The Japanese paper Asahi Shimbun reported today that the Japanese Diet (parliament) will consider amending the country's pacifist consitution to allow the use of force against pirates.

Since the end of the World War II, the Japanese constitution has stipulated that its military hold only non-combat roles. Is this a first step on the way to bigger non-combat roles or even combat for Japanese troops in places like Iraq and Afghanistan?

"This is like putting your little pinky in the water--or even maybe your big toe," says Gerald Curtis, an expert on the Japanese military at Columbia. "Piracy is an opportunity to do something that isn't really the use of force to settle an international [problem]."

If Japan is ready to take the fight to the pirate, they're just in time. The United States announced today that its Navy will head up a new 20-country coaltion of boats to fight piracy off the Somali coast. Some of the countries in that coalition "did not have the authority to conduct counter-piracy missions,” according to the Navy's statement. Defense department spokesman Lt. Col. Patrick Ryder clarified for me: "There were some nations who were members of [the task force] who were not able to conduct counter-piracy operations based on their national charters." The countries in the coalition have not been announced yet, but that certainly sounds like a description of Japan.

The U.S. taskforce has an impressive roster, including two ships, two aircraft, and the 1,000 personnel on ships assigned to "assist" the operation, according to Ryder. The mission will collaborate with the EU mission already deployed.

As for tactics, Ryder includes "increased patrols of heavily trafficked areas, enhanced planning and coordinated execution of operations, hard intelligence and demonstrations of force."

Sounds like they read Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper's advice. Time to kick some pirate booty!

Photo: U.S. Navy 

You didn't think that just because of our fancy new Web site, we'd slack off on the print edition did you? The latest issue of Foreign Policy is on newsstands now and it's packed full of exciting content.

As you can tell from the cover, the big theme of this issue is the monumental challenges facing President-elect Barack Obama. First up is Afghanistan: Nathaniel C. Fick and John A. Nagl, co-authors of the Army's influential counterinsurgency manual, write an updated edition tailored to the Afghan front. For the same package, FP Executive Editor Susan Glasser interviewed Gen. David Petraeus shortly after he took command of CENTCOM about the challenges of Afghanistan.

Then there's the economy. Five economists who predicted the financial crisis -- including Nouriel Roubini who called it in FP last March -- explain what we're in for next. Their take: "The Worst is Yet to Come." William Easterly also explains the implications of the crisis for the world's poor in "The Poor Man's Burden" and journalist Carla Power explains how the new field of Islamic finance is coping with the crash.

Why can't Israel and the Palestinians make peace? According to Gershom Gorenberg, it's the settlements, stupid. And if you thought that there was anything the new administration could do to stop climate change, Bill McKibben explains why you should think again.

How's Obama going to confront all these problems? According to FP editor Chris Brose, he's going to preserve more of the Bush administration's approach than you might think. New ideas are certainly needed though, and the new Think Tank Index ranks the institutions that will provide them.

Of course, check out old favorites, Prime Numbers, Inbox, and Net Effect, as well as the new books feature, Early Read.

And if you're a fan of Foreign Policy, you should definitely consider subscribing. A full year of the print edition plus full access to digital archives is only $19.95.

Jimmy Carter argues that the latest Israeli-Palestine conflict was preventable.

Kevin Peraino says Fatah will be the big loser as Hamas is pummelled. 

Martin Peretz thinks an Israeli-Palestine cease-fire would be a band-aid on a laceration.

Daniel Henninger has a New Year's Resolution for finance: don't be stupid.

The Economist worries that the "Enron"-esque scandal in India exposes wider corruption.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

Peter Boone and Simon Johnson urge want a bolder version of Obamanomics.

Michael Idov warns Russian protests don't foreshadow a democratic awakening.

Christopher Dickey says Bush's democratic push was hypocritical in the Middle East.

John Redwood begs interest-rate-setters to let banks make a profit.

Etgar Keret thinks proportionality debate has no place in Israeli-Palestine.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

On Monday in Washington, President Bush made one last ditch attempt for Darfur: he held talks with the least-worst person he could.

That person was Salva Kiir, who is both the Vice-President of Sudan and President of Southern Sudan. Hours earlier, the administration announced it was authorizing an emergency shipment of supplies to Darfur from Rwanda using two C-17 cargo planes. Another 240 containers of goods will be moved from ports into Darfur to help the fledgling UN-African Union peacekeeping mission.

