP is capable of building bombs without metal, making them easy to transfer across international borders and nearly impossible to detect.

As the Saudi Arabian-led coalition—backed U.S. weapons, equipment, and intelligence—fights Iranian-backed Houthi forces in the northern Yemen, it is also combating AQAP militants in the country’s south.

The U.S. and Saudi Arabia escalated operations against AQAP, using drone strikes in Yemen to target the group’s leaders. Unfortunately, these counter-terrorism efforts have actually made the situation worse.

Saudi Arabia pursues its national security interests on the Peninsula.

The deterioration of Yemen’s internal security has allowed AQAP to gain a strong foothold in a relatively lawless and unstable state.

The terrorist group’s close vicinity to Saudi Arabia has made the monarchy uneasy due to its hatred of the Saudi monarchy for its relationship with the United States.

Saudi Arabia’s shared border with Yemen allows AQAP members to easily enter Saudi Arabia, allowing the group to destabilize the Kingdom.

With Iranian-backed forces in northern Yemen and AQAP militants in Yemen’s south, the situation is increasingly precarious for Saudi Arabia.

To prevent the two aggressors from advancing, Saudi Arabia seems likely to continue carrying out airstrikes and ground assaults as the two groups gain ground and threaten not only Saudi Arabia’s regional interests and its national security.

The U.S. moves to stop the spread of AQAP.

U.S. weapons sales to Saudi Arabia over the past few years have not only supported the country’s fight against Houthi rebels in Yemen. They have also been intended to eliminate the growing threat of Al-Qaeda in the Arabian Peninsula and limit its potential expansion.

Prior to the Houthi rebellion, the U.S. and Yemeni President Hadi maintained built a strong alliance, with U.S. officials touting Hadi as a leader in counterterrorism.

Once Hadi’s regime collapsed, however, U.S. policymakers had to depend more heavily on the alliance with the Saudi monarchy to target AQAP.

In 2017, the White House stated that its recent arms deal with Saudi Arabia was struck not only to protect Saudi Arabia’s national security, but to assist in counter-terrorism operations in the Peninsula.

Reportedly, the sale would reduce the need for the U.S. military to participate in combat operations. However, U.S. special forces were deployed to assist Saudi troops in Yemen later that year.

As of 2018, anti-AQAP efforts have targeted over 3,000 Al-Qaeda members, forcing them into Yemen’s interior. However, the group continues to benefit from the lack of stable leadership in Sana’a, continuing its attempts to fill the power vacuum despite U.S. and Saudi efforts to eliminate it.

AQAP is easily exploiting the situation in Yemen.

Despite U.S. and Saudi efforts, experts have argued that the campaign against AQAP in Yemen may have actually helped the group prosper by destabilizing the region and providing new gaps for the terrorist group to exploit.

Al Qaeda has been able to further capitalize on the fact that many Yemeni civilians are turning against both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia as they watch the actions of the two countries deepen Yemen’s humanitarian crisis.

Despite this, both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have continued their strikes upon AQAP, though their imprecision has resulted in numerous civilian deaths.

Over the course of just two days in January 2017, the U.S. military performed a ground operation in Al Bayda Province that resulted in the death of 24 civilians.

Just a few months later, 30 U.S. airstrikes against AQAP killed a few dozen more. The U.S. declared these actions a success—but to Yemeni civilians, these events were further proof that the U.S. is not a benevolent actor, but would continue to steer the fate of the Middle East to ensure its own national security interests.

Naturally, the number of civilian casualties has brewed distaste for the U.S. in the Yemeni psyche, a feeling that is rapidly replacing their once pro-U.S. attitudes.

As stated by Dafna H. Rand, a representative of the U.S. State Department, the continuity of the war and U.S. involvement in Yemen will potentially foster anger against the U.S. that could encourage radicalization and increase AQAP membership.

AQAP’s anti-Saudi Arabia and anti-Western stance has resonated with some Yemeni civilians who feel that the Saudi-U.S. partnership has devastated their country and deteriorated their quality of life. Eventually, larger numbers of Yemeni civilians may see AQAP as the only secure and stable option for their country.

U.S. soft power is the key to countering AQAP.

Ultimately, the strength of AQAP may grow as more civilians begin to support its cause against the Saudi monarchy and the West.

While both the U.S. and Saudi Arabia have entered the fray with AQAP on grounds of preserving their own respective national securities, their biggest accomplishment thus far has been to foment hatred within Yemen, all while plunging more cities into crisis.

If Yemeni civilians continues to perceive the U.S. as a threat, AQAP’s anti-U.S. sentiments will gain steam. Instead, the U.S. needs to reduce involvement in airstrikes and ground assaults and take on a more humanitarian role—ensuring food security, providing medical aid and access to education, and rebuilding critical infrastructure.

Facilitating reconstruction in Yemen would benefit all parties. Yemeni civilians will benefit from increased humanitarian aid, the U.S.’s assistance would hopefully engender more positive feelings in Yemeni civilians and slow the acceptance and spread of AQAP.

Is the U.S.-Saudi Partnership in Yemen Strengthening Al-Qaeda? was originally published on Global Security Review.

