What will become of Zimbabwe is a challenge to open source. We look for fault lines. One is obvious, the purge of military veterans in favor of Grace Mugabe and the ZANU-PF youth wing. If this is the only fault line, it is possible that even a military junta offshoot could run the country better than Mugabe’s circle. It would merely have to deal with:

• Total destruction of the economy.
• A Transparency International corruption index of 154/172.
• Emigration of 1/4 of the population.
• Harare, almost the world’s least livable city.

The statistics are the tip of the iceberg. Things can only be so bad if an economy is fractured down to sheer rubble, so that it is unavailable to  a workforce,  economic multipliers, and capital.

There are two possible extremes: a few own everything, or everybody owns nothing. But even basic information is in dispute. On this particular subject, one might look at land reform. (Wikipedia) Land reform in Zimbabwe , quotes  the  Institute of Development Studies

...the Zimbabwean economy is recovering and that new business is growing in the rural areas.[48] ...(or 20% of Zimbabwe's area), 49.9% of those who received land were rural peasants, 18.3% were "unemployed or in low-paid jobs in regional towns, growth points and mines," 16.5% were civil servants, and 6.7% were of the Zimbabwean working class. Despite the claims by critics of the land reform only benefiting government bureaucrats, only 4.8% of the land went to business people, and 3.7% went to security services.

But perhaps the above is a neat paper fiction. Perhaps the distributions were along family lines, recreating virtual tribal villages, with civil servants and security forces as  virtual  headmen. With competing  interpretations, the statistics reveal  nothing about fault lines. (Reuters)  Zimbabwe’s army seizes power, targets ‘criminals’ around Mugabe offers an interesting tidbit relating to VP Mnangagwa, whose firing was one of the triggers of the coup:

According to a trove of intelligence documents reviewed by Reuters this year, Mnangagwa has been planning to revitalize the economy by bringing back white farmers kicked off their land and patching up relations with the World Bank and IMF.

But all intelligence “troves” are subject to suspicion. Without the provenance, understanding the sources and their motives, it is impossible to rule out fiction, or contamination of fact with fiction, either by one of Mnangagwa’s many enemies, or someone turning a buck on the side with creative writing. If Mnangagwa really intended to bring back white farmers, the reasons might be:

• Turning to an outside group skirts the problem of favoritism.
• The outside group can be enfranchised and disenfranchised at will.
• Industrial farming is not a native skill. ZANU-PF neglected to transfer it when the whites were kicked out.

Robert Mugabe has ruled Rhodesia since 1980. An occasionally independent judiciary, and skeletal opposition remain.  The tolerance of of a skeletal opposition is usually to make it easier to watch. The phenomena of the judiciary is not as easily explained, but it may be an unconventional mechanism for building concensus.

Excepting Rwanda, the Niger Delta, and the borderland between North and Equatorial Africa, most of Africa’s current conflicts are not basically tribal or cultural. They are fueled by resources, in areas hospitable to private armies lead by charismatic madmen. If tribal frictions remain in Zimbabwe, they are dormant, at least until a conflict over legitimacy emerges.

But  how does a new ruler or clique attain legitimacy? Until yesterday, it all stemmed from Mugabe himself, who attained it by ending white rule. There is no other symbol, purpose, or status that can grant the junta  the equivalent. So Mugabe has been installed in a glass case, where respiration continues while the men with guns try to figure this out.

The history of other African states suggests  a hypothesis for events following the passing of Mugabe:

• The national myth, centered around Mugabe, disintegrates.
• The men with guns start shooting at each other.
• Dormant tribal frictions activate as clans look for allies.
• The junta disintegrates into competing strongmen.

Factors that tend to limit the duration of conflict:

• Homogeneous religion, with no apparent potential for radicalization.
• Immunity to the oil curse, because, if Zimbabwe has some oil, it isn’t enough.
• Conflict requires energy. In the classic Anatomy of Revolution, Crane R. Brinton remarks that revolution is rare in countries of grinding poverty. The book was published  in 1938, before our awareness of the form of energy that derives from ideological or religious fanaticism. But since neither exists in Zimbabwe, it’s a good rule for the circumstance.

