Foreign Policy magazine and the Center for American Progress polled 108 foreign affairs experts across the political spectrum about terrorism and related issues.
Asked what country is likely to be the next al Qaeda stronghold, the experts said:
- Pakistan — 35%
- Iraq — 22%
- Somalia — 11%
- Sudan — 8%
- Afghanistan — 7%
The experts also put Pakistan at the head of the list most likely to transfer nuclear technology to terrorists by 2012:
- Pakistan — 74%
- North Korea — 42%
- Russia — 38%
- Iran — 31%
- United States — 5%
The experts were divided about how to change US policy toward Pakistan: about a third favored sanctions against the country, and a similar number advocated increasing US aid.
Pakistan likely tops both lists both because of ideological forces at work within the country, and because it is regularly cited as one of the states most likely to fall apart.
Foreign Policy offers the odds on six new states achieving independence:
1. Kosovo
Odds — “strong”: driven by US and EU support, it has a good shot at full independence from Serbia
2. South Sudan
Odds — “not great”: a 2011 “referendum will probably happen; and it will probably come out in favor of independence; and Khartoum will almost certainly find a way around the results.”
3. Somaliland
Odds — “very good”: effectively independent from Somalia since 1991, it already has its own government, army, and currency; international organizations will attend to the disastrous state of the rest of Somalia first, however
4. Iraqi Kurdistan
Odds — “fair”: Turkey’s strong opposition may be overruled by facts on the ground if Iraq disintegrates
5. Palestine
Odds — “good”: “details” in the way of a two-state solution will eventually overcome the objections of “the extreme radical wings” on both sides
6. Taiwan
Odds — “poor”: China is getting stronger and stronger, and Taiwan “will accept autonomous status” under China
In a Post article on whether Ugandan cultist warlord Joseph Kony should be brought before an international court, John Prendergast of the International Crisis Group warns of potential danger to East and Central Africa:
Prendergast said he feared Kony could still cause instability in as many as three African countries — Sudan, Uganda and Congo. “We have a very significant investment in south Sudan, both diplomatically and in terms of assistance, that is at grave risk.”
Rebel factions are fighting each other in Darfur, and using some of the same tactics as Sudanese government forces, displacing and killing civilians.
The tactics of the rebels have grown so similar to those of their enemies that an attack on this dusty village on April 19 bore all the marks of the brutal assault that first forced its people to flee their homes three years ago. Soldiers in uniform, backed by men toting machine guns on camels, flooded the village, burning huts, shooting, looting and raping.
This is another piece of evidence that any intervention in Darfur would not be easy or quick.
- An international force will have no real partners in either the government or the rebels.
- For the foreseeable future, there will be no one to hand off to. Darfur under either Sudan’s central government or rebel groups would be subject at any time to a return to brutality, and rule by either is unlikely to be competent or gentle. The situation will be much more dire than in Bosnia or Kosovo, and those have already required international supervision for a decade.
Ultimately, real intervention in Darfur means long-term intervention. Anything short of another UN protectorate seems likely to demonstrate that the international community was never really serious about the situation.