Morning Brief: Triumphant Hollande visits Timbuktu as French airstrikes continue

Top news: French President Francois Hollande was hailed as a liberator Saturday during a visit  to Timbuktu, Mali, where he praised the military campaign to oust Islamist rebels while vowing that France would soon transfer responsibility for the mission to African forces.

Hollande has repeatedly stressed that the French military intervention in Mali would be short lived, but that commitment has in recent days run up against the reality on the ground, where Islamist rebels have ceded control of most of Mali's major cities but have likely taken refuge in the country's rugged mountains and caves. As a result, French airstrikes continued over the weekend as fighter jets bombed rebel training camps and arms and fuel depots. According to French Foreign Minister Laurent Fabius, the rebels "cannot stay there a long time unless they have ways to get new supplies."

Despite the continuing instability in the country, French forces said they would withdraw from Timbuktu on Thursday. That move would appear to signal a shift in the French strategy as it pivots from seeking control of Mali's major cities and tries to strike rebels who have taken refuge in remote parts of the country. Still, French forces do not control all of Mali's major cities. Though French forces control the airport at Kidal, but Tuareg rebels remain in control of the town. 

In a press conference at the French ambassador's residence, Hollande acknowledged the difficulties still facing the mission. "There is still a whole part of the north that remains unconquered ... There are terrorist elements concentrated in some areas of the country, others who are dispersed. There are risks of terrorism. So, we have not yet finished our mission," he said.

Iran: Foreign Minister Ali Akbar Salehi said that Iran is open to direct talks with the United States and that his country welcomed the resumption of multilateral negotiations scheduled for Feb. 25. Western diplomats, however, downplayed the significance of the remarks, saying that Salehi carries little policy making influence in Tehran.

The U.N.'s Deal With the Devil - By Sakhr Al-Makhadhi

"Is it logical to provide aid to a regime responsible for destroying cities, bombing hospitals and bakeries and displacing population, so it can fix the dire situation it had created!"

This was what Syria's National Coalition, the principal umbrella group of the Syrian opposition, wanted to know. The coalition was sounding the alarm about a U.N. plan, published Dec. 19, to launch a half-billion-dollar assistance program in Syria, in cooperation with President Bashar al-Assad's regime. The news spread like wildfire among outraged anti-Assad activists, who feared that the funds would be diverted to fund the regime's war effort. Under the Twitter hashtag #UNpaysAssad, people implored the world body to reconsider.

Here's what really happened. The U.N. Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (UNOCHA) worked out how much money U.N. agencies would need to help Syrians for the first half of 2013. The total was just under $520 million, with the U.N. World Food Program asking for the largest share ($139 million). UNHCR (the U.N. refugee agency), the U.N. Relief and Works Agency, and UNICEF followed close behind.

"The Syrian government is trying to get some of that money directly to its agencies," says National Coalition spokesman Khalid Saleh. "They're asking for the [Syrian] deputy minister of foreign affairs to oversee the distribution."

Indeed, UNOCHA's Humanitarian Assistance Response Plan (HARP) includes some pretty reverent language. "All humanitarian assistance is, and will continue to be, delivered with full respect to the sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic during the implementation of this Response Plan," it asserts.

But does that mean Assad will get his hands on half a billion dollars? Almost certainly not.

Saleh admits that though the United Nations has been providing aid in Syria for two years, it's unlikely the Syrian government has seen any of that cash. "I don't think there have been any direct funds transfers between the U.N. and the Assad regime," he says. "But there are some programs that operate in Damascus where they would not allow them to operate freely."

It all comes down to the way that aid is distributed in Syria. International bodies rely on local partner agencies to deliver food and supplies to those in need. U.N. agencies pick Syrian NGOs with on-the-ground knowledge to get into the places they can't. The trouble is that many believe -- with some justification -- that there is no such thing as a true nongovernmental organization in Syria.

"[NGOs'] programs are controlled by Assad," explains Saleh. "They can't operate unless they have permission, and [the regime] has its own men within these programs. How can we be sure that the assistance from these programs will get into the hands of Syrians?"

