Quantcast
Channel: Eurasia Review
Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live

Choosing Between Trump And Clinton – OpEd

0
0

By Jonathan Power*

I have a fantasy. Donald Trump wins. He goes to Moscow on his first trip as president and gives President Vladimir Putin a bear hug and they go hunting in the forest, Soviet style.

When they emerge they have shot a couple of bears and have had a good lunch laid out for them by acolytes at which they have discussed the matters of the world.

They give a press conference. They have decided to re-start negotiations on major nuclear arms reductions and both say they unilaterally are immediately ridding themselves of a 1,000 missiles each.

They have found a way to implement autonomy for eastern Ukraine, as done in Scotland, which Trump with his Scottish golf courses knows well. Ukraine can work toward both a trade agreement with the European Union (EU) and the Russian-backed Eurasian Economic Union (EEU). Russia was always happy about such an arrangement, but many Ukrainians weren’t and only wanted an EU arrangement. This was the trigger for the uprising in Kiev and western support for the powerful revolutionary movements that had a fascist pedigree.

Dealing with Syria is both simpler and more difficult — difficult because of the intensity of the fighting and the multi-nation interests and easier because neither Russia nor the NATO powers want to see a clash over a relatively small part of the global population — Syria’s population is 9 million, about the same as one of America’s eastern states.

In the forest they agreed to stop using Russian warplanes backing President Bashar Assad, the US to stop aiding anti-Assad guerrillas and both to concentrate on defeating Daesh. In return the US would invite Russia to share its airbase in Qatar. The civil war opponents would be left alone to fight. The United Nations mediation would continue.

Trump has a point in wanting rapprochement with Russia. At the moment Washington’s policy is going nowhere except to raise the stakes with an increasingly militant Russia. (For those who think this is just Putin they should go and talk to the elite of Russia’s students studying international relations and they will find, as I did in Moscow not long ago, almost unanimous support for his foreign policy.)

It is interesting to reflect on the history of Russia and the US. When Russia and the US have been at war together it has always been as allies. Throughout the 19th century Russia was America’s closest friend. It stood with the North during the Civil War. It sent warships to US coastal areas to prevent Great Britain and France from interfering on the side of the Confederacy. In 1867, when the US bought Alaska from Russia, the Senate’s vote on ratification of the treaty was unanimous as a gesture of cordiality.

Russia approved the US acquisition of the Philippines following the US imperialistic war with Spain. When in 1904 Japan unexpectedly started a war with Russia, President Theodore Roosevelt mediated a peace agreement for which he won the Nobel Prize.

Later the US welcomed the 1917 revolution that brought Lenin to power — after all the Tsars had become absolutists and also persecuted the Jews.

In both world wars Russia and the US fought Germany as comrades in arms. Their relationship, now deteriorating, ended with the Cuban missile crisis when Russia put nuclear-tipped missiles into Cuba. They nearly came to nuclear war. How might President John Kennedy have reacted at the time to a Russian invitation for Cuba to join the Warsaw Pact, just as Washington has pushed successfully the membership in NATO of some of Russia’s immediate neighbors?

Indeed, at one time, President Barack Obama extended the invitation to Ukraine and Georgia. (Later it was withdrawn.)

Much more recently, the US sent several of its naval ships to Georgia and signed agreements with Poland and the Czech Republic to provocatively and unnecessarily deploy anti-ballistic missiles. Because of that Russia announced plans to deploy similar missiles in Kaliningrad aimed at Western Europe.

When President Bill Clinton came to power at the time of President Boris Yeltsin, he treated Russia like a defeated nation and pushed NATO’s reach up to near the Russian border.

For those who say I should become a speechwriter for Trump I should say all this is speculative. The Pentagon and the CIA would certainly work to stop any “adventurism” on Trump’s part, although after the recent sexual revelations he is probably bullet proof to blackmail.

Still I can’t trust him. Rhetoric is one thing. Doing it is another. Besides, I don’t want to see Obamacare cut back or taxes on the rich lowered, or the ending of the process of letting young black men out of jail where they have been incarcerated for minor offenses that whites never would be imprisoned for, or steps to end global warming halted. For me Hillary Clinton it is, although I wish, in foreign policy, she could be as I fantasize Trump would be.

* Jonathan Power is a British journalist, filmmaker and writer.


US Lawmakers Press Loretta Lynch To Provide Information On Government Hacking

0
0

A bipartisan coalition of US Senate and House lawmakers have asked Attorney General Loretta Lynch to provide Congress with more information about a proposed expansion of government hacking and surveillance powers.

Sen. Ron Wyden, D-Ore., Judiciary Committee member Sen. Mike Lee, R-Utah, and Ranking Member Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., with House Judiciary Committee Ranking Member Rep. John Conyers, Jr., D-Mich., and senior Judiciary Committee member Rep. Ted Poe, R-Texas, led a bipartisan group of 23 lawmakers asking for more information about the proposal, formally known as amendments to Rule 41 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.

Unless Congress acts, these new amendments are scheduled to go into effect on December 1.

“We are concerned about the full scope of the new authority that would be provided to the Department of Justice,” the lawmakers wrote. “We believe that Congress — and the American public — must better understand the Department’s need for the proposed amendments, how the Department intends to use its proposed new powers, and the potential consequences to our digital security before these rules go into effect.”

The lawmakers ask DOJ a number of questions about how Rule 41 will be used, including:

  • How the government intends to prevent forum shopping by prosecutors seeking court approval to hack into Americans’ devices;
  • How the government will prevent collateral damage to innocent Americans’ devices and electronic data when it remotely search devices such as smartphones or medical devices;
  • Whether the government intends to use this new authority to search and “clean” Americans’ computers ;
  • How the government will maintain a chain of custody when searching or removing evidence from a device;
  • How the government will notify Americans who are the subjects of remote government searches.

Read the full letter here.

Is Turkey’s Insistence On Military Role In Mosul A Strategic Miscalculation? – Analysis

0
0

By Md. Muddassir Quamar

Turkey’s insistence on a role for itself in the ongoing joint offensive of Iraqi armed forces and Kurdish Peshmarga supported by limited US ground forces and air strikes to liberate Mosul from the Islamic State’s control has created rifts between Ankara and Baghdad. In the run up to the operation, named Qadimun ya Naynawa (We are coming Nineveh), on 11 October, while addressing a press meet in Istanbul, President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan told the Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi to “know his place” in response to Abadi’s call for Turkey to withdraw its troops from Bashiqa. Iraq is wary of a role for Turkey as it fears that the latter can undermine the Abadi government’s ability to control Mosul after liberation from the Islamic State. For its part, Turkey insists on a role to protect its interests (see below). Attempts by the US to mediate and coax Turkey into working under the US-led coalition have not yielded results.

Turkey has multiple reasons for insisting upon a role for itself. Firstly, it argues that Turkish forces are based in Bashiqa to provide training for the Kurdish Peshmarga and that its forces have been invited by the Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG). It also argues that Baghdad had been informed of these plans and that Turkey is cooperating with the Masoud Barzai government in the fight against the Islamic State. Secondly, Turkey has interests in northern Iraq because of the domestic Kurdish question and the fight against the Kurdistan Workers’ Party (PKK). Since the breakdown of Turkey-PKK peace talks in mid-2015, Turkey has intensified military action against the PKK and does not want the latter to maintain military bases in northern Iraq. The Kurdish insurgency in Turkey is a major domestic challenge and numerous peace talks have failed to resolve the issue. Moreover, Turkey has been worried about growing Kurdish autonomy in Iraq and Syria and the chances of a transnational Kurdish movement for autonomy which can provide impetus to Kurdish separatists in Turkey.

Thirdly, Turkey is also concerned about the post-Islamic State power configuration in Mosul. It is supporting the former governor of Nineveh, Atheel al-Nujaifi, and the Sunni militia loyal to him and wants him to have a leading role in Mosul after the city’s liberation. Turkey fears that a significant role for Baghdad and the Shia militia supported by Iran could lead to loss of Turkish influence in northern Iraq. Further, Turkey wishes to maintain good ties with the KRG for both economic and strategic reasons. But Iraq wishes to control Mosul and does not want it to slip under KRG control because of its oil-rich topography. Further, Iran is also insisting upon a role for the Shia militia as that will increase its own influence. Turkey also has concerns about the ability of the PKK and the Islamic State to launch attacks in its Kurdish dominated south-eastern region, which is already witnessing unrest.

Fourthly, Erdoğan has domestic political reasons to insist on an independent military role for Turkey in the battle for Mosul. His going public with criticism of Abadi and telling the latter to “know his place” serves well to trump up domestic support for the AKP. In the last few months, Turkey has witnessed several terrorist attacks leading to a number of deaths as well as a failed ‘coup’ attempt leading to opposition parties accusing the AKP government of inability to maintain peace and stability, staging a counter coup and stifling dissent. Under these circumstances, a direct military involvement in Mosul would give Erdoğan a premise to thump up AKP’s traditional support base and also appeal to Turkish nationalists. Finally, Erdogan’s insistence on a direct military role also hints at his neo-Ottoman ambitions.

Though Turkey has thus multiple reasons for insisting upon a role for itself in the battle for Mosul, the way Erdoğan has gone about it is fraught with danger. The situation in Iraq is fragile and sectarian violence frequent because of the rise of the Islamic State. Shia militias, especially those supported by Tehran such as the Kata’ib Hezbollah, have been accused of torturing and massacring Sunnis during the operation to liberate Falluja from the Islamic State’s control. If Turkey insists on a role for itself, the Shia militias will also want to have a role and that can lead to further bloodshed and an intensification of the sectarian violence. Moreover, it gives former Iraqi prime minister Nouri al-Maliki a weapon to undermine the Haider al-Abadi government. It will also create problems between Baghdad and Erbil, which do not see eye to eye on Mosul’s future after its retake from the Islamic State. While the KRG wishes to bring Mosul under its control, for Baghdad this is not acceptable as it undermines the central authority.

Notably, the situation in Mosul is complicated. Although early signs indicated a fast advance by the coalition forces, the Islamic State is unlikely to give up all that easily a strategic location like Mosul. The city is not only a political base for the Islamic State but also allows it to control the supply routes to its territories in Iraq and Syria. Reports suggest that the leadership of the Islamic State including Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi is no more located in Mosul and it has been argued that the Islamic State can enter into a prolonged urban warfare in and around Mosul which is a highly populated area. In such a situation, the battle for Mosul can turn into a humanitarian crisis and hence demands cooperation rather than rifts.

Turkey’s unwillingness to agree to a role under the US-command emanates from domestic reasons – maintain the ruling party’s support base and underscore the Turkish ability to take military action to nullify all threats even if located outside its borders. However, such an approach is short-sighted as it can lead to an intensification of violence by PKK insurgents inside Turkey. Further, it risks escalating the already fraught sectarian situation in Iraq, undermining Iraqi sovereignty and not yielding any significant military or political gains for itself. By agreeing to work under the US command, Turkey can secure its interests without antagonizing Iraq or starting a strategic competition with Iran, and without risking further escalation in the sectarian fault lines that could engulf the entire region including Turkey. Given all this, Turkey’s insistence on a direct military role for itself in the battle for Mosul is an avoidable strategic risk.