So we have a projection for a conflict of limited duration, followed, perhaps, by the stasis of a dictatorship as in nearby Uganda. The probabilities for the projection cannot be assigned. There is too much uncertainty in the data at this juncture.

If you get to Harare, check out the Catinca Tabacaru Art Gallery. The trip to the suburb is best taken in an FWD, but I hear it’s worth it!

Reuters video:  Tech stars split over AI: threat or salvation?

The video begins with statements at a Portugal web summit by two living mental giants, Stephen Hawking, and Max Tegmark. It continues with the interview of a female simalucrum, which in the meaning of Philip K. Dick is the impeccable impersonation of a human by a robot.

The video ends with a question put to the simalucrum by an interviewer:

“Do you think you could be a threat?”

The simalucrum replies, “No.”

She lies.  Be afraid. Be very afraid.

For more on why, see Musk versus Zuckerberg versus Robbie the Robot; Who’s Lying?

This blog contains so many Asia articles, it would be superfluous to write   on the occasion of Trump’s Asia trip. Nothing new has transpired.

It’s a lot of reading. Even in capsule form, there may be enough words to hide the obvious conclusion, of which there are many examples. Imagine for a moment the U.S. as an imperial power.  It is widely accepted among historians that no imperial power has managed to shed the military obligations of empire before economic collapse. The classical description:

• In formation, economic advantage flows from the periphery to the core of the imperial empire.
• A military, required to defend the periphery, is funded by the economic advantage.
• For various reasons, which tend to differ in each case, the economic benefit to the core declines, while the cost of defense increases.
• As defense becomes impractical, the periphery melts away, leaving an insolvent core.

To share this fate is ironic, considering that the U.S. has historically been opposed to imperialism as an economic ideology. In some cases, involving the Seven Sisters, and multinationals in Latin America, the U.S. did behave as a loosely jointed imperial power, but always with the attitude of denial. We never thought ourselves as such.

Perhaps it would be better if we had. We would be better equipped to see the pattern. Uniquely, after World War II, and until the opening of China, the U.S. enjoyed the primary advantage of an imperial power, low cost supplies of raw materials. The defense of our politically nonexistent empire had another label, Containment of the Soviet Union.

The accusation of “U.S. Imperialism” was the traditional hue and cry against — “us.” It is not recapitulated here to be accusatory. I’m on our side. But it is  crucial to understand our predicament. Can we, just once, avoid the “inevitability of history” ?

There are so many think tanks, and so many thinkers, and so many politicians, yet in aggregate, they seem (and I say this without impugning anybody’s individual intelligence) — dumb. There is no military substitute for soft power. In argument, I wrote:

• Trump White House vows to stop China taking South China Sea islands
• Trump’s Tweets on China
• China Expansionism Part 2
• China Expansionism Part 1
• Pivot to Asia; Duterte declares end of Philippines-U.S. war games
• South China Sea Tense
• Pivot to Asia; Soft Power, 1 of many
• Pivot To Asia; Force Projection, Part 3
• Pivot To Asia, Cultural Aspects, Part 2
• Pivot To Asia, Historical Background; Part 1
• The Nine-Dotted Line (the very first article of this blog)

So what do you think? Are you going to let history deal us a crash landing, or will you craft a soft landing?

To my Chinese readers, I intend no harm. But since China has with finality chosen a form of government with Confucian roots, instead of democracy, the growing together that was anticipated 20 years ago cannot occur. We, too, have traditions to protect.

I keep your books close. I have just read  No Fixed Address – Nomads and the Fate of the Planet.

In the distant past, man was shaped by environment. Now the predominant effect is the other way around. In approach to how we can resume the molding of man by environment in a positive way, I’ve written something. Perhaps you could have a look at it.

contact at the domain name of this website.

A third point of triangulation is the detention of Abd-Rabbu Mansour Hadi. The visible reason is Hadi’s alliance with the Muslim Brotherhood. His motive is simple; in a situation where Hadi has to  lick the pot and scrape the pan for his own power pyramid, the Brotherhood is irresistibly attractive.  It is the Islamic analog to Masonry. The Brotherhood is suppressed in the Gulf with the same rationale of fear as formerly in the West of the Masons. But the Brotherhood is a very real threat. It’s like an instant cake batter of octopus tentacles.