The stated purpose of the new branch of service would be to protect U.S. space interests by overseeing debris and commercial movement. Implicitly, however, this could mark the first overt step towards the militarization of space, in order to maintain global hegemony and achieve strategic dominance over rival powers like China and Russia. Both countries have civilian and military space programs of their own, but could this move by the Trump administration lead to an arms race in space?

Ultimately, the creation of a sixth branch of the U.S. Armed Forces would have to be approved by Congress—and even if it isn’t, the Air Force would remain the service branch responsible for military strategy and operations in space as it is now. Regardless of what branch of the military is responsible, what are the ramifications for the militarization of space—by the United States and other powers?

Protecting National Interests Extends to Outer Space

The efforts of any one state to place armaments in space would disrupt the global balance of power, and encourage others to follow suit, setting in motion a race for strategic dominance that could well lead to weapons testing and further escalation. When on actor assumes a dominant position, rival actors will need act similarly in order to maintain deterrence and ensure the security of their respective national interests.

The rise of globalization and ever-increasing global inter-connectivity has led to a dependence on space-based technology like the Global Positioning System (GPS) for everything from simple navigation to the coordination of military operations. Such a reliance has made the destruction of satellites a priority for military planners in the event of a conflict.

As the potential for space-based threats grows, more world leaders will move to protect against the potential destruction of their space-based assets by deploying the necessary technology to deter such an attack.

Challenges of Arms Control in Space

Though the United Nations has advocated for a complete ban on the armament of space, it lacks the support of the United States in related Proposed Prevention of an Arms Race in Space (PAROS) resolutions. Since the U.S. has such a well-developed military, civilian, and commercial presence in space, it would be senseless to attempt to incur a treaty without U.S. participation, as other states would still feel the need to protect their interests.

Beyond the question of U.S. participation in any international conventions, a strong space-based arms control policy would still be difficult to implement. In space, almost anything can be used as a weapon. With enough speed in orbit, an object no larger than a rock can destroy a satellite. Simply put, even if something is not designed to be a weapon, it can be used as one in space. If policymakers cannot effectively identify what constitutes a weapon in space, weapons cannot be regulated or prohibited, making verification and enforcement close to impossible.

Consequences of Armament and Aggression in Space

The consequences of weapons testing and aggression in space could span generations, and current technological advances only increase the urgency for policymakers to pursue a limitations treaty. As it stands, there are three major ramifications of a potential arms race in space:

The destruction of satellites

As both financial and technological barriers to the space services industry have decreased, the number of governmental and private investors with assets in space has inevitably increased. There is now an abundance of satellites in space owned by multiple states and corporations. These satellites are used to not only coordinate military actions, but to perform more mundane tasks, like obtaining weather reports, or managing on-ground communications, and navigation.

Should states begin weapons testing in space, debris could cloud the orbit and make positioning new satellites impossible, disrupting our current way of life. More pressing, however, is that if a country’s satellites are successfully destroyed by an enemy state, military capabilities can be severely hindered or destroyed, leaving the country vulnerable to attack and unable to coordinate its military forces on the ground.

Diminished future use of near space

Whether caused by weapons testing or actual aggression, the subsequent proliferation of debris around the planet would damage our future ability to access space. Not only would debris act as shrapnel to preexisting assets in space, but it would also become much more difficult to launch satellites or rockets, hindering scientific research, space exploration, and commercial operations.

From the past fifty-odd years of activity in space alone, the debris left behind in Earth’s orbital field has already become hazardous to spacecraft — a main reason why the U.S. and the Soviet Union did not continue with ASAT testing during the Cold War. If greater pollution were to occur, space itself could be become unusable, resulting in the collapse of the global economic system, air travel, and various communications.

Power imbalances and proliferation on the ground

Only so many states currently have access to space—which means any militarization be by the few, while other states would be left to fend for themselves. This would establish a clear power imbalance that could breed distrust among nations, resulting in a more insecure world and a veritable power keg primed for war. Additionally, deterrence measures taken by states with access to space would escalate, attempting to build up weapons caches not dissimilar to the nuclear weapons stockpiling activities of the Cold War.

In any arms race, it is inevitable that more advanced weaponry is created. Yet, this does not only pose a risk to assets in space. Should a terrestrial war break out, this weaponry may eventually be deployed on the ground, and space-faring states would be able to capitalize on the power imbalance by using these new developments against states that have not yet broken into the space industry or developed equally-advanced weaponry.

Into the Future

The militarization of space would inevitably increase the chances of war, and also threaten the industries that rely on space to carry out their daily operations. Without treaties and resolutions to regulate and limit armament in space, the international community risks facing extreme consequences. Furthermore, with the history of U.S. disinterest in UN efforts to regulate space, the implementation of a meaningful, multilateral agreement for arms control in space is unlikely.

Ultimately, the international community will need to regulate actions, militarization, and the possibility of eventual armament in space sooner rather than later in order to reduce the threat of major war, economic destruction, and global insecurity.

What are the Consequences of Militarizing Outer Space? was originally published on Global Security Review.