Views expressed are of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of the IDSA or of the Government of India.Originally published by Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses (www.idsa.in) at http://idsa.in/idsacomments/turkey-insistence-on-a-military-role-in-mosul_mmquamar_281016

Spain: Rajoy To Stand Saturday For Second Round Of Voting To Be Invested PM

0
0

Spain’s acting Prime Minister and candidate for re-election, Mariano Rajoy, will try to gain the confidence of the Lower House of Parliament on Saturday, 29 October, after failing to receive the support, by absolute majority, of the Lower House in the first round of voting, as required under Article 99 of the Spanish Constitution. The result was 170 votes in favor and 180 against.

In the second day of the investiture session, Rajoy, responded to the speeches made by the spokespersons for the different parliamentary groups with representation in the Lower House. He called for responsibility from all of them. “There are 350 of us and everyone has their own responsibility, some more than others perhaps, but we are all under an obligation to look to the general interest because, if not, Spain will not have a government capable of taking decisions in the general interest of the people of Spain”.

In response to the spokesperson for the PSOE in the Lower House, Antonio Hernando, Rajoy announced that he will tackle the suspension of the academic effects of the final evaluations of Compulsory Secondary Education (Spanish acronym: ESO) and advanced secondary education (Bachillerato) as provided for in the Education Act (Spanish acronym: LOMCE) until such time as the State Education Pact, proposed on Wednesday, is concluded. Meanwhile, the final Bachillerato evaluation “will not be necessary to obtain the title and will only be applicable in order to gain a place at university”, he asserted

As regards employment, Mariano Rajoy reiterated in his response to Grupo Confederal de Unidos Podemos-En Comu Podem-En Marea that this is, together with economic growth, the main goal of the legislature.

In this regard, in his response to the President of Ciudadanos, Albert Rivera, Rajoy argued that certain figures “tend to be optimistic”, in reference to the Labour Force Survey published on Thursday, which stated that there are almost 2 million fewer unemployed than at the worst point of the crisis. He also thanked this parliamentary group for its support in forming a government because “there are decisions that cannot wait”, although he advised him that not “all the reforms of the last legislature should be repealed” or that we should start to repeal laws “that are useful”, although “reasonable changes may be made”´.

In his response to the spokesperson for ERC in the Lower House, Joan Tardá, Mariano Rajoy pointed out that Catalonia is “plural, diverse, thriving and open”, but that some pro-independence leaders seek to present it as a “belittled society in confrontation with the rest of the people of Spain where the monolithic sentiment of pro-independence prevails”. According to Mariano Rajoy, that is “far from the reality”, because “a sizeable majority of Catalans” are not pro-independence. He also asked Joan Tardá to uphold the law and to display “a minimum degree of interest in reaching an understanding on such an important issue for everyone”.

On another note, Mariano Rajoy said that he will do everything necessary to ensure that the PNV [Basque Nationalist Party] is involved in governing Spain. To this end, he reminded the spokesperson for the PNV, Aitor Esteban, that the PP and the PNV formed a coalition in 1996 under which they did “positive, sensible and reasonable things”.

The candidate for re-election argued that his economic policy has been “positive for the Basque Country” and that State investments made in this region amount to some 2 billion euros. He reviewed the aid to the industrial, maritime and aeronautics sectors, and stressed that the government’s fisheries policy received more funding for the fleet than in the previous term of office. He also asserted that the ‘Y vasca’ will be completed by 2019 and said that he is in favour of the historical privileges under the ‘foral’ system and has always supported the economic agreement and quota system.

Responses to the Joint Group

The candidate reiterated, in his response to Francesc Homs, from the PdC, that he has tried to talk with the Regional Government of Catalonia and will continue to do so in the next legislature. He added that this dialogue requires “a little flexibility” from the other party, since the opposite would be an “imposition”, which would be unacceptable. He also stressed that the government has dealt with all the debt maturities of the Regional Government of Catalonia and has paid its suppliers “because this was our obligation and, furthermore, because we wanted to do so”.

He reminded Joan Baldoví, from Compromís, of the effort made by the government in the Region of Valencia through the liquidity measures provided in order to attend to key public services, the implementation of major infrastructure works, and investments in the Mediterranean Corridor and high-speed railway.

In response to the speech from Marian Beitialarrangoitia, of EH-Bildu, Mariano Rajoy invited her to sign the petition for the dissolution of ETA [terrorist organisation] in order to help contribute to the disappearance of the terrorist gang.

Rajoy thanked Íñigo Alli, of the UPN, for the support for his investiture and said that he shares his backing for the Navarre Canal and high-speed railway. He also condemned the attack on the Guardia Civil in the town of Alsasua in Navarre. The authors of this attack, he underlined “will not go unpunished and the full weight of the law will be brought to bear on them as is right under the rule of law”

Mariano Rajoy also thanked Isidro Martínez Oblanca, of Foro Asturias, for his vote in favour of his candidature, and assured him that he was aware of the problems in this region in terms of economic growth and job creation. The acting President of the Government said that his commitment to high-speed connections in Asturias “is not in any doubt”.

After thanking Ana Oramas, of the Canary Islands Coalition, for her support by voting for him for the investiture, Mariano Rajoy announced that the economic part of the Canary Islands Economic and Fiscal Regime will shortly be brought before this House. He also remarked that, within the agenda for the Canary Islands agreed with this formation, employment and renewable energies will be priorities for his government,

Mariano Rajoy insisted on the need to make a major effort in the area of employment in the islands in his response to Pedro Quevedo, of the Nueva Canarias party.

Commitment, stability, dialogue and agreement

Following the speech by the spokesperson for the PP, Rafael Hernando, Mariano Rajoy closed off the round of responses by thanking his own parliamentary group, which has found a way to “maintain the basic pillars of the Welfare State against such a tremendously complicated backdrop”.

The candidate for re-election stressed that a new political era is commencing in which “commitment, stability, dialogue and agreement” are key words. “I will do whatever is in my hands and I ask you all to help me. Whilst the chip must be changed, the basics have to remain the same. We have signed agreements, we must uphold them, but we will need to sign more of them”, he concluded.

Outcome of the voting

At the end of the debate, the first round of voting of the investiture session was held, with a result of 170 votes in favour and 180 votes against. Since the candidate did not receive an absolute majority of votes cast in the House, he will stand for a second round of voting after 48 hours have elapsed, in which he will be invested if he wins by a simple majority, in other words, with more votes in favour than against.

The Speaker of the Lower House of Parliament, Ana Pastor, has called a plenary session of the Lower House for the investiture debate on Saturday, 29 October, at 6:30 pm. Voting will not take place before 7:45 pm.

CTBT And South Asian Considerations – OpEd

0
0

“The small step of signing the CTBT would be important in building confidence in the region and creating international momentum behind the Treaty.” — Lassina Zerbo, Executive Secretary, CTBTO

To bring the vision of CTBT into reality the first and foremost step should be its ratification by the US itself. Therefore, the US itself needs to ratify the treaty first as this would be the chief encouraging step for the rest seven states stagnant on the ratification of the CTBT.

It’s been long; back in 1996 since the then US President Bill Clinton signed for the CTBT after which the US impeded nuclear testing. When the CTBT was opened up for signature, the vision was epitomizing a world without nuclear weapons. The CTBT has hitherto been signed by 183 states wherein ratified by 164.

On whole, in-order to turn this de facto moratorium into de jure moratorium, still the 44 countries that are listed under Annex 2 of the treaty – the states possessing nuclear technology needs to ratify the Treaty in order to fulfill its demand of entry-into-force. Out of which 36 states have ratified whereas the remaining eight states needs to ratify the treaty. Among which 3 states: NK, India and Pakistan have not even signed while remaining five states the US, China, Egypt, Iran, and Israel – have signed but not ratified the treaty.

As the US President Barack Obama counts down his remaining tenure, the endeavors to burnish his legacy with a re-look at the nuclear test ban treaty could birth implications for India. While analyzing the future of CTBT, one has to be skeptical of the fact that the US is putting all efforts to inculcate India into the NSG for attaining a legitimate right over the civil nuclear trade. While doing so, India is under pressure to ratify CTBT since most of the NSG states are party to the treaty except the US.

India will not go for signature because firstly, since, the CTBT bans all nuclear explosions, in consequence hindering both the initial development of nuclear weapons as well as significant enhancements (h-bomb); wherein India ironically, is reportedly engaged in the development of a thermonuclear city (bomb). Secondly, Arundhati Ghose, Indian permanent representative to the UN in Geneva in 1996, stated its country’s decision on not signing on to the CTBT as “not now, not later”.  Thirdly, India’s historic stance towards CTBT; it wants to retain its nuclear testing option open. Fourthly, India is already enjoying more than enough from Indo-US nuclear deal, which up till now could not manage to convince India to open up for signatures on the treaty. After the Indo-US nuclear deal episode, Indian stance on CTBT was restated pretty categorically that “New Delhi would not sign the CTBT even it was ratified by other countries”.

Like the past, Pakistan once again proposed India a mutual nuclear test ban arrangement that, if accepted, would hold a legally binding bilateral agreement among both regional nuclear rivals. Even though, India has rejected the same kind of proposal that Pakistan offered right in the aftermath of the 1998 nuclear tests for a mutual accession into the CTBT, this time India should look into it in a plausible manner. Previously it aimed at a mutual confidence building measure ensuring regional peace and stability however this time it would pave the way for both India and Pakistan to be accepted into the NSG. Sardonically narrating, if nothing else, it would at least make hard for India to be included (alone) into the NSG. However both states are already abided by the policy of a unilateral moratorium on nuclear testing; nevertheless there should not be any harm on Indian part to accept it after the long deadlock on the treaty.

Even if the CTBT does not halt vertical proliferation but to achieve limitation and non-proliferation of nuclear weapons, Pakistan believes it to be an instrumental part of a long term agenda. In principle Pakistan could never be against such a non-proliferation measure that would ultimately promote peace and strategic stability in the region, and would lead a way for both India and Pakistan towards the nuclear technology sharing cartels. It has always remained steadfast in its commitments towards non-proliferation efforts.

The 20 Years CTBT Ministerial Meeting bestows an opportune moment to reinvigorate the paused debate on the CTBT. Pakistani personals, recently, were taken on a tour of the International Data Centre (IDC), the nerve centre from where data recorded by the CTBTO’s International Monitoring System (IMS) is processed. The system has proved its capabilities to detect even small nuclear tests during the announced DPRK nuclear tests in 2006, 2009, 2013 and 2016. In addition to detecting nuclear explosions, these data can also be used for analyzing earthquakes, providing advanced warning of tsunamis, and a wide range of other applications.