Let’s skip the question of whether it is actually wise to transport the  official government of the country you are defending out of that country, into your own, and house them in a Hotel California (You can check out any time you like,But you can never leave!) Hadi is not an oligarch, but same description of sanction applies:

The designated individual was removed, suddenly, completely, and probably irreversibly,  from public life within the Saudi sphere of influence, even at the cost of creating an immediately unstable situation.

Should we trust Al Jazeera’s explanation, which involves the UAE, with which Qatar is in serious dispute? Quoting,

Hadi's weakening has gone hand-in-hand with the UAE's growing power in southern Yemen.

The Gulf nation has trained, financed and armed militias in Yemen that only answer to it, set up prisons, and created a security establishment parallel to Hadi's government.

Perhaps, with Hadi absent, it is a bit easier for the UAE to liquidate the Brotherhood in southern Yemen. But the explanation itself is not important to the question, which is about style and identity.  The sudden destruction of political legitimacy, perhaps without adequate consideration of the consequences, is common to all three events of the first bullet list.

The bullet list of Part 1 encompasses two elements of foreign policy, and one of total domestic reorganization. So the logic includes:

• Common style, which seems to lack options of soft manipulation, and subtle, as opposed to overt, coercion.
• Purview both foreign and domestic.
• Power of decision almost without limit in both domains.

In the language of AI, the above is like a backward-chaining logic proof. You pick something that you think might be true, the hypothesis, and establish a chain of logic that leads to the presupposed conclusion. The hypothesis is that Prince Salman is the sole author.  While logic admits the existence of pure facts, our field does not. But the conclusion is the almost-fact that policy authorship, as well as executive power, is concentrated in the hands of Prince Salman.

You probably guessed close to this, but may wonder  if there are other authors as well. The logic suggests there are none who rise above  counsel and institutional expertise.

Through careful open source analysis, we now have an almost-fact about the power structure of Saudi Arabia. Most of us can’t help rooting for Prince Salman, hoping he has the virtue, intelligence, and wisdom equal to the titanic task of building a modern nation. Some of his potential opponents have been comfortably imprisoned  in the Tower, oops, the  Riyadh Ritz Carlton. They have friends on the outside, and in Scotland — sorry, Yemen. The danger they present is amplified by the (Al Jazeera) Houthi offer of political asylum.

If it seems ludicrous that a Saudi prince would switch sides, consider the case of former Yemen president Ali Abdullah Saleh. A Western leaning kleptocrat, the Saudis forced his removal in favor of the more upright Mansour Hadi. Saleh then allied with the Houthis, who he formerly persecuted. There resulted, for a while, a working coalition between the predominantly Shiite Houthis and Saleh’s Sunni tribes.

The Houthi side is the Iran side. Nevertheless, there is just enough Sunni presence in the mix to make switching sides possible. To whom might this be attractive?

• The man who had everything, and now has nothing.
• The man who has something, but resents what he has lost.
• The political or religious malcontent.

The choice can be rationalized as one of temporary expediency. Allies today, enemies tomorrow, such was the tribal ethos before the glaciation of geopolitics. This was true for Europe of the 19th century, and a good part of the 20th.

So what is Prince Salman going to do with the occupants of the Ritz Carlton? His decision style lacks  options of soft manipulation, and subtle, as opposed to overt, coercion.

If this was the U.K., he could, of course, say, Off with their heads!

But there’s no reason to lose ours. To be continued shortly.

The maneuvers of Saudi foreign policy come without the dissectable attributions we are accustomed to in the U.S. But recent events triangulate to probable authorship:

• The Great Saudi Purge.
• The “recall” of Saad Hariri. The Reuters article is of poor quality, disguising story as news. Bias or no, (Al Jazeera) Saudi arranged resignation throws Lebanon into turmoil has more information.
• (Al Jazeera) Yemeni President Hadi ‘under house arrest’ in Riyadh, where “President” means, of the part of the country in control of the coalition against the Houthis.

This is also an interesting exercise in the use of information from Al Jazeera, which though frequently richer than Western source, has the problem of a subtle agenda that may or may not be present, and may or may not interfere with profitable use.