The Syrian Arab Red Crescent (SARC) is the U.N. agencies' primary partner in Syria, and it is the one that most frequently comes in for criticism for alleged links to the government. John Ging, UNOCHA's operations director, has just returned from Syria, where he spent time in both government-controlled areas and rebel-held zones. He said in a Jan. 28 news conference that SARC volunteers are universally respected: "What was reassuring for us to see was how [SARC volunteers were] greeted and regarded in the opposition-controlled areas. This of course is evidence for us that they are doing a job and doing it with integrity."

America's Game - By Joshua E. Keating

It's a classic example of American hubris that we routinely refer to our winning sports teams as "world champions" even when they only play against other American teams. But in recent years, at least for some sports, an influx of international talent has made the label seem a bit less bizarre. The World Champion San Francisco Giants won baseball's title series last fall against a league with 243 international players -- a record 28.4 percent of the league on opening day -- hailing from 15 countries. The World Champion Miami Heat play in a league with 84 international players -- there's at least one on 29 on the 30 teams -- including marquee names like Dirk Nowitzki, Tony Parker, and Pau Gasol. Hockey, the British-invented, Canadian-developed national sport of Russia, has had an international flavor from the start.

Football remains the exception. According to the NFL, only 74 players out of more than 1,600 roster spots across 32 teams were born outside the United States. The overwhelming majority of those came to the country as children and were developed as players in U.S. high schools and colleges. And football's audience is mostly American as well. Sunday's showdown between the Baltimore Ravens and the San Francisco 49ers will be broadcast in 180 countries but, while exact viewership stats are hard to come by, it's a safe bet that outside the United States -- or at least North America -- the vast majority of those staying up late to watch will be American expats. The winner of the game will also have a plausible claim to the title of "world champion," but mostly because the rest of the world isn't particularly interested.

So what makes football such a bastion of American exceptionalism? Why does the country's most popular sport -- perhaps its most popular form of entertainment of any kind -- excite so little attention outside the land where it was invented?

It's probably not the innate Americanness of the sport. Few activities are more quintessentially American than baseball, but the national pastime has found a wide following throughout Latin America and Japan. And geopolitical tensions with the United States haven't stopped Venezuela from producing Major League stars or millions of Chinese from following Yao Ming's NBA career. Plus, successive generations of immigrants to the United States from Notre Dame's legendary Norwegian coach Knute Rockne to the Jacksonville Jaguars' Pakistani-born owner Shahid Khan have fallen in love with the gridiron game.

Some might point to the roughness of the sport -- which we're now learning may be far more dangerous than we previously realized -- but high-contact sports from rugby to boxing to ultimate fighting have found international success. There's also the complexity of the rules, which can be off-putting to first-time viewers, but tens of millions of people in Europe, Africa, Australia, and South Asia regularly tune in for similarly byzantine cricket.

More likely, non-Americans aren't all that interested in watching football because they don't grow up playing it, or at least watching it at a local level. "Our sport is not played in many curriculums in schools around the world," says Chris Parsons, vice president of NFL International, which promotes the league abroad. "Other sports have the benefit of that, such as soccer and to some degree basketball, so they have greater opportunities to engage." In the United States, high school and college teams serve are the incubators of NFL talent, and the lack of such infrastructure abroad is one major reason why so few non-U.S.-educated players have made it to the pros.

But why so few university or private club football teams abroad? The answers may have more to do with economics than culture. "It's the kit, and how expensive it can be," says Gary Marshall, Chairman of the British American Football Association (BAFA). "Basketball, you just need a hoop on the side of a garage and a couple of guys and you can play. Baseball you just need a bat and a ball and that's it. Football, it's the cost of the equipment to play the full 11-on-11 game."

In the Army Now - By Elizabeth Young McNally

An instructor at West Point once told me that if she had a daughter, she would not want her to attend the Academy or join the Army. "I want my daughter to be part of organizations in which all jobs are open to her, provided she meets the qualifications," she said.

At the time, I did not fully appreciate why my instructor was saying this. I was just a 20-year-old cadet trying to make it through West Point, after all. In the ensuing years, however, I served in the Army, twice deployed to Iraq, transitioned to a civilian career, and became a mother to a baby girl. And, although the combat exclusion rule would not have precluded me from encouraging my own daughter to serve her country in uniform, I do believe that ending it will make the U.S. military a stronger institution.