Pakistan, who holds an ‘observer’ status to the Treaty’s decision-making body, the Preparatory Commission, is currently unable to access IMS data as a non-member of the Treaty. But it should be much appreciated that Pakistan looks up to operate two monitoring stations that will detect nuclear tests as per the requirements of the CTBT where as India is far behind in this regard. Undoubtedly, Pakistan is consistently supporting the objectives of the CTBT.

Realistically, it could be anticipated that Pakistan might sign onto the CTBT keeping the ratification by the US as a pre-requisite that could bring mild chance of signature from Indian part too. Well, the US has to lead the way in order to bring this dream into reality. Nevertheless, mindful of Indian growing missile systems, its Cold Start doctrine, missile defense shield against Pakistan, sea based missiles and deterrence, ICBMs capabilities; etc Pakistan needs to sustain a pragmatic Indo-centric pretense on the CTBT even after proposing a mutual test ban arrangement to India.

Why China Won’t Seriously Take Duterte’s Proposed Pivot Into Account – OpEd

0
0

During his recent official visit in China, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte showered his hosts with a series of unprecedented statements. Despite boldly soliciting financial assistance, the highly pragmatic president, had just taken a new twist within the geopolitical constellation by pronouncing a new alignment with China and a “separation” from the United States.

Venting his spleen about the long-standing intervention of the US Special Forces in his country, Duterte even frankly proposed to set up a new alliance together with China and Russia, as cited “I’ve realigned myself in your ideological flow and maybe I will also go to Russia to talk to President Vladimir Putin and tell him that there are three of us against the world – China, Philippines, and Russia. It’s the only way.”

A case in point is, even though Xi Jinping hailed the visit as “a new starting point” in bilateral relations, from the perspective of Chinese elites, the likelihood that China would pioneer the realization of the “triangle pivot” seems low. Why?

Nothing could be more powerful than the history to reshape Beijing’s policy-making process. Firstly, Duterte’s “invitation” has prompted an exclusiveness (Russia-China-Philippines) by setting “countries against the US” as the harbinger. For Chinese elites such a proposal to rebalance the US preponderance, the exclusiveness would never be the solution, as it is considerably a brinkmanship. This context is strongly related to the Chinese strategic culture in bringing the value of an alliance down a notch and hailing inclusiveness.

Theoretically speaking, the absence of the security alliance specifically marks a high point in Chinese security policy and indirectly vindicates the superiority of its strategic culture. Amidst the Century of Humiliation in Chinese history, the belligerent and aggressive security alliance had exploited and attacked a weak and defenceless China, where they forcibly asked China to sign a series of devastating agreements and destroyed the long-standing “civilization” without any restoration efforts.

Accordingly, the Middle Kingdom is prone to blame the term of “alliance”, including the deteriorating US-Philippines Security Alliance, as the product of “Western offensive-minded strategic culture” and the legacy of Cold War, that formidably contrasts with the Chinese peaceful and benevolent strategic culture.

Thus, in practice, the “Strategic Partnership”, a diverse multilateralism, and the Belt and Road initiatives are perhaps the most vivid example of how benevolent and inclusive the Chinese strategy is, in which Philippines is expected to become a more active player within the benevolent cooperation, instead of blatantly establishing an exclusive forum or perhaps a security alliance with Moscow and Beijing.

Secondly, Duterte’s treacherous farewell to Obama and amicable greetings to Putin is not sufficiently convincing for China to materialize “the triangle pivot”. China insofar lackadaisically set up a formal alliance with Russia and indeed, it would never want to more imbroglio by letting Philippines in.

Even so, while Xi recently has been seeking to make Russia a major strategic partner, he nevertheless is reluctant to improve the relationship to one of reliable alliance status while US has already inked about sixty full-fledged treaty allies that involve military cooperation. Evidently, China’s armed forces conduct their exchanges and cooperation with the Russian military in accordance with the framework of the Sino-Russian Comprehensive Strategic Partnership.

A reluctance to establish the alliance is basically constituted from a full-blown concern: the fear of abandonment. Tracing back to the past, the only alliance experience China has ever had – the Sino-Soviet bloc – has unfortunately yielded China a bitter pill to swallow. Following the spirit of Mao Zedong’s “lean to one side” paradigm, on Febuary 14, 1950, China and the Soviet Union signed the Sino-Soviet Treaty of Friendship, Alliance, and Mutual Assistance, that reiterated 30 years of mutual defense that promised if one partner was attacked by a third country the other side must go all out to provide military and other assistance.

Lamentably, in the second half of the 1950s, Nikita Khrushchev’s attempts to reach an accommodation with the West, and Moscow’s refusal to support China during its conflict with India in the second half of 1959 and early 1960s, inevitably deteriorated the alliance.

Following the rising tension on the Sino-Soviet border, the ever-intense alliance finally collapsed, notoriously framed as “the Sino-Soviet Split”. Surprisingly, in Chinese character, it is phrased as Zhong Su Jiao E (中苏交恶), which literally stands for a negative connotation. None of the four characters exactly refers to the word of “Split”. Zhong Su (中苏) stands for Sino-Soviet, Jiao (交) is the relationship, and interestingly, E (恶) means vicious and harmful – simply demonstrates Chinese big disappointment over a strongly deceptive alliance.

In this sense, the lesson-learned would remind Beijing that Duterte’s China lovefest is double-edged. On the one hand, under Duterte’s administration, the Philippines simply have recognized China’s “benevolent character” over the US’ aggressiveness in the region so that there would be a more fruitful discussion on the South China Sea issue and economic relations in the near future. On the other hand, a very rational Xi, would be highly cautious with respect to the Philippines stunning about-face, which have a greater tendency to betray their counterparts. If the Philippines would willingly let the 50 years old Mutual Defense Treaty hit the nadir, how about the longevity of “the triangle pivot” which has just been randomly mentioned?

*Trissia Wijaya is currently a MEXT Scholar in the Graduate School of International Relations at Ritsumeikan University, Kyoto, Japan. Her research interests primarily lie on the international relations in the Asia-Pacific, Sino-Indonesia relations, and foreign policy.

Time To Be Tough With China – OpEd

0
0

Even before the ink of the Goa declaration dried, Chinese made a drastic U-turn in striking down Prime Minister Modi’s reference to Pakistan as “Mothership of terror”. By glaringly, hyphenating India and Pakistan as victims of terror, China deliberately down played Indian concerns. While China’s volte-face on issues crucial to India are not new, its tacit support is emboldening Pakistan’s unrelenting pursuit of inflicting damage to India.

With cross-order terrorism and unceasing infiltration across LoC reaching newer heights, China’s reluctance to incorporate cross-border terrorism perpetrated by Pakistan in the Goa Declaration validates its complicity. Prime Minister Modi in a bid to propel India’s growth trajectory invested tremendous efforts in resurrecting ties with Pakistan and China in the last two years. But both neighbors, the thickest of friends, overpowered by antipathy towards India had responded inimically. China is now propping up Pakistan to keep India preoccupied with unrest and cross border tensions so that New Delhi’s ambitions of emerging as a potential regional counter balance to Beijing are thwarted.

Propping up Pakistan

In recent years, China is currently luxuriating in the huge bilateral trade deficit with India largely in its favor. While ensuring its economic and trade investment interests are least hurt Beijing is draining Indian energies by buttressing Pakistan. With Pakistan factor looming large Modi met President Xi Jinping along the margins of BRICS 2016 summit. China’s implacable attitude and obduracy are now denting Indian interests.

China’s rigidity in stalling India’s NSG membership despite repeated pleas for consideration at various levels and contentious vetoing of ban on Masood Azhar by the UNSC 1267 Sanctions committee have irked India. On September 30th, China extended technical hold on proposed UN sanctions on Azhar. It was the 5th time China tried to block India’s UN resolution since September 2014. China’s has also paralyzed Indian efforts to proscribe United Jehad Council chief Syed Salahuddin, the principal orchestrator of Kashmir insurgency. It shielded Pakistan from censure for freeing LeT commander Lakhvi and for averring on probing sources of finance to Hafiz Saeed, master mind of 26/11.

All these attempts unequivocally make China complicit in Pakistan’s terror strikes which left 19 soldiers recently at Uri. While nations defended India’s right to self-defense for launching surgical strikes on terror launch pads across LoC, China supported Pakistan’s position on Kashmir and raised doubts about Indian claims of strikes. It expressed concerns over India’s decision to completely seal the western border by 2018. China’s decision to block the tributary of Brahmaputra, Xiabu originating in Tibet from flowing into India citing construction of the most expensive Lalho hydroelectric power project undermining the interests of the lower riparian states has now sparked new tensions.

Modi in a bid to end the diplomatic unease, during his bilateral talks with Xi at Goa, raised several issues where combatting terrorism dominated the agenda. While Modi tweeted, that talks were fruitful, China’s quick reversal of stand on terror clearly indicated that Beijing connives Pakistan perfidy. As opposed to its much-touted peaceful rise policy, China’s egregious and ambitious accretion is tremendously changing global geopolitics. The rapid rise of China has perceptibly changed the dynamics of the region. China’s footprint is growing in the subcontinent eventually boxing India. With its deep pockets, China foreclosed India’s efforts of strengthening trade and bilateral relations with its neighbors. China’s expanding presence in India’s immediate vicinity is now truly intimidating.

Before landing in Goa for the BRICS summit, President Xi in his brief stopover at Dhaka extended $25 billion credit line which pales India’s $2 billion pledged by Modi last year. China has carefully revived Sonadia port project with Bangladesh. Apart from the Colombo port, Hambantota port of Sri Lanka, this Bangladesh’s port off the Bay of Bengal coast, suffices China’s aspirations of gaining access to India’s sphere of influence. China’s overwhelming influence in Maldives is well documented. By earning Afghanistan’s confidence through arms delivery and military aid, China is slowly roping in India’s traditional friend. Recently, China has pledged Nepal to modernize Army and disaster management enhanced security cooperation. A plausible agreement over extension of the rail line between Xigaze (Tibet) to Nepal border under Trans-Himalayan Railways connectivity reinforces penetrating influence of China in India’s backyard. With its iron brother, Pakistan, China is already escalating trouble in India. All these developments forebode India’s notion of South Asia and India Ocean as its natural sphere of influence.

Dynamic Strategic Alignments

Burgeoning hostilities between the West and Russia are forcing Moscow to enter Chinese orbit. China is also emerging as an indispensable partner of Russia for development in Arctic Region. In fact, Russia under China’s duress omitted any references to Pakistan based or cross-border terrorism or state-sponsored terror in Goa declaration. It must be remembered that China’s implicit leverage to North Korea flared up tensions in North Asia.