That leaves me with two questions: Will the supplies do any good? And what exactly is the United States hoping to achieve?

First the supplies: The UN-AU hybrid mission is only at 63 percent of its strength, more than two years after the force was authorized, wracked with one difficulty after another (as if patrolling a space the size of France wasn't hard enough.) Cars and equipment have been stolen; fuel was siphoned from planes at night. Journalists have told me that Sudanese government forces are responsible.

But after months of quietly thwarting further deployment, the Sudanese government has finally swung open the door, "leaving the ball on the side of the UN," International Crisis Group Horn of Africa Director Fouad Hikmat tells me. It's up to UN member countries, particularly the U.S. which provides over a quarter of the budget, to handle the logistics of sending in peacekeepers. Will they be able to make a difference? Hikmat's read: "This is very very very good."

At first glance, it looks like President Bush is trying to cement his legacy as a genocide fighter. But if Bush is thinking Darfur, why meet with Kiir, a Southerner with little record in the region?

Country-wide voting is scheduled for Sudan this year -- part of a 6-year Comprehensive Peace Agreement that ended the decades long war between North and South Sudan in 2005. The light at the end of that long tunnel for Southerners is a vote on secession in 2011. If all goes according to plan, they'll vote on whether to remain autonomous, or become independent.

Like many Southerners, Kiir favors secession. But countrywide elections have to happen first -- and Darfur is in no shape to hold them. "[Southern politicians] for a long time weren't involved in Darfur, they were focused inward," Hikmat tells me. Now, they see they should become engaged because Darfur is a very serious threat to the Comprehensive Peace Agreement [and their secession vote]."

One more complication: the International Criminal Court may soon issue an arrest warrant for Sudanese President Omar el-Bashir. That makes Kiir the international powerbroker with the most credibility.

So Bush's and Kiir's interest may be right in line. For now. The U.S. should think long and hard about whether they want to back a secession, an outcome that Kiir favors and that Khartoum will certainly fight to prevent. It is an open secret that both South Sudan and the Khartoum government are arming in anticipation of the referendum in 2011. Yet another dilemma for the new President to look forward to.

Photo: Dennis Brack-Pool/Getty Images

The Wall Street Journal thinks Europe's trust in Gazprom is dangerously naive.

Juan Cole blogs about the global implications of Israel-Palestine on political unrest.

The Jerusalem Post wants Turkey to pick a side in the conflict.

Swaminathan S. Anklesaria Aiyar says Mumbai terror shouldn't hurt Indian stock markets.

Johann Hari says pirates aren't justified, but they do have their reasons.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

In recent days, the number of pirate attacks off the coast of Somalia has started to fall. French troops arrested eight pirates on January 1st, turning them over to the Somali government. The EU mission also saved a Greek tanker from kidnapping on January 2nd. A Danish warship sunk yet another pirate vessel after warning flares set that ship on fire (the pirates were rescued from the wreck, and remain onboard the Danish vessel). And a Chinese cargo ship flat out-maneuvered the pirates on January 2nd.

A round of applause might be in order. After a slew of hijackings last fall, the world's navies finally seemed to get serious about fighting the pirates. Previously, many countries feared that arresting pirates could lead to awkward legal proceedings and even amnesty suits by suspects claiming they could be put to death at home if extradited. All good points. But then, so are the tens of thousands of ships that pass through the Gulf of Aden each year. From the looks of it, squeamish fighters once reluctant to pick up pirates are increasingly keen to do just that. Whatever they're doing, it seems to be working.

On land, however, few are noticing the calm at sea. Ethiopian troops are at last pulling out of Somalia, as they promised to do late last year and the mortars are still flying in Mogadishu.

Photo: AFP/Getty Images

After Kenya's, Zimbabwe's and Nigeria's recent election mayhem, observers worried Ghana might fall into the same electoral dissaray. In the runup to the recent presidential vote, both major candidates claimed they were set for victory.

Initial polls in December left a tightly contested race -- with the two leading candidates within just one percent of each other. The governing party candidate, Nana Akufo-Addo and the opposition leader and former professor John Atta Mills bitterly contested the second round of elections. After being seperated by just 23,000 votes, Ghana's final constituency voted on Saturday and catupluted Mills to the presidency.