In the most subtle way possible, more subtle than even the twists of RT, Al Jazeera is the mouthpiece of Qatar’s ongoing struggle with the other Gulf states. Information from Al Jazeera is useful to us to the extent that it is not compromised by the agenda of Qatar. So we sift for  the bare facts and examine with curiosity the more complex statements of cause and effect.  An interesting read is to be found in (Al Jazeera)  Is Lebanon caught in a Saudi-Iran regional power play? Quoting,

The government in Riyadh wanted to “kill two birds with one stone”, Halawi told Al Jazeera – consolidating power locally, “which required moving Hariri to Riyadh and allegedly – according to some Lebanese local reports – taking over his assets … [while] simultaneously attempting to shake Hezbollah’s comfortable seat in Hariri’s ‘unity government’.”

It could be true, or not. Al Jazeera  gives no credence to a beneficent intent of the Salmans’ purge. If it did, then the rephrased statement could instead read [my edits],

The government in Riyadh wanted to “kill two birds with one stone”, XXX told Al Jazeera – removing Hariri, a proxy inextricably entwined with the elites purged for corruption,  [while] simultaneously attempting to shake Hezbollah’s comfortable seat in Hariri’s ‘unity government’.”

In this analysis,  the  above statement(s) are used only to the extent that it doesn’t matter which is which. The goal is merely to identify similarities of style in the execution of Saudi policies, foreign and domestic. The style is this:

The designated individual was removed, suddenly, completely, and probably irreversibly  from public life within the Saudi sphere of influence, even at the cost of creating an immediately unstable situation.

About the purged elite, the same statement can be made, with high, if not certain probability. The removal of the elite is probably irreversible. As with Lebanon, instability may be induced in Saudi Arabia by the sudden replacement of a (corrupt) consensus based autocracy by a centralized autocracy based, in cute metaphor, on shifting sands.

If a high cost seems doubtful, consider:

• The purge had  the suddenness of a no-knock drug bust. This style is motivated by necessity, because it lacks the replacement of consensus by another form of legitimacy. Of the choices available to fix a government, it has the least to say for it. So what was the necessity? The princes might have fought back and won.
• Prince Miteb, head of the elite national guard, was purged. To an unknown extent, this admits the possibility that the security apparatus is not loyal to the monarchy.
• The monarchy, which formerly governed through a pyramid bound together by money, consensus, and tribal ties, now governs through a bureaucracy. But the assumed loyalty may not be there, or may be for sale. This is a structural problem, a little like a skyscraper that is suddenly missing some girders in the middle.
• The power base of the Salmans  included a complex bargain with the Ulama. Prince Salman promises a more moderate Islam. Well and good, but this conflicts openly with the bargain with and charter of the Wahhabi ulama.  Wahabism, which is indistinguishable in practice, if not history from Salafism, is not a moderate religion.
• The power base of the royals, which was formerly based on this complex consensus pyramid of princes and clerics, now includes with certainty only common people of modern mindset. In the pyramid that remains, everybody else is a question mark. Who owes, and who is owed? Whose obligations will be cancelled, and whose wealth will be swept away?

To be continued shortly

(CNN) Saudi corruption case spells trouble for Trump highlights the reputation of Prince Alwaleed as a liberal. Quoting,

While the Saudi kingdom maintains that the arrests are part of a larger investigation into corruption, it’s hard not to wonder if Alwaleed’s mouth — rather than his financial transactions — is to blame for his current predicament. The prince, who is more moderate than the ruling leaders, has challenged them on a variety of issues, including the ban on women driving (years before it was lifted).

Writer David A. Andelman is seduced by the visible. It’s not a mouth, halitosis, stained teeth, or anything like it. We carry with our culture the idea that people act out of conviction. While the extremes of Islam may give the impression that every thought and movement in the Middle East stems from conviction, this is not actually true. Every mind contains a secular component. In the ME, it is tribal culture. Preceding by millennia the nation-state, tribal culture was the second extension of the Darwinian principle, beyond the individual and then beyond the village.

it is part of this culture that tribes combine forces to gain advantage over other tribes. These combinations form, dissolve, and reform in short years according to conflict limited only by potential short term reward and available energy.