Since Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta's announcement last week that women will be formally allowed into combat roles, many commentators have noted that female soldiers have already seen plenty of combat in places like Iraq and Afghanistan. What many don't fully appreciate is how well integrated many aspects of the military already are. In those parts of our armed forces, women and men work side by side in an environment that focuses on getting the job done, not who is doing it. That approach has been self-reinforcing and, I think, made the secretary's decision easier.

I spent eight years in the active duty Army. During part of that time, I was a Military Police platoon leader and company commander. When conducting a mission, writing a performance evaluation, or recommending a job assignment, what I asked myself was, "Is this soldier well-trained? Can this soldier perform the tasks associated with the mission? Do I trust this soldier to do the right thing?" I did not ask myself, "What is this soldier's gender?" It simply did not matter; what mattered was ability and aptitude.

In 2004, I was the personnel officer for a large Military Police battalion deployed in and around Baghdad. I was responsible for all of the awards, casualty reports, major disciplinary actions, and evaluation reports for several hundred men and women engaged in combat operations. Every day, female soldiers completed their missions and distinguished themselves heroically when their convoys came under enemy fire or their forward operating base was hit over and over again by mortars, just as their male counterparts did. I processed the casualty reports on female soldiers injured in the course of their duties, just as their male counterparts were. And when it came time for evaluations and discipline, I observed that nearly all female soldiers displayed professionalism, grit, assertiveness, and determination, just as their male counterparts did.

As a result of focusing on getting the job done, without regard to gender -- a focus shared by countless colleagues in the many units that include both men and women -- in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, female soldiers, just like their male counterparts, have had the opportunity to complete their missions, no matter how difficult, and give their all for their comrades and their country. Over the last decade in particular, during a counterinsurgency fight that eliminated the difference between a frontline and a rear area, both genders routinely faced combat. In doing so, they have been able to show that "what is this soldier's gender?" is not an important question to ask.

My fellow MPs and I were fortunate to be part of a branch of the Army where every position in every unit was open to everyone, assuming he or she met the standards. As such, we were able to flourish in an environment where gender had no impact on job assignment. As a woman in an institution still dominated by men, this had an extraordinarily empowering effect on each of us. And it ensured the best person could be selected for a given job. Unfortunately, because of the combat exclusion rule, I also knew that the equality I enjoyed in the MP Corps was not universally shared throughout the armed forces.

I have now spent nearly five years as a civilian. During that time, I have worked with and for organizations where all that matters is whether or not you are the most qualified for a given job. This strengthens a woman's place in the workforce and, more importantly, strengthens the organization itself. The organization can get the most out of its talent pool and benefits from a greater diversity of experience. While I fully appreciate that military service, especially in combat, differs in many, many ways from working in a civilian institution, I also believe the tenet of choosing the most qualified individual should know no bounds.

Seven weeks ago, I gave birth to a little girl. As I look upon her in my arms, I have come to believe even more strongly that she should have the same opportunities as her two-year-old brother. That if she -- just like he -- has the right qualifications, she can be all she can be, in whatever line of work she wants. And that, similar to my West Point instructor's opinion, she should join institutions where her future is only limited by her dreams, her determination, her work ethic, and her ability to meet a job's exacting standards. 

So given the personal journey I and my fellow female comrades in arms have traveled, I was thrilled this past week when I learned Secretary Panetta lifted the ban excluding women from combat. This will mean that, going forward, the women who have proven themselves on the battlefields of Iraq and Afghanistan -- and the women who came before us and will follow us -- will have the same opportunity as our male counterparts. This not only empowers women. It also strengthens our military and our nation.

Once Upon a Time in Seoul - An FP Photo Essay

The Seoul we know today is a dazzling city of neck-cramping skyscrapers and head-spinning change. It's the capital of a country often held up as the ultimate Asian success story: South Korea's GDP per capita of $32,000 per year ranks its citizens among the richest in the world. It's the pop culture capital of the region, pumping out soap operas enjoyed from Japan to Afghanistan, and K-pop superstars known on every corner of the planet. And, with almost 95 percent of its residents on broadband, it's the most wired city in the world.