In the meanwhile, Philippines President Rodrigo Duterte gesture of extending hand of friendship to China downgrading military ties with US have come as shot in arm for Chinese claims in SCS. Addressing officials in Beijing, Duterte had perceptibly mellowed Philippines position on Scarborough Shoal and enthusiastically reached a consensus on jointly exploration of resources in South China Sea (SCS). Beijing suitably rewarded Duterte’s announcement of separation from US both militarily and economically on its turf by pledging $13.5 billion deals to Philippines. Earlier in 2012, Philippines pulled up China for taking control over Scarborough Shoal to International Court of Justice, Hague. Permanent Court of Arbitration (PCA) thrashing claims of China over territorial formations upheld Philippines claims. Disconcerted China refused to accept the judgement inviting the censure of the West.

Though China’s smaller ASEAN neighbors in SCS are miffed by Chinese claims, ASEAN meet failed to issue a statement on SCS as the resolution was blocked by Cambodia. Reciprocating Cambodia’s support China generously signed over 30 cooperative agreements in areas of agriculture, infrastructure, investment and economy. Besides, promising $600 million in aid towards country’s election, health and education. Swelling Chinese hegemony and its unprecedented penetration into various regions clearly reflects its veritable obsession to wield power.

China’s efforts to destabilize India

Within South Asia region, while the material indices gap between India and Pakistan are at all time high with Indian GDP now almost 10 times that of Pakistan, Chinese backing invigorates Islamabad to challenge India’s influence. As a matter of fact, a debt-ridden Pakistan gives a greater leeway to China to strategically penetrate it. India’s concerns of CPEC (China Pakistan Economic Corridor) passing through its legitimate territory are truly genuine.

While China made rapid forays into Indian territory way back in 1970’s through construction of Karakoram Highway, now under the ruse of CPEC, China is deploying troops in Gilgit-Baltistan region. China had indeed left no stone unturned to destabilize India. Evidences suggests that China dispatches arms to Indian rebels through Myanmar. China intermittently launches cyber-attacks and hacks strategically important Indian portals. It tried every trick in book to keep India off-balance to capitalize on the asymmetrical advantages. China is now contemplating on use of water as political tool. Before Communist regime China had 22 dams now it has over 85,000 dams both big and small.

Beijing known for its infrastructure building prowess is now planning to construct 14 dams along Brahmaputra. It has targeted rivers originating in Tibet and Xinjiang region- Arun, Indus, Sutlej, Irtysh, Illy Amur and Salween but flowing into India, Nepal, Kazakhstan, Russia and Myanmar. China which has already the water map of the region is now shying away from playing water politics if needed. Recent announcement of Renminbi’s inclusion in the elite global reserve currency club is now boding well for growing China’s economic clout. Aside, its rapid rise now Chinese ideology is slowly becoming inimical to India’s domestic arena. Beijing’s objections to US Ambassador Richard Verma’s visit to attend the Tawang festival at Arunachal Pradesh recently demonstrates China’s obstinacy towards false territorial claims.

Burgeoning Congeniality between Communists and Islamists

Waving of the Chinese and Pakistani flag in Kashmir Valley after the Friday prayers coinciding with President Xi’s visit to India is an alarming development. Pakistan flags have made their entry into the valley several decades back. But the appearance of Chinese flags as a solidarity is indeed a dangerous precedent.

While the new development is orchestrated by Pakistan, it testimonies growing congeniality of Jihadists and Communists. With Communists and Jihadists working hand in glove in the Valley why would China not veto India’s attempts to ban Azhar at the UN.

In February 2016, India witnessed brewing anti-national rhetoric with JNU at the helm of affairs heralding a new moment of fondness between Islamists and Communists. Now, after the Uri attacks, the indifferent response of Communist lobbies towards India’s retaliatory surgical strikes and the overdrive pushing India for talks with Pakistan reflects the obvious. Arrest of over 10 Naxalites by the ATS (Anti-Terrorism Squad) in Noida, planning attacks in Delhi couple of days back sums it all. Clearly, a coordinated network of anti-nationals is turning the nation into asunder. Till now India media has significant chunk of Pakistan sympathizers, now China baiters are making their way into main stream media unabashedly playing a pro-China card. This quick turn of events is truly alarming and demands immediate attention of various strata of Indian administration.

Way Forward

Clearly apart from the border disputes, India and China have several outstanding issues to sort out. An economically strong and resilient India can alone circumvent overwhelming influence of China. The panacea of all strategic aliments afflicting India lies in sturdy economic growth and development.

India in its attempts to tame the prodigal Dragon must press the right levers of Tibet and Xinjiang to its advantage. Earlier this year, India withdrew visa issued to Uighur activist Dolkun Isa for the fear of political reprisals. But now, India displayed some mettle by consenting to allow Dalai Lama visit Arunachal Pradesh scheduled for next year March. Despite India’s largesse towards China in recommending it for the UNSC permanent membership and later helping it get entry into WTO, China never reciprocated. China is now building several multilaterals institutions like Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), New Development Bank and Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB).

India lent its support to all these frameworks. In return, China never supported India’s bid for an extended UNSC, stalled NSG membership, vetoed Azhar’s ban, capitalized on Indo-Pakistan disputes and propped up Pakistan to expedite its anti-India agenda. China unequivocally questions India’s growing closeness with US invoking threat of regional imbalances even as it continues to extend its tentacles into India’s neighborhood. With every passing year, bilateral trade is drifting largely in favor of China reducing India to a supplier of raw materials and dump yard for low quality Chinese products.

India must evolve a policy whereby trade deficits can be reduced. With potential to grow faster and by providing free access to 1.3 billion strong markets India can’t afford to remain hamstrung. While Beijing voices concerns about Indo-Vietnam collaboration to explore oil in Vietnam’s exclusive economic zone in SCS, Delhi is expected to remain as mute spectator even as China explores India’s legitimate territory for economic gains.

Delhi should now support Pakistan lawmakers who expressed concerns over CPEC as “another East India Company in offing” and worried that CPEC is now aided by local financing instead of Chinese funding. China is capitalizing on Indian deficiencies. Delhi has a poor reputation of delaying foreign projects. India should shed the laggard image and proactively engage with neighboring countries in collaborative projects assuring timely completion of projects. Alternatively, it can competitively bid for infrastructure projects in immediate neighborhood with like-minded partners like Japan. Above all, it is time to hone diplomatic skills invoking the incisive Chanakya’s Raja Mandala theory of hard diplomacy and steer the economy by implementing tough economic reforms.


*Ramaharitha Pusarla is a freelance writer and columnist.

Beyond The Wall: What ‘America First’ Would Mean For Latin America – OpEd

0
0

By Brandon Capece*

“When Mexico sends its people, they’re not sending their best. They’re not sending you. They’re not sending you. They’re sending people that have lots of problems, and they’re bringing those problems with us. They’re bringing drugs. They’re bringing crime. They’re rapists. And some, I assume, are good people.” – Donald Trump

Far from traditional political convention, when Donald Trump utilized this rhetoric at the launch of his presidential campaign in 2015, shockwaves were felt throughout Latin America. Although the possibility of a Trump presidency seemed stunningly remote, many at the time wondered if his message—an extremist version of the then-Republican Party platform—would be gradually absorbed into the political mainstream. Now the official nominee of the Republican Party, only a brief sprint away from Election Day, Donald Trump has double downed on this rhetoric, indicating how a Trump Administration might handle relations with Latin America. Needless to say, despite tapping into some of the same populist concerns of the region, Donald Trump’s foreign policy would not only be disastrous to Latin America, but fundamentally at odds with the values and strategic priorities of the United States.

Immigration: The Wall and Other ‘Bigly’ Reforms

The topic of immigration has been at the center of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, finding home in an undercurrent of ethno-nationalism espoused by a large faction of his voting base. Given the number of outlets that have already written on Trump’s immigration policy, it seems prudent to not delve too much into the topic, but there are several points that need to be addressed to understand the intersection between “America First” and Latin America. Outside of calling for a reduction of refugees from majority Muslim nations and other areas of conflict, Trump has become best known for calling for the construction of an “impenetrable physical” wall along the border between Mexico and the United States (that Mexico will pay for, no less).[i] Additionally, he is suggesting the full deportation of the millions of undocumented immigrants currently residing in the United States. It is clear that this has already soured any potential relationship that a President Trump would have with Mexican President Enrique Peña Nieto. Shortly after Trump made a visit to Mexico to meet with him, Nieto not only reiterated his refusal to pay for such a wall, but also communicated that a Trump Administration would pose a threat to Mexico.[ii][iii] Nieto has since expressed his regret for staging a meeting with Donald Trump in the first place.[iv] Former President of Mexico Vincente Fox has been even more vocal in his critique of Trump’s policy stance on Mexico, infamously saying, “”I’m not going to pay for that [***] wall!”[v] Should anyone still doubt the hostility between Trump and Mexico, they only need to be reminded, that less than two weeks after launching his campaign, Trump tweeted: “I love the Mexican people, but Mexico is not our friend.”[vi]

Fallout from the proposed wall project has far reaching consequences beyond just the relationship between Mexico and the United States, influencing the way other countries in the region perceive the United States. Case in point is Mauricio Macri, president of Argentina. Given his administration has reprioritized the country’s relationship with the United States after years of criticism by the Kirchner Administrations, he has a vested interested in ensuring that a relationship is grounded in mutual respect and not open hostilities. In an interview with Buzzfeed, Macri said of the Clinton-Trump race, “I believe in relationships, in networks — we are, in fact, speaking with the world through a network — not in building walls.”[vii] More than just rhetoric, this shift towards a dialogue of hostilities is antithetical to engaging in productive discourse. Although Trump may believe he is putting “America First”, what Trump fails to understand is that the strength of America, as reflected in our relationship with Latin America, comes not from the sticks we wield but from our ability to raise the standing of those around us.

It is for this same reason that his insistence on deporting millions of undocumented immigrants is so dangerous, especially as it concerns the stability of many Latin American economies. In addition to immigrants coming to the United States in order to make better lives for themselves, many of these immigrants also send remittances back to their home country in order to sustain their families at home that either cannot find work or that are unsupported by a social safety net. Often times, the same nations blamed for surges in undocumented migrants are also those most dependent on remittances from abroad. In 2015, remittance totals for Central American nations ranged from $551 million USD in Costa Rica to $3.666 billion USD in Honduras to $6.587 billion USD in Guatemala.[viii] Those represent roughly 1 percent, 18 percent, and 10 percent of GDP respectively, demonstrating that remittances often represent a significant part of the economy.[ix] Despite criticisms that this money would have gone to American workers instead, the introduction of a workforce of immigrants has boosted wages for U.S. workers.[x] Furthermore, there is plenty of evidence that remittances directly help the U.S. economy: “If families in Mexico use those dollars to buy things made in Mexico or elsewhere, then America has essentially gotten immigrants’ services without paying anything tangible in return. If, on the other hand, families in Mexico use their remittances to buy things made in the United States, then American exports increase. Either way, the American economy wins.”[xi] To then say that these undocumented immigrants will be immediately deported, or that visas will be suspended for countries who refuse to accept deported individuals, would not only impact the economy of the United States, but it would also have a serious ripple effect throughout the region. Moreover, newfound instability in the economic situation for people in these countries will do nothing but drive immigration rates to increase even further. The impact that such a movement would have would far exceed that of the 2014 migration wave of children from Central America and bring about a regional clash as countries try to balance their prerogatives.