To the north of Saudi Arabia, in Syria, the principle is demonstrably active, in the eastern Sunni tribes who are willing to deal with Assad. To the south, in Yemen, the principle is active in the alliance of Ali Abdullah Saleh with the Houthis. Only ten years ago, Saleh was the Houthis’ greatest persecutor. The alliance is fraying. Switching sides is easily done, with shed blood vanquished by transparent oaths of convenience.

In Saudi Arabia, paved with petro-dollars,  this primitive social system is challenged but still active. Sometimes a waning social system displays unexpected vitality in the face of existential challenge.  A coup is not impossible.

Some possibilities, between which open-source cannot distinguish:

• Alwaleed, a liberal, was secretly dealing with conservative hardliners out of sheer self preservation.
• If the purge omitted Alwaleed, it would be logically impossible to reassure him about his own position, leaving him a loose cannon. Reforms would continually have to work around him.
• Alwaleed resents Prince Salman as a usurper.
• Alwaleed’s wealth could finance a coup.
• In combination with the above, Alwaleed’s wealth would be a handsome addition to the national treasury.

The fluidity of tribal allegiances, so unfamiliar to us, makes any combination of the above possible. Compare this with U.S. Congressional politics, where principle usually prohibits working constructively with the minority party.

NPR:  11 Saudi Princes Among Dozens Arrested In Apparent Move To Boost King’s Son. Reuters names names:  Factbox: Saudi Arabia detains princes, ministers in anti-corruption probe.

News coverage has so far omitted the Machiavellian nature of the arrests. It’s standard cynicism to remark that it’s about power, not corruption.  But this is true. This is a purge.  By the standards of the West, Saudi Arabia is corrupt. But by the norms of a tribal society, it is not. To pay off the headman of the tribe is perfectly normal. Some of the arrested run their own foreign policies, sponsoring terror. With specific reference to Saudi, this was discussed in General Mattis; Iran continues to sponsor terrorism; Iran, Iran, Iran. Quoting,

Only after approximations of western attitudes are accepted by the core of Saudi society will there even be the possibility of reform of the ulama itself. And of the Wahhabi madrassa system, which is funded on a more open level.

Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman has been tasked by King Salman with the radical reformation of Saudi society. To recreate Saudi  in the mold of a national state, the tribal structure must be co- opted or suppressed. Previous statements by Prince Salman have indicated confidence that the existing tribal structure can be co-opted for this purpose.

If the arrested were thought to be an asset to this program of radical change, the purge would not have happened.  But with the announcement on 9/27 that Saudi women will be allowed to drive, those arrested, formerly an asset, became  a problem. What is the connection?

Saudi society is perhaps the most severely patriarchal extant.  Women behind the wheel as coup material  sounds like a joke. But it’s serious business, striking at the core of male hegemony, just like the price of gas. Much  like the sad fate of the Knights Templars on Friday the 13th,  it suggests whispers of a coup struck down before the event.

The effort of the Salmans, King and Prince, to create a more level, civil, modern  society is laudable. But the driving forces have not the apparency of  China’s anti-corruption campaign. In Saudi, the definition of corruption itself has just changed, in service of the effort by the sitting government to drive revolution  from the top down to the masses.

Intelligence establishments with  SIGINT capability must now be pondering:  If preparation for a coup is seen, whose side to take?

The Sheikh of Araby, his days are numbered. On second thought, maybe we should lighten up.

The series, Advice for a New Secretary of State, Part 1to 6, seems to be a hit, perhaps because it builds to a constructive response to the challenge of Russian political subversion. It’s something we can think about it for a bit.

Most readers access the articles through the main page, which in layout resembles Jack Kerouac’s scroll writings. But readers have singled out some articles for direct referral. The popularity of some articles surprises.  Ebola, Rats, Lice, and History, and Hans Zinsser Part 1 has the most direct hits. It does have a zing to it, because I felt passionate about the subject, but why now? My personal favorite is Address to Davos.

In Part 5, Advice For…, we have an abstract argument that operant conditioning could be an effective tool to curb some of the activities of a nation-state. We want the Russians to cease subversion of our political process via social media and fake news.  B.F. Skinner’s numerous publications explain in general terms how this should be done. Now let’s get specific.  A U.S. response, what Skinner calls the reinforcer,  to inhibit the Russian operant,  should:

• Occur quickly after the operant, preferably overlapping the operant itself.
• Be  implemented according to Skinner’s research on schedules. This rules out actions that are one-shots, without the possibility of unlimited repetition.