Present-day Seoul so exudes frantic modernity -- this is the country that pledged to have a robot in every household by 2020 -- that it's easy to forget how recently its residents were desperately poor. By some estimates, South Korea's GDP per capita in 1960 was just $1,765. Just 40 years ago, the Han River -- now lined with cafes and pedestrian walkways -- was flanked by rice paddies and villages of tiny shacks. The country was just emerging from decades of Japanese colonial rule when the 1950-1953 Korean War reduced practically the entire peninsula to rubble. It was only the industry-promoting, democracy-repressing governments of the 1960s and 1970s that set South Korea on the path toward becoming an economic powerhouse.

For all the benefits economic development has brought, the speed of change has left some Seoul residents feeling a little woozy. The frenetic pace and cramped quarters of the capital can be stressful: South Korea has one of the world's highest suicide rates, and Koreans are famously heavy drinkers. There's a wistful nostalgia among some for the traditional values and sense of community that existed before the boom. Here, in pictures mainly from the 1940s and 1950s (courtesy of the website koreaBANG), Foreign Policy goes back to simpler times, before Seoul was transformed into a booming metropolis.

Courtesy of koreaBANG

On the Warpath with France's Avant-Garde

On Jan. 16, just days after France announced its military intervention in Mali to reclaim territory seized by Islamist rebels, Italian photojournalist Fabio Bucciarelli arrived in Bamako. For the next two weeks, he followed French troops as they prepared to shell the central town of Diabaly, passing through places such as Niono and Ségou. As French airstrikes drove militants back and ground troops reclaimed town after town, Bucciarelli traced their advance from the country's western front line to the north.

Bucciarelli told Foreign Policy that attempting to capture the action was a challenge. French-led forces imposed a "strong media blackout" through checkpoints and blockades. "We only had the possibility to cover the aftermath," he said. "There is no photo of the real war in Mali."

Here are some of the striking images he was able to capture while following in the footsteps of the French invasion.

Above, a Malian soldier awaits the arrival of the French Army in the town of Niono on Jan. 20. 

Two more polio workers killed in northwest Pakistan

Event notice: Afghanistan 2014: Planning for the Transition, Monday, February 4, 2013. 12:15-1:45PM. Featuring Saad Mohseni, who has been described as Afghanistan's first media mogul, and Peter Bergen, director of the New America Foundation's National Security Studies Program (NAF).

Tragedy on the road

A roadside bomb killed two more polio workers in northwest Pakistan on Thursday, when the motorcycle they were riding was struck by an explosion, though it was unclear whether the men had been targeted or not (AP).

A court in the United Kingdom is considering whether to hear the case of Noor Khan, who is accusing the British government of providing intelligence to the CIA that was used in drone strikes, one of which killed his father, Malik Daud Khan at a meeting of tribal elders in North Waziristan in 2011 (NYT). The case threatens to implicate European governments in the controversial U.S. drone campaign, which Europe has so far declined to replicate on their own.

According to India's The Hindu newspaper, Pakistan has lodged a complaint with the the United Nations Military Observer Group in India and Pakistan (UNMOGIP) alleging that since 1998, Indian forces have tortured and decapitated at least 12 Pakistani soldiers in cross-border attacks, and massacred 29 civilians (AFP). The Line of Control that divides the disputed territory of Kashmir has witnessed several deadly skirmishes between Indian and Pakistani troops over the past few weeks.

Flying accusations

Afghan officials are furious over the U.S. military's blacklisting of an Afghan airline, first reported by the Wall Street Journal last week, over allegations that the airline, Kam Air, has been involved in narcotics smuggling (NYT). Kam Air officials have denied the allegations, and the Afghan government says it has no knowledge of the alleged smuggling, and both parties are demanding an explanation from the United States.

Sound of music

Afghanistan's first youth orchestra is likely to travel to the United States to perform at Washington DC's Kennedy Center and New York City's Carnegie Hall in the next few weeks (TIME). Ahmad Sarmsat, an Afghan musician who trained in Russia and Australia, and American director William Harvey, are working to send 52 young musicians from the National Institute of Music, which Sarmsat founded in 2009 in an effort to revive Afghanistan's music scene after years of Taliban repression.

-- Jennifer Rowland