The Art of Destroying the Deal

As a part of Donald Trump’s populist policy platform, he has openly embraced opposition not only to trade deals that the United States is currently a part of, but also to those currently being negotiated by President Barack Obama. The two most relevant to Latin America at the present time are the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) signed by President Bill Clinton, and the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) negotiated by President Obama and still awaiting Congressional approval within the United States.

On the one hand, many of Trump’s criticisms of free trade are representative of very valid concerns regarding the treatment of workers abroad and the impact that these trade deals have had on the welfare and employment of American workers. In the campaign for the democratic nomination for this year’s presidential election, Senator Bernie Sanders (D-VT) said, “Instead of creating jobs, NAFTA cost us 850,000 jobs.”[xii] This critique of free trade is something shared by both the conservative and progressive factions within the American political scene, and common conversation surrounding NAFTA underscores a belief that the agreement has “[launched] a race-to-the-bottom in wages…[undermined] democratic control of domestic policy-making and [threatened] health, environmental and food safety standards.”[xiii] Moreover, Trump points to NAFTA as the source of the current trade imbalance between the United States and Mexico, suggesting that Mexico is taking advantage of the United States.[xiv] He has repeated similar criticisms against the Trans-Pacific Partnership, which emphasizing that TPP will undermine our economy through increasing imported goods manufactured in Asia.[xv]

The issue is not Donald Trump’s opposition to trade deals, as there are many legitimate concerns regarding the secrecy of their negotiation or their anticipated impact on domestic economies. Nor is it a great concern that Trump would escalate trade policy into something tantamount to a trade war between nations. The principal issue with Trump’s trade policy is his flagrant disregard for cooperation between nations and his perspective that everything is a zero-sum game; either the United States is winning or the other country is, and the latter—as he sees it—needs to be prevented at all costs. In suggesting that his administration would demand renegotiations of NAFTA at penalty of withdrawal, Trump has fundamentally threatened the good will that the United States maintains with these nations, playing into criticisms from abroad that NAFTA is a “neoliberal tool of imperialist gringos.”[xvi] Furthermore, it needs to be recognized that the president, under NAFTA’s structure, has the authority to make this decision unilaterally without the hindrance of a system of checks and balances.[xvii] NAFTA has written into itself a very simple withdrawal clause requiring nothing more than a written notice of an intent to withdraw for a country then to initiate that proceeding.[xviii] Should Trump withdraw the United States from NAFTA, pulling out of a trade agreement for the first time in over a century, it is inevitably going to impact the way in which Washington can leverage its soft power in the region.

The same holds true as it concerns Trump’s declaration of his intention to immediately withdraw from the Trans-Pacific Partnership upon assuming the presidency. A recent analysis published by the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA) on the status of the TPP in the Americas found that the TPP is currently experiencing wide support across the ideological spectrum in Canada, Mexico, Peru and Chile.[xix] However, the most imposing barrier to implementation remains the provision requiring ratification by enough nations to represent 85 percent of the GDP of all the signatories.[xx] Given that the United States represents 57 percent of this figure, the future of the TPP rests largely on whether or not the United States commits to approving the accord. Should a Trump Administration proceed with the immediate withdrawal from this agreement without a conversation by the U.S. Congress, this decision would be perceived as a rebuke to the tedious negotiation process that is five years in the making and involves over forty percent of the world economy.[xxi] In essence, there is a fundamental difference between withdrawing on the grounds of policy and withdrawing for the sake of withdrawing, as Trump is essentially doing. Regardless of the gains and losses of the TPP and its impact on nations, it is hard to imagine that immediately scraping a trade deal this expansive would be received cheerfully by allies of Washington. Moreover, it promotes a narrative that the United States is returning to a dark place in the history of Pan-American relations where Washington not only failed to recognize Latin American nations as equal actors, but constantly dismissed or bullied nations to implement pro-United States policies at their own expense.

From Good Neighbor to Bad Hombre

When Franklin D. Roosevelt began his tenure as president of the United States (1933-1945), his first inaugural address on Capitol Hill announced a pivot in the U.S. approach to foreign policy with Latin America. Known as the “Good Neighbor” policy, the United States was renouncing its history of intervention in the region from the Banana Wars (1898-1934) to Big Stick policy (1900) to Dollar Diplomacy (1909). In framing this shift, Roosevelt described the future of the United States as “the neighbor who resolutely respects himself and, because he does so, respects the rights of others—the neighbor who respects his obligations and respects the sanctity of his agreements in and with a world of neighbors.”[xxii] In effect, the Good Neighbor policy of the United States was a turn towards isolationism on the premise that each nation should be treated as a sovereign entity and regional concerns could be arbitrated and discussed through diplomatic channels. From the contemporary perspective, this change in policy “[was] thus shown to be a new world policy based soundly upon mutual benefits and equal rights.”[xxiii] At the heart of this policy, therefore, was a profound respect for the governments of Latin America and a refusal to dismiss their agency.

Since then, the United States has never truly had an overtly isolationist foreign policy, in fact, frequently preferring to intervene in the name of protecting democratic ideals and the interests of the United States. The Cold War years are abundant in examples of how the United States has taken this approach, ranging from the Cuban Revolution to the Iran-Contra affair to the Washington Consensus. The Obama Administration, while not as interventionist as other administrations in recent past, has undeniably made significant strides to remain actively present in the region, culminating in President Obama’s visit to Cuba and Argentina earlier this year. Those sympathetic to the president suggest that “Obama is paving the way for the U.S. to be an influence in a region its history and ideological stubbornness kept it out of.”[xxiv] Those on the Left critical of him believe “the overriding objective of U.S. government regional policy is not mere destabilization but ultimately to guarantee access for U.S. corporate elites.”[xxv] Either way, Obama’s foreign policy still maintains the residual spirit of the Good Neighbor policy, as seen through the signing of bilateral and multilateral agreements with the region, and not overtly interfering in the domestic affairs of other nations such as the Colombia-FARC peace negotiations. Like Roosevelt, the philosophical core of Obama’s approach was grounded in respect and voluntary cooperation.

Under “America First,” however, Donald Trump has made it clear that a rising tide does not measurably lift all boats and he is operating within an absolutist framework. In his major foreign policy address, he summed up his approach, saying, “We will no longer surrender this country, or its people, to the false song of globalism. The nation-state remains the true foundation for happiness and harmony. I am skeptical of international unions that tie us up and bring America down, and will never enter America into any agreement that reduces our ability to control our own affairs.”[xxvi] Tangibly speaking, this means a reversion to hostilities and the loss of forums to communicate about pressing issues. As it concerns Latin America, this includes a withdrawal from the rapprochement with Cuba unless his “demands” regarding their model of governance are met.[xxvii] Moreover, it means “a new global deal that demands a kind of tribute paid to Washington for its defense umbrella—he wants them to ‘prove’ they are our friends, he says—[or else] he’d walk away from the world’s trade table, so to speak.”[xxviii]

Extrapolated, Trump’s rhetoric suggests a complete lack of commitment to any of our alliances in the region and more notably the international institutions through which the United States promotes its democratic values, such as the Organization of American States (OAS). A hardened realist, Trump fails to recognize the way in which soft power influences perceptions of the United States throughout the region, which inevitably impacts the willingness of these nations to cooperate with the United States on a wide range of projects from petroleum production to climate change to securing the Tri-Border Area. Encapsulating his inability to understand this was his remark during the third presidential debate that “we have some bad hombres here, and we’re going to get them out.”[xxix] Beyond simply answering the question on his immigration proposal, Trump took the opportunity to infuse policy points with racist rhetoric, a move that will not get him far with Latin American leaders or their countrymen, as is indicative of what is to come.

America First to America Last

As the world waits with bated breath to see the results of the presidential election on November 8, the electorate of the United States needs to be cognizant of the impact that their decision will have on the fragile relationships that President Obama has been able to achieve after the damage done by the administration of President George W. Bush. Should the American people decide to put “America First”, they should be mindful of the fact that a large contingency of Latin American populists would be comfortable with eliminating the active involvement of the United States within the region and therefore putting America last on their list of priorities. The election of Donald Trump may be the final piece that leaders of these coalitions need in order to rally people in favor of their cause and initiate a reconstruction of the power dynamics within the region. In this scenario, not only would the United States be unable to promote its values and strategic priorities, but nations such as China and Russia will quickly fill in the power vacuum that the absence of the United States would create. Should this come to pass, “Making America Great Again” will always remain at least an arm’s reach away from being realized.

*Brandon Capece, Research Associate at the Council on Hemispheric Affairs

[i] “Immigration.” Donald J Trump for President. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/immigration/.

[ii] Peña Nieto, Enrique. “Donald Trump.” Twitter. August 31, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://twitter.com/EPN/status/771118159654891520?ref_src=twsrc^tfw.

[iii] Collinson, Stephen, and Jeremy Diamond. “Mexican President Disputes Trump over Border Wall Payment …” Mexican President Disputes Trump over Border Wall Payment Discussion. September 1, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/08/30/politics/donald-trump-enrique-pea-nieto-mexico/index.html.

[iv] Martínez Ahrens, Jan. “Mexican President Admits Donald Trump Visit Was a Mistake.” El Pais. October 25, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://elpais.com/elpais/2016/10/25/inenglish/1477390641_936993.html?id_externo_rsoc=TW_CM.

[v] Hains, Tim. “Former Mexican President Vicente Fox to Trump: We’re ‘Not Paying For That F***ing Wall’” Real Clear Politics. February 25, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://goo.gl/YUR7oQ.

[vi] Trump, Donald J. “Mexico.” Twitter. June 30, 2015. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/615866741994954752?ref_src=twsrc^tfw.

[vii] Lima, Jessica, Javier Aceves, and Hayes Brown. “Argentina’s President Just Picked Clinton Over Trump.” BuzzfeedNews. August 10, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://www.buzzfeed.com/javieraceves/entrevista-buzzfeed-macri-1?utm_term=.hwz2aGQgz#.spXwENnXL.

[viii] “World Development Indicators.” World Bank Group. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://databank.worldbank.org/data/reports.aspx?source=2&series=BX.TRF.PWKR.CD.DT&country=.

[ix] “300.000 Indicators from 196 Countries.” Trading Economics. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/.