And thus Ghana avoided the election trap. The first African country to gain its independence in 1960 holds its reputation as a democracy where power has been transfered peacefully and often, with only minor incidents (like this one). The outgoing president didn't try to extend his term, and he urged a peaceful transition. Mills' opponent conceded gracefully and the incoming president promised to be a "president for all."

Good. But now, as many governments have learned the hard way, the more difficult part is yet to come, and Ghana finds itself in an unusually precarious (or promising) turning point.

Ghana is a commodity-dependent economy in a market reeling from bubble and burst. Gold, cocoa and timber make much of the country's GDP, and agriculture employs over half the population. The fall in commodity prices spells hope and disaster all at once; lucrative exports will suffer, as will farmers' bottom lines. But urban food prices -- once crushing for the average Ghanaian -- will come down from sky high.

And despite Ghana's healthy growth rate, the impoverished majority is hungry for prosperity to trickle down. Offshore oil -- found in the summer of 2007 -- once promised to pay for a host of new public services. Now, the sunken petrol price stop drilling before it even begins.

The incoming president seems to have a good head about the economic policies needed to move forward. But he'll need the world economy, the increasingly corrupt bureaucracy, and his country's belief in democracy to be on his side, as well.

Photo: PIUS UTOMI EKPEI/AFP/Getty Images

The first thing to say about the coup attempt that followed the death of Guinean President Lansana Conté is that it's something of a miracle it took 24 years. The president, who died of diabetes Monday, was hardly a beloved exemplar of democratic values. By the time of his death, even the once-loyal Army was starting to mutiny over low pay. In fact, for many West Africa watchers, Guinea's fall into chaos has only been a matter of time. 

For more than two years leading up the president's death, political wrangling and unrest were the norm. General strikes in 2006 paralyzed the country. Conté refused to leave power and poverty was consuming the country. I was in Senegal at the time, and the stories we heard there were fierce: Strikes were so strictly adhered to that any passing soul on the street would be shot. There was violence between police and civilians -- as has also become the norm in times of crisis in Guinea.

In the compromise that ended those strikes, the president finally named a prime minister. There have been several in recent years, and the most recent, Ahmed Tidiane Souare, was a close Conté ally whom the International Crisis group wrote in June "puts reform at risk." Democratic legislative elections were scheduled for this month.

Instead, Guinea got a coup. 

So now what? For now, the military has the reins, despite claims from Souare that he retains control. The perpetrators of the coup, calling themselves the National Council for Democracy and Development, have called a curfew and promised elections in two years. As in previous times of tension, soldiers fill the streets and much of Conakry is shut down. Companies, such as mining giant BHP, are closing offices for now. Other countries in the region are condemning the coup.

So what at first seemed like a Christmas miracle for Conakry has taken a dangerous turn for the worse.

Photo: SEYLLOU/AFP/Getty Images

There is a crisis. People are dying. Sending peacekeepers sounds great -- they come with U.N. neutrality, a mandate (usually) to use force, and the promise to do something. Who doesn't want to help out in places like the DR Congo, Zimbabwe, and Somalia?

If only it were so easy, writes the U.S. Government Accountability Office in a report released today. Future peacekeeping missions will be plagued by complex logistics, extensive troop needs, daunting political circumstances, and a reluctance from member states to donate troops and resources.

But the report is even more jarring. One cannot help but notice that the "hypothetical" situation described in the report sounds not-so-vaguely reminiscent of Somalia, to which Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice suggested sending peacekeepers just this week.

The potential new mission’s area of operations would have limited infrastructure and utilities, lacking roads, buildings, and water, and would thus require increased logistical planning...the potential new operation would be in a high-threat environment, political factions would recently have been fighting for control of the country, and there would be large numbers of internally displaced persons...According to UN planners, a potential new force would likely require units with the capability to deter threats from armed factions supported by international terrorist groups, which previous operations did not have to take into account to the same degree.

Sound familiar? There are only few countries in sub-Saharan Africa that have that level of chaos with possible international terrorists to boot -- and Sudan already has two U.N. missions.