Since we’re dealing with a supra-organism, a nation-state, other requirements can be inferred. Unlike a small furry animal in a box, which knows when it is shocked and when it gets a treat, we must ensure that the Russians are aware of both their operant, and our reinforcer. This is what you did, and this is what we’re doing. It may take the form of a simple note,  a web page, or a PowerPoint presentation. Who do we want to target?

• If the reinforcer is known only to a small elite group, the effect of the reinforcer can be obviated with spurious explanations.
• if the reinforcer is widely known to the Russian public, then it risks what Skinner’s warning on page 120 of Beyond Freedom and Dignity, reinforcement of the wrong thing. If viewed as a political threat, it forces the Russian government into a propaganda war. This is counter to the goal.
• We want the behavior modification of our reinforcer to increase the satisfaction of the Russians as well as ourselves. In other words, we want to them to feel happier if they stop, than if they continue despite the reinforcer.
• This is best achieved if a high-to-mid level of the Russian bureaucracy is aware of the reinforcer.
• The process must be fair. It must not be subject to political manipulation that changes how the Skinner Box works.

We want a low key public approach, neither a whisper or a shout, that the Russian propaganda machine would prefer to skip over, rather than amplify.

Our actions are reinforcers that significant Russians, and those who approach significance, care about. What should they be? The Russia sanctions are analogous to the person-to-person behavior of passive aggression. This is the psych term for aggression by one person against another by not acting. In foreign relations, “passive aggression” is the only form of aggression that is rarely interpreted as a casus belli.

Five cabinet-level departments have the potential to implement Skinner’s reinforcers: State, Commerce, Justice,  Treasury, and Homeland Security. The actual ability to do so relies on a framework of administrative law that only partially exists. Changes to administrative law for this purpose may encounter resistance. Bureaucrats may protest a legal intrusion. Entrenched interests may lobby intensively.

But the threat to democracy is as great as Nikki Haley says. So this is what we need to do:

• For sanctions already in place, administrative law must be developed that permits changing the sanctions with the speed required to implement Skinner’s requirement, that the response overlap the operant. This implies lifting some sanctions, but with the supple threat to reimpose, in days if not hours.
• Specifications should be developed for new sanctions that, too severe for the long term, could be used in the short term as responses to operants.
• The large body of administrative law under the purview of State and Homeland Security should be examined for possible use as operant responses.
• This is our Skinner Box. It has to work smoothly and rapidly. This cannot be accomplished through a normal deliberative process. A central authority, with  technical expertise in operant conditioning, should work the levers and, with the help of the intelligence community, measure the result.  The State Department fits well as the umbrella, provided that political insulation can be provided.
  
• After Russia has spent some time in our Skinner Box, they should have a feeling akin to the exhaustion of the impulse of a small furry animal, but in words: “Why are we doing this? We’re getting nothing out of it.” The possibly unattainable perfect result would be if this feeling were accompanied by no other, such as rage, anger, or desire of retribution. We just want them to quit.

So that the Russians understand why a reinforcer is used, we have to give them least a hint of why. There could be a metric, based on the level of social media hacking, volumes of fake news generated, and other forms of subversion, according to a semi-public formula. A simple daily chart, attachable in emails, would explain our dissatisfaction. The only constraint on openness is the need of the intelligence community to “obfuscate” , to partially disguise the data. We can’t allow the Russians to discover in detail how we monitor subversion, or how to game the system.

The Russians have expressed continuing interest in cooperation in the fight against terror. Russia’s long southern border should make this their most important foreign policy concern. The Ukraine, Assad’s genocide, and uncertainty about Russia’s actual goals in the region are strong deterrents to cooperation. Perhaps things will change, creating new possibilities for engagement with Russia.

Ironically, the more engagement with the Russians, the greater the possibilities to deter their noxious habits of political subversion. The Russians have their own technology of subversion and social control, developed  in the Soviet Union, and to the pinnacle  in East Germany as Zersetzung. An effective Western counter strategy must also leverage technology, of which operant conditioning is one example.

Next: Ethics, theirs, and ours.