[x] Caden, Art. “Illegal Immigrants Don’t Lower Our Wages Or Take Our Jobs.” Forbes. August 28, 2015. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.forbes.com/sites/artcarden/2015/08/28/how-do-illegal-immigrants-affect-american-workers-the-answer-might-surprise-you/#5f81457f6b10.

[xi] Sandefur, Justin. “Why Remittances Are Good for America.” CNN. April 13, 2016. Accessed October 26, 2016. http://www.cnn.com/2016/04/08/opinions/remittances-good-for-america-sandefur/index.html.

[xii] Sanders, Bernie. “Bernie Sanders: Hillary Clinton Supported ‘Disastrous’ NAFTA | NBC News.” Youtube. March 31, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SsUKbdrhbak.

[xiii] “North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).” Public Citizen. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.citizen.org/nafta.

[xiv] Primack, Dan. “Is Donald Trump Right That Mexico Is ‘killing Us’ on Trade?” Fortune. August 10, 2015. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://fortune.com/2015/08/10/is-donald-trump-right-that-mexico-is-killing-us-on-trade/.

[xv] “Trade.” Donald J Trump for President. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/policies/trade/.

[xvi] Grillo, Ioan. “Forget Trump’s Wall: For Mexico, the Election Is About Nafta.” New York Times. September 23, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/25/opinion/sunday/forget-trumps-wall-for-mexico-the-election-is-about-nafta.html.

[xvii] Luhby, Tami. “Yes, ‘President Trump’ Really Could Kill NAFTA – but It …” Yes, ‘President Trump’ Really Could Kill NAFTA – but It Wouldn’t Be Pretty. July 6, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://money.cnn.com/2016/07/06/news/economy/trump-nafta/index.html.

[xviii] “NAFTA – Chapter Twenty-Two: Final Provisions.” Foreign Trade Information System – OAS. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/nafta/chap-22.asp.

[xix] Bazak, Jordan. “TPP Outside of the U.S.: Ratification Likely Despite Grassroots Resistance.” Washington Report on the Hemisphere, 16th ser., 35 (October 11, 2016): 3-5. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.coha.org/wrh-volume-36-issue-16/.

[xx] Howard, Rebecca. “Trans-Pacific Partnership Trade Deal Signed, but Years of …” Reuters. February 4, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.reuters.com/article/us-trade-tpp-idUSKCN0VD08S.

[xxi] Ibid.

[xxii] Roosevelt, Franklin D. “First Inaugural Address (March 4, 1933).” Miller Center. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://millercenter.org/president/fdroosevelt/speeches/speech-3280.

[xxiii] World Affairs, 170

[xxiv] Addington, Catherine. “Obama Plays the Long Game in Latin America | The American …” The American Conservative. March 28, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.theamericanconservative.com/articles/obama-plays-the-long-game-in-latin-america/.

[xxv] Tortilla Con Sal. “The US in Latin America: Obama for Now, Maybe Worse to …” TeleSUR. June 21, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.telesurtv.net/english/opinion/The-US-in-Latin-America-Obama-for-Now-Maybe-Worse-to-Come…-20160621-0025.html.

[xxvi] Trump, Donald J. “Donald J. Trump Foreign Policy Speech.” Donald J Trump for President. April 27, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://www.donaldjtrump.com/press-releases/donald-j.-trump-foreign-policy-speech.

[xxvii] Trump, Donald J. “Cuba.” Twitter. October 12, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/status/786285509668696065.

[xxviii] Hirsch, Michael. “Donald Trump 2016: George Washington, “America First,” and …” Politico. May 05, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2016/05/founding-fathers-2016-donald-trump-america-first-foreign-policy-isolationist-213873.

[xxix] Marfil, Jude. “Russian Puppets and ‘Bad Hombres’: Top Moments from the Third Clinton-Trump Debate.” The Wall Street Journal. October 20, 2016. Accessed October 25, 2016. http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2016/10/20/russian-puppets-and-bad-hombres-top-moments-from-the-third-clinton-trump-debate/.


Donald Trump: A Political Meteorite – OpEd

0
0

By Luis Durani*

Donald Trump has come to epitomize an array of adjectives in the political jargon. While his no non-sense approach elevated him to the top of the Republican Party as well as allowed him to take the lead against Hilary Clinton for a while, his continuous non-filtered approach has had a major setback recently.

Now that he is trailing in the polls, many believe this will be the first election in a while where one candidate wins by a decent margin rather than few percentage point. Yet, with two months to go anything is bound to happen.

That being said, despite what one may think of Trump, the political system is forever altered by the reality-star business man. During his ascension to the top of the ticket during the primaries, he managed to remove the veil from many voters’ eyes on the level of corruption embedded within the system. The 2016 elections, as cliché as it may sound, is a watershed moment in American political history. Voters and politicians are forever changed by this election. Whether people see him as the political savior or the 21st century Hitler, Donald Trump is the meteor needed to send the archaic American political system into extinction.

The main theme of this year’s election isn’t Make American Great Again or Stronger Together, it is apathy. The American voters are tired of the establishment and its total control of the system cloaked behind the fading belief that power is distributed amongst the people rather than the aristocratic few. Donald Trump helped expose all that on both sides of the political aisle. Trump in his unorthodox political approach has helped dismantle the gears of the political leviathan that many thought were impossible. All he had to do was tell the public out loud what many already knew.

While Trump made more headlines, in reality without both Trump and Sanders in this year’s election the impact could not be more so pronounced. Trump made conservative America see that its party was anything but conservative whether in its spending habits, foreign policy, or domestic policy rather the party served the needs of the donors. Sanders performed a similar task with liberal America demonstrating that the Democratic Party was far removed from its progressive roots. It had become a party of war mongers, Wall Street executives, and false bravados such as Barack Obama or Hilary Clinton.

Together both men have forever changed the system. They are akin to the meteorite that supposedly brought a cataclysmic climate change leading to the extinction of the Dinosaurs and other earth-based life at the time. The languishing political system that has disappointed so many appears to have been hit by a similar comet that will jolt both parties, if not entire system, into extinction in the next decade.

About the author:
*Luis Durani
is currently employed in the oil and gas industry. He previously worked in the nuclear energy industry. He has a M.A. in international affairs with a focus on Chinese foreign policy and the South China Sea, MBA, M.S. in nuclear engineering, B.S. in mechanical engineering and B.A. in political science. He is also author of “Afghanistan: It’s No Nebraska – How to do Deal with a Tribal State” and “China and the South China Sea: The Emergence of the Huaqing Doctrine.” Follow him for other articles on Instagram: @Luis_Durani

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy

The (Irreversible) Crisis Of The European Union – Analysis

0
0

By Giancarlo Elia Valori*

According to a well-known Italian Research Centre, from 2003 to 2014 the European single currency cost an 11% GDP reduction throughout the Eurozone and 18 million additional unemployed people. Conversely, as a result of the Maastricht agreement only, throughout the Eurozone we have lost 8 million jobs and an additional 5% of Gross Domestic Product, owing to the obligation to eliminate deficit and cut investment.

Furthermore, the report of said Research Centre shows that, again in late 2014, the average EU unemployment rate was approximately 11.6%.

In a scenario of parity with the dollar, the EU unemployment in the Eurozone would have been 5.8%, more or less the same as the US rate in that phase.

Hence a monetary policy characterized by an excessive overvaluation of the European currency blocked both exports and the internal market at the same time.

Furthermore, it created the conditions for a deterioration of public budgets in terms of deficit and debt.

In fact, again at the end of 2014, the Eurozone recorded a public deficit totalling 269 billions which, without the single currency, would even be turned into a surplus of 165 billion euro, with a difference equal to 445 billions.

In terms of GDP percentage, the difference would be 4.1 points while, with specific reference to the Eurozone’s public debt, we would have had three trillion euro less.

Only for Italy, as many as 400 billion public debt less.

Working on this assumption, all current evils would have been avoided if there had not been the overvaluation of the euro against the dollar.

There would have not been the massive impact of the financial crisis coming from the United States, at first with Lehman Brothers’ bankruptcy on September 15, 2008 and later with the recurrent banking crises in Europe, which put a strain on the public finances of major European governments.

Considering that all EU governments were accustomed to borrow huge sums directly from the banking system, we can imagine the effects of the financial and credit crisis on the various European countries’ budgets.

It is worth recalling that the United States have never liked the euro – quite the reverse they have always considered it “imaginative and useless”, as former President George Bush I stated in recently-published public papers.

Reading between the lines of its official documents, the EU itself maintains that the financial crisis came from the United States and that it made serious mistakes.

Also according to the EU official documents, the mistakes were allegedly the following:

1) too much attention focused on the public budget deficit on an yearly basis, without being too much worried about the public debt as a whole.

According to European standards, the EU government submitted reduced annual budgets for obtaining EU funding – later obviously the public debt increased anyway and real trouble came.

Also thanks to the EU operating logic, the naive myth that the crisis was not structural and could be managed with some cosmetic measures has led to the current decline.

Said decline has been triggered off by the rapid growth of interest rates on the EU Southern countries’ public debt.

2) Again according to the EU papers, there has also been a lack of surveillance over competitiveness and macroeconomic imbalances. This is not great news. However, there is always someone who benefits from the economic disharmonies – just to use the old terminology of the remarkable Italian philosopher Mario Calderoni – while others stand to lose as a result of them. There has never been a solidarity-based Europe during crises, but only in “good times”.

Therefore, in the losing countries, we recorded growing indebtedness of the private sector, not controlled owing to the myth of companies’ autonomy – and hence an increasing weakening of banks.

The other EU “winning” countries took over the losers’ market shares. Again, instead of imposing draconian penalties which worsen the economic problems, we should have supported the weakest economies and the most unbalanced ones in terms of trade with the United States.

The United States exported their mass of bad loans, disguised as new securities, to the European Union, the financial enemy that had dreamt of relegating the dollar to the rank of a Euro ancillary currency.

There was also this geopolitical war within the crisis of the European currency.

Moreover, the European Central Bank aimed at maintaining financial stability but, by statute, it could not buy public debt from other non-EU countries, as all issuing banks do.

This is the main way in which central banks can nip in the bud speculative attempts against them.

Furthermore, in Italy, as in other South Europe’s economies, foreign competition has kept wages at very low levels and, in dealing with competition for exports, our political and economic structure has only reduced the labour incomes almost to the level of the worst competitor.

3) Another EU public self-criticism is relating to the slow decision-making mechanism: the European establishment has interpreted the small shocks of the global crisis as isolated phenomena and not as a common geoeconomic problem. Hence the slow pace and often the ineffectiveness of the EU “solutions”.

And this faced with a “market” – if we may call it so – of investors who, as soon as they saw the crisis in the South, played a downward game or went away quickly. Good old days when the Treasury rightly bought the unsold debt securities at the Bank of Italy’s auctions. And, it is worth noting that, in so doing, it did not create inflation at all.