So what would a peacekeeping mission to Somalia look like? This "hypothetical" country would require 21,000 troops, 1,500 police, 4,000 to 5,000 civilian staff, and a costly helicopter force to supply aerial surveillance 24 hours a day. According to the report:

There are a limited number of countries that provide troops and police with needed capabilities to meet current needs, and some potential contributors may be unwilling to provide forces for a new operation due to such political factors as their own national interests and the environmental and security situation in the host country.

The U.N. is already short 18,000 troops to staff its mandated missions around the world, and is missing 22 percent of the needed civilian personnel. The GAO warns that, though there are efforts to help the U.N. close the gap, the U.S. has failed to support some incentives such as increased protection for civilian forces. And Somalia is far less appealing a locale than Liberia, Cote D'Ivoire, and maybe even Darfur.

So peacekeeping is failing -- or it might, if the world tries this particular case. Blue helmets are not one-size-fits-all countries. Hopefully Congress will read this "hypothetical" between the lines.

Photo: STUART PRICE/AFP/Getty Images

It isn't every day that Somalia beats China in a battle of military technology... and still loses.

On Tuesday, it was the well-armed, satellite-phone-wielding Somali pirates who held up a Chinese cargo ship. The crew members' defense? Petrol bombs! The makeshift Molotov cocktails worked well enough to hold off the pirates until an international patrol helicopter intervened.

No wonder China is dispatching ships to join the international contingent of navies patrolling against piracy in the gulf of Aden. 1,265 Chinese ships have passed through that same corridor this year and 20 percent of those came under attack. Not good odds.

Alas, should we just start shipping our Suez-bound goods over land? I'll let you see a lay of the land and decide for yourself: the president has fired the prime minister. Parliament is impeaching the president. The U.S. wants to send peacekeepers, but U.N. diplomats fear that's suicide. The entire country is food insecure, and about half is a humanitarian emergency.

The Washington Post calls foul as Chavez tries to eliminate term limits.

John L. Allen says the Pope and Obama see eye to eye... except on abortion.

Alan Greenspan thinks banks need a lot more buck to bang out loans.

Alex Perry says a Mugabe-organized feast shows how delusional the leader is.

Ehud Barak interviews with Haaretz as the Gaza ceasefire dissolves.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

Call it a virtual thrown shoe at the United States. Yesterday, 33 countries in Latin America met in Brazil to discuss regional cooperation and the financial crisis. Here's the flying one-two punch: The summit condemned the U.S. embargo on Cuba, blamed the United States for the financial crisis, and refused to let the northern neighbor attend. Ouch.

Like Muntadar al-Zaidi's famous act of protest, the shoe flew -- but may have missed the mark ever so slightly. Leaders were dismissive of Bolivian President Evo Morales's call for the region to expel U.S. ambassadors unless the Cuba embargo was lifted. And though host Brazil asserted its regional dominance, bickering prevented solid agreements on trade issues and further regional cooperation.

By the way, the strained shoe analogy is not entirely mine. Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva found the metaphor too good to pass up -- threatening to throw his slipper at Venezuela's Hugo Chavez if he overspoke his podium time.

And then there were the instructions to press: "Please, nobody take off your shoes."

Photo: ANTONIO SCORZA/AFP/Getty Images

Susanne Koelbl says Zardari's fight on terror might be political suicide.

Viktor Erofeyev thinks financial crisis will boost poverty and tyranny in Russia.

The Economist says the Siemens case exemplifies weak EU bribery legislation.

Mark Gertler urges transparency in the Fed's anti-deflation scheme.

Mark Hosenball & Michael Isikoff fear the release of a suspected bioterrorist foreshadows detainment trouble ahead.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

There's good reason that Darfur is a household name. After over five years of crisis, little has improved, and by some measures, things are worse than ever. Now add this to the mix: a report by the Darfur Consortium says that slavery -- the abduction of men, women, and children for physical and sexual labor -- is rampant.

In addition to how despicable slavery already is, (for more on the contemporary slave trade, check out Benjamin Skinner's FP piece from March 2008) this is also another reason to worry about the Darfur crisis' evolution. Just look next door to Uganda and you can see how slavery tears a society apart. There, the abductions of children by the rebel Lord's Resistance Army have forced an underground society of young people who walk miles each day to find safe haven in cities and towns, for fear of abductions in the village homes.

Now, imagine trying to rehabilitate those children. Abducted children -- and now in Darfur, men and women too -- have been robbed of their will, their security net, and their lives. That's a lot of rebuilding, and it means that the conflict is just that much more entrenched. In Uganda, government and neighboring troops have been looking to stop the Lord's Resistance Army led by Joseph Kony since 1986. The 200,000 abducted children have no other sense of normality than this.

If slavery is indeed now a staple of Darfur, as evidence seems to indicate, that means that peace agreements, peacekeepers, and even aid won't be enough to stop the conflict. Peacekeepers, for example, will have to grapple with the presence of civilians among rebels contingents. Peace agreements will need to include extensive emancipation of souls.

The line between the ambiguous sides of this conflict has just become even more blurred.

Photo: THOMAS COEX/AFP/Getty Images

Eli Lake says don't be fooled. The U.S. will be in Iraq long past 2011.

Douglas E. Schoen thinks Russia is positioning itself for a confrontation with the U.S.

The Financial Times says the Doha talks are still stalled by domestic interests.

The Wall Street Journal blogs on how the shoe incident is the talk of Baghdad.

Ben Bernanke explained how the Fed fights deflation in a prescient 2002 speech.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

As I wrote on Monday, the United States is hoping to send U.N. peacekeepers into turbulent Somalia. Yesterday, a U.N. Security Council resolution endorsing the use of force on ground in Somalia to stop pirating passed. In a press briefing afterward, Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was very cryptic in response to the final question:

QUESTION: (Inaudible) does this resolution mean that –

 

SECRETARY RICE: Thank you.

 

QUESTION: -- you can intervene militarily in Somalia?

 

SECRETARY RICE: We – there is a very – there is a very clear, longstanding understanding in international politics about the role of UN Security Council resolutions in this regard, and the fact that it is the Transitional Federal Government that is desirous of not having their territory used for safe haven for pirates. And so that is what has just taken place here in the Council.

Stay tuned...

Gideon Rachman doesn't believe China is safe from the financial crisis.

Fouad Ajami warns Obama's more detached Middle East policy will test the region.

Bill Emmott says it is the euro, not the pound, that is a political liability.

The International Herald Tribune wants Tim Geithner to explain the AIG rescue.

Catherine Philp wants to strip South Africa of the 2010 World Cup unless it acts on Zimbabwe.

For more news and commentary from around the world, check out FP's continually updated Must Reads feed every day.

When I asked Lt. Gen. Paul Van Riper what one would need to eliminate piracy off the Somali coast, he answered with a question: Are you fighting them on land or at sea?

Over the weekend, it seems the Bush administration answered: both.

In addition to the international vessels patrolling offshore, a U.S. resolution is already circulating in the U.N. Security Council calling for a limited U.N. peacekeeping force to bring stability to the East African nation. The United States also wants Ethiopian troops to stay through the U.S. presidential transition. And they'd like to add Eritrea, Ethopia's breakaway neighbor and favorite adversary, to its state sponsors of terrorism list.

Talk about a hard sell.

First, the administration is calling for a light U.N. mission, in a country where even heavy force has been ineffective.

Second, no one -- not the Ethiopians, not the African Union, not the United Nations -- wants to go to Somalia. For the two-year lifetime of the tiny African Union mission, the international community has struggled to find troops for the operation.

Finally, you can expect this to ratchet up tensions in the region. Eritrea is indeed rumored to supply the Somali Islamists with weapons. But Ethiopia and Eritrea have an ongoing border dispute that has left both sides exceedingly militarized. Acceding to Ethiopian wishes by putting Eritrea on the terror list is like playing Russia roulette. With all live rounds.

After a weekend in which the Somali president fired his prime minister (only to have him effectively re-instated by parliament) there is little reason to believe that the weak government will not fall instantly once foreign troops are gone.

Light a match, and the whole place might just blow.

Photo: JOSE CENDON/AFP/Getty Images

Five former presidents tell Obama that Latin America needs free trade.

Brahma Chellaney says Pakistan's army is a liability; time for an overhaul.

Peter Tatchell advocates arresting Mugabe for torture.

Yulia Latynina thinks the Kremlin is to blame for Russia's financial crisis.

Nick Malkoutzis says economic woes and uncertainty fueled Greece's riots.