Currently, however, markets are fast like jackals, which smell corpses, while States have been slow as marmots. This is the real problem of today’s politicians.

States must increase their pace and be very quick and capable of understanding both adverse media and the political and military operations which are objectively dangerous for them.

Moreover considering that, at the time, the public debt securities were held mostly by banks, their default was possible and easy to take place.

Today there is a new crisis looming large on Europe, namely the crisis of non-performing loans: in Portugal, Italy and Spain, but also in some North European countries, the non-performing loans are worth over 540 billion euro. Hence shortly another European debt crisis will materialize.

4) Currently the European Union is basically a Gaullist-style “Europe of States” – even though it strongly denies so.

Hence the idea of creating the “United States of Europe” is extraordinary nonsense: the EU Member States are so different from one another, and with such a diversified economy, that these “United States of Europe” would create more contrasts internally than externally, namely with the United States of America, Russia and China.

Not to mention that, with a view to becoming today’s USA, America had to undergo a wide civil war, whose echoes are not completely over even today.

5) Moreover, the united Europe – and I am talking about the Euro zone – will be increasingly entangled in an area of structural deflation which condemns ‘Italy, together with other less economically strong countries, to face an indefinite period of very low growth rates.

On the contrary, the other North European countries will continue to grow and, above all, will not have to tackle the same problems we have, namely low wages and exports facing fierce competition, not protected by the Euro.

6) Hence what can be done? We must prepare for a slow but safe exit from the Euro, not waiting for the EU “bureaucratic Caesarism”, as well as redefining and protecting our export area.

Then we must use our credit instruments and debt securities as alternative currency, where possible – as well as use some well-disguised protectionism also vis-à-vis the EU itself.

Finally, we must rethink our overall strategy, which we have never done. The economic crises are always geopolitical crises.

Furthermore we must fund the companies’ technological upgrade projects with State funds, without waiting for the EU claims.

Last but not least, we must put an end to young people’s “brain drain”. It is true that, as some liberal-masochists maintain, the current professions’ market is global, but it is also true that the cost of their education and training has been borne by our State and our families.

About the author:
*Professor Giancarlo Elia Valori
is an eminent Italian economist and businessman. He holds prestigious academic distinctions and national orders. Mr Valori has lectured on international affairs and economics at the world’s leading universities such as Peking University, the Hebrew University of Jerusalem and the Yeshiva University in New York. He currently chairs “La Centrale Finanziaria Generale Spa”, he is also the honorary president of Huawei Italy, economic adviser to the Chinese giant HNA Group and member of the Ayan-Holding Board. In 1992 he was appointed Officier de la Légion d’Honneur de la République Francaise, with this motivation: “A man who can see across borders to understand the world” and in 2002 he received the title of “Honorable” of the Académie des Sciences de l’Institut de France.

Source:
This article was published by Modern Diplomacy.

NATO Nouvelle: Everything Old Is New Again – Analysis

0
0

By G. Alexander Crowther*

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is heralded as the world’s most successful military alliance. However, it finds itself under pressure from within and without. Some people in NATO countries do not understand the importance of its goal: to safeguard its members’ freedom and security by political and military means. This goal is executed through three mission sets: collective defense, crisis management, and cooperative security.1 Other people outside NATO countries understand those missions well—and seek to destroy the Alliance.

Recent comments that NATO Allies are free-riders and calls for the United States to leave the Alliance are rooted in ignorance and do not take into account the reforms that NATO has sought, nor the importance of the Alliance in the 21st century. The end of the Cold War found 15 Allies in a defensive crouch in Western Europe. Since that time, NATO expanded its mission set to include crisis management, and its area of operations to include Eastern Europe, the Middle East, the Horn of Africa, and Central Asia. NATO has become the center of the global coalition of the willing. The Alliance now has 28 members and another 41 partner nations through four different partnership programs. It has also reorganized several times, changing structure to account for changing mission sets. NATO today is an alliance that operates globally but is returning to its original mission of collective defense. This article describes how the Alliance has changed since the end of the Cold War and where it is today. NATO has passed through the crisis management era and has returned to another era of collective defense.

After the Cold War

The 1990s. At the end of the Cold War, some thought that NATO should be relegated to the dustbin of history along with the conflict that had birthed it. The Alliance survived, however, and managed to adapt to the new era, establishing the Partnership for Peace (PfP) program in 1994 to engage its former opponents of the Warsaw Pact. Additionally, NATO morphed the North Atlantic Cooperation Council to the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council in 1997. It was designed to “strengthen and extend peace and stability in the Euro-Atlantic area, on the basis of the shared values and principles which underlie their cooperation.”2 NATO also contemplated expansion in the 1990s, producing a study on the subject in 1995.3 As its final pre-9/11 mission set, NATO conducted three different operations to Macedonia during 2001–2003 to help mitigate rising ethnic tensions.

NATO also began to do out-of-area operations during the 1990s. The Alliance was designed to defend members against a Soviet offensive, not for expeditionary operations, but national forces did have expeditionary capabilities that NATO was able to tap into. Early operations included the deployment of both NATO Airborne Warning and Control System (AWACS) aircraft and the ACE Mobile Force (Air) and air defense packages to Turkey during the first Gulf War; assisting an international relief effort by flying teams of humanitarian assistance experts and medical advisors to Russia and other Commonwealth of Independent States nations in 1992 using AWACS trainer cargo aircraft following the breakup of the Soviet Union; and providing increased AWACS coverage of the Central Mediterranean to monitor air approach routes from the North African littoral in May 1992 after the United Nations (UN) imposed sanctions on Libya after the Lockerbie bombing.

When Yugoslavia broke up in 1992, NATO became involved, usually in support of UN declarations. Because they saw it as a Slavic area, Russia opposed outside intervention in Yugoslavia. In summer of 1993, NATO started to enforce the UN arms embargo in the Adriatic Sea and enforced a no-fly zone declared by the UN Security Council, where NATO conducted its first combat operations when it shot down four Bosnian Serb aircraft on February 28, 1994. NATO began airstrikes in 1995, which were credited as a key factor in ending the war in Bosnia. The Alliance immediately deployed a 60,000-strong UN-mandated Implementation Force to the Balkans and then deployed a 32,000-strong Stabilization Force in December 1996 in support of the Dayton Peace Accords. NATO ended this operation in December 2004 and maintains a military headquarters in the country. NATO also entered Kosovo in June 1999 to end widespread violence and halt a humanitarian disaster, remaining there until 2008.

September 11, 2001. The 9/11 attacks gave NATO a new lease on life. In response to the attacks, NATO invoked Article 5 of the Washington Treaty, which states that “an armed attack against one . . . shall be considered an attack against them all” and went to the assistance of the United States.4 This is the only time that Article 5 has been declared and was recognized as a watershed event, demonstrating the utility of the Alliance. In an immediate response, NATO executed Operation Eagle Assist from late 2001 to early 2002, conducting over 360 sorties of seven AWACS aircraft on patrol over the United States.5

The 2000s

The early 2000s were a busy time for the Alliance. The largest and best-known mission was NATO leading the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan from August 2003 to December 2014. ISAF was one of the largest international crisis-management operations ever, bringing together contributions from over 50 countries. By the end of 2014, the process of transitioning full security responsibility from ISAF troops to the Afghan army and police forces was completed and the ISAF mission came to a close. On January 1, 2015, a new NATO-led noncombat mission called Resolute Support (to train, advise, and assist the Afghan National Security Forces and institutions) was launched.

During the second Gulf War in 2003, NATO deployed AWACS radar aircraft and air defense batteries to enhance the defense of Turkey. NATO later provided the training mission in Iraq from 2004 to 2011, training, mentoring, and assisting the Iraqi Security Forces.6

NATO participated in protecting public events, deploying forces in support of the 2004 Olympic and Paralympic games held in Athens with Operation Distinguished Games and the Riga Summit in Latvia in 2006.

NATO practiced international disaster relief in the 2000s. In 2005, for instance, nine member nations moved 189 tons of supplies to the United States in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina while also delivering 3,500 tons of supplies, engineers, medical units, and specialized equipment. In response to a request from Pakistan, NATO assisted in the urgent earthquake relief effort, which was one of the Alliance’s largest humanitarian relief initiatives to date. NATO has also helped coordinate assistance to other countries hit by natural disasters, including Turkey, Ukraine, and Portugal. It does this through its Euro-Atlantic Disaster Response Coordination Centre. In addition to missions in Central Asia and the Middle East, NATO moved into Africa in the 2000s, assisting the African Union in Darfur, Sudan, from 2005 to 2007, and beginning counterpiracy maritime patrols in the Gulf of Aden in 2008 and off the Horn of Africa in 2009.

Libya 2011. In the wake of UN Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1973 of March 17, 2011, several nations began operations in support of UNSCR goals. Initially, NATO enforced a maritime arms embargo, then a no-fly zone and, on March 31, ultimately took over sole command and control of all military operations for Libya. The NATO-led Operation Unified Protector had three distinct components:

Starting on March 23, enforcing an arms embargo on the high seas of the Mediterranean to prevent the transfer of arms, related material, and mercenaries to Libya
Starting on March 25, enforcing a no-fly zone to prevent any aircraft from bombing civilian targets
Starting on March 31, commencing air and naval strikes against military forces involved in attacks (or threats to attack) on Libyan civilians and civilian-populated areas.

The operation officially ended on October 31, 2011, after participants performed over 26,500 sorties, including over 9,700 strike sorties.7

Current Operations

Afghanistan Since 2015. NATO currently leads Operation Resolute Support, a noncombat mission that provides training, advice, and assistance to the Afghan National Security Forces and institutions. The operation launched on January 1, 2015, and includes approximately 13,000 personnel from NATO and partner countries and operates with one hub in Kabul/Bagram and four spokes in Mazar-e Sharif, Herat, Kandahar, and Laghman.

As NATO has given up the combat mission in Afghanistan, this operation works with the Afghan government, ministry of defense, and military, providing functions including support planning, programming, and budgeting; assuring transparency, accountability, and oversight; supporting the adherence to the principles of rule of law and good governance; and supporting the establishment and sustainment of processes such as force generation, recruiting, training, managing, and development of personnel.8

Since NATO is an international organization that uses force, international law is an important basis for all operations. The legal basis of Resolute Support rests on a formal invitation from the Afghan government and the Status of Forces Agreement between NATO and Afghanistan. UNSCR 2189 of December 12, 2014, welcomes Resolute Support and underscores the importance of continued international support for the stability of Afghanistan, and it reflects NATO commitment to an enduring partnership with Afghanistan, reflecting the strengthening political consultations and practical cooperation within the framework of the NATO-Afghanistan Enduring Partnership signed in 2010.9

Kosovo Since 2008. Although the major NATO operation in Kosovo wrapped up in 2008, NATO maintains approximately 4,800 Allied troops there as part of NATO’s Kosovo Force, preserving the peace that was imposed in the wake of its deployment in 1999. Following Kosovo’s declaration of independence in February 2008, NATO agreed that it would continue to maintain its presence on the basis of UNSCR 1244, and has helped to create a professional and multi-ethnic Kosovo Security Force.10

Monitoring the Mediterranean Sea Since 2001.
After the 9/11 attacks, NATO sought ways to counter the threat of international terrorism. In October 2001, it launched the maritime surveillance operation Active Endeavour, detecting and deterring terrorist activity in the Mediterranean. NATO has been systematically boarding suspect ships since April 2003. At the Warsaw Summit in July 2016, NATO leaders decided to transition Operation Active Endeavour to a maritime security operation now called Sea Guardian.11

Counterpiracy off the Horn of Africa Since 2009. The UN Secretary-General requested maritime protection for food convoys in the Gulf of Aden in 2008. NATO responded with Operation Allied Provider between October and December 2008.12 The next iteration of NATO maritime protection was Operation Allied Protector, between March and August of 2009. The current mission is Operation Ocean Shield, approved on August 17, 2009, by the North Atlantic Council.13 During this time NATO forces have worked closely with the European Union’s Operation Atalanta,14 the U.S.-led Combined Task Force 151,15 and individual country contributors.

Supporting the African Union Since 2007. NATO also works ashore in Africa, supporting the African Union (AU) in its peacekeeping missions on the African continent since June 2007, providing airlift support for AU peacekeepers of the AU Mission in Somalia.

Air Policing Missions Since 2004. Air policing missions are collective peacetime operations that enable NATO to detect, track, and identify all violations and infringements of its airspace and to take appropriate action. Allied fighter jets patrol the airspace of Allies who do not have air superiority aircraft of their own such as Albania, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Iceland, and Slovenia. Since Russia’s illegal military intervention in Ukraine in 2014, Russian operations tempo has risen while NATO has been taking extra reassurance measures for its Allies, including the deployment of additional aircraft to reinforce missions over Albania and Slovenia, as well as the Baltic region where NATO F-16s have intercepted Russian aircraft repeatedly violating allied airspace.16

While air policing has been a viable mission for NATO, Russian revanchism has caused some NATO members to rethink this approach. Recently a senior NATO commander visiting the Atlantic Council remarked that it is time for the air policing mission to change to an air defense mission because of additional threats and the fact that NATO has stopped routinely practicing air defense and badly needs practice in this basic defense function. This lack of experience at air defense missions is an example of NATO’s lack of paying attention to high-end combat fundamentals, which became a second-tier priority when the Alliance paid more attention to crisis management rather than collective defense.

Issues

While NATO has expanded its mission set and conducted operations from Iceland to Afghanistan, there have been issues, mainly at the political level.

NATO Expansion. One major issue for the Alliance has been the expansion of membership from 12 to currently 28 countries. Founded with 12 members, NATO integrated Greece, Turkey, West Germany, and Spain during the Cold War. After a study of the subject of expansion in 1995,17 NATO further integrated the Czech Republic, Hungary, and Poland in 1999; Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, and Slovenia in 2004; and Albania and Croatia, who joined in 2009.18 Currently, Montenegro is an “invitee,” while three other countries “aspire” to membership: Bosnia-Herzegovina, Georgia, and Macedonia.19

The expansion into the former Warsaw Pact was contentious for two main reasons. First is the Russian reaction, while the second is whether the Alliance could actually defend some of the easternmost countries, particularly the Baltics—Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania. Russia has reacted negatively to NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. The Alliance is now less than 500 miles from Moscow. Russian issues with NATO expansion have become some of the major disinformation operations deployed by the government.

The discussion on defending countries such as those in the Baltics has two main thrusts: that they cannot be defended from Russian aggression and that Eastern European NATO members could drag NATO into an Article 5 situation by provoking Russia into an attack. One of the major discussion points at the July 2016 Warsaw Summit was preparation for the defense of the Baltics,20 while Baltic and Polish visits to the United States always contain a discussion about how to ensure that the Alliance provides Article 5 mutual defense.

The idea of “cooperative security” as a mission set for NATO came from the Lisbon Summit in 2010.21 The main programs are the Partnership for Peace program, Mediterranean Dialogue, and Istanbul Cooperation Initiative (ICI). NATO also partners with the EU through the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council (EAPC) as well as with other like-minded nations around the world, often referred to as “partners across the globe.”

The PfP was founded in 1994 and consists of 22 members: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Malta, Moldova, Montenegro, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Macedonia, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.22 Twelve former PfP countries have become NATO Allies.23

The Mediterranean Dialogue was also founded in 1994 and consists of Algeria, Egypt, Israel, Jordan, Mauritania, Morocco, and Tunisia.24 In the wake of the success of the Mediterranean Dialogue, the ICI was founded in 2004 and includes the following four countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council: Bahrain, Kuwait, Qatar, and the United Arab Emirates.25

The EAPC consists of all NATO member countries and the following partner countries: Armenia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Belarus, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Finland, Georgia, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyz Republic, Macedonia, Malta, Montenegro, Republic of Moldova, Russia, Serbia, Sweden, Switzerland, Tajikistan, Turkmenistan, Ukraine, and Uzbekistan.26

“Partners across the globe” are a variety of countries who have similar goals, including Afghanistan, Australia, Iraq, Japan, Mongolia, New Zealand, Pakistan, and Republic of Korea.27

Reforms. During the Cold War, NATO had a variety of subordinate commands designed to fight a war against the Soviet Union. In general, these organizations reflected the need to fight on land, sea, and air in the north, center, and south of Europe. With the end of the Cold War, NATO undertook a series of transformations to adapt to the new world. Now NATO has Allied Command Operations (ACO), which is the warfighting headquarters, and Allied Command Transformation, which is responsible for training, education, transformation, and so forth. Under ACO are two joint force commands as well as Allied Maritime Command, Allied Air Command, and Allied Land Command. There are nine rapidly deployable corps headquarters as well as Immediate Reaction Forces (Maritime).28

Countering Terror. NATO announced its “Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism: Aware, Capable and Engaged for a Safer Future,” at the Chicago Summit in 2012. NATO policy has been informed by 9/11 and subsequent terror attacks.29

Cyber. Like many member nations, NATO has been challenged by the emergence of cyber operations. Russian political warfare has a large cyber component, which has been overtly used against Estonia, Georgia, and Ukraine and potentially used against national targets such as the Pentagon30 and U.S. Democratic National Committee.31 NATO made forward progress on developing cyber capabilities at the Wales Summit in 201432 and declared cyber to be a “domain” and announced further efforts to develop NATO capabilities while also assisting member nations to develop their own at the July 2016 Warsaw Summit.33

Paying Their Way. Much has been made over the subject of NATO Allies providing funding to the organization. Nations agreed to spend 2 percent of gross domestic product (GDP) per year in 2010. Although the combined GDP of the other members is larger than that of the United States, the U.S. defense expenditure represents 73 percent of NATO spending, much of which is dedicated to high-demand, low-density capabilities such as intelligence, surveillance, and reconnaissance, air-to-air refueling, ballistic missile defense, and airborne electronic warfare.34

National Caveats. There are ongoing complaints by some Allies that others impose politically driven limitations on their operations through the use of national caveats.35 During Operation Unified Protector, some nations positioned general and flag officers at the Combined Air Operations Center in Poggio Renatico, Italy. Their mission appeared to be to ensure that national caveats were respected. At times the development of the daily Air Tasking Order resembled a bidding session, where the NATO planners sought to generate sufficient strike capabilities to complete the mission.36 In spite of the use of national caveats, members always complete the mission. Although it sometimes requires the Deputy Supreme Allied Commander Europe to convene a force generation conference37 or the Supreme Allied Commander Europe to call an occasional minister of defense with a request to waive a national caveat, NATO still managed to provide 40,000 personnel to the Afghanistan mission and generate enough strikes to complete the mission in Libya.

Russia. Russia regularly accuses NATO of aggression. The Russian Federation identified NATO as its first main external military risk in its military doctrine.38 NATO has identified 32 different Russian claims about Alliance enlargement, NATO’s attitude toward Russia, NATO as a threat, promises and pledges, and NATO operations, and has refuted each of them.39 NATO engaged Russia following the Cold War and the two cooperated regularly, reflected in both the Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation (May 17, 1997),40 and the announcement of the formation of the NATO-Russia Council (NRC) at the Rome Summit on May 28, 2002.41 The NRC was formed to serve as the principal structure and venue for advancing the relationship between NATO and Russia;42 however, NRC operations were suspended in the wake of Russian actions in Ukraine in April 2014.43

NATO Today and Tomorrow

While it is easy to quantify what military assets NATO brings to the table, the Alliance provides ineffable qualities. Allies and partners form the international coalition of the willing, that is, nations who support similar goals such as democracy, free trade, and rule of law. These states work together at the United Nations in regional fora and on a bilateral basis in support of global norms that have provided unparalleled peace and prosperity to the world. The Alliance sets standards of behavior, concepts of operations, and equipment that are followed around the world. These member nations also provide excellent examples to other states around the world that seek to emulate their progress.

One of the most important responsibilities that NATO members can fulfill is the need to tell their populations why the Alliance is important and how NATO helps each of them maintain the independence and freedom that they currently enjoy. Many misunderstandings about NATO could be resolved with modest but effective public affairs and public diplomacy programs. This would make it easier to prevent attacks on NATO from within and would allow political leaders to make the case for spending 2 percent of GDP on NATO-usable equipment and formations.

Another imperative would be to study Russian political warfare. NATO members must understand what political warfare is and prepare to conduct counter–political warfare. Only then will NATO be resistant to outsider efforts to destroy the Alliance.

Although NATO has been a success, there is plenty of room for improvement. The ability to perform force generation has been an improvement; however, NATO has lost some of the capacity to perform modern force-on-force kinetic combat. This is particularly true of air defense, maritime operations, and combined arms operations integrating air, armor, and artillery. NATO should regularly exercise those capabilities.

Another lost art is generating and moving forces. At a recent conference about European defense, someone noted that the Very High Readiness Joint Task Force (VJTF), part of the NATO Response Force, deployed to Central Europe for an exercise on commercial aircraft, not using military airlift. This would cause problems if the VJTF were deploying into Poland or one of the Baltic states to reinforce a defense against Russia. Commercial companies would not be able to provide that type of transportation. Furthermore, NATO could no longer move military equipment and forces smoothly across European borders. During a recent deployment exercise, receiving nation customs and immigration officers stopped deploying forces at every border in order to clear them across. Since time is of the essence in a reinforcement scenario, NATO needs to develop the equivalent of a “Military Schengen Agreement” where forces are expedited across borders.

Dealing with infrastructure is another issue. During the Cold War, every bridge in West Germany was marked with a weight capacity and the Allies also had plans both to block and to cross all major rivers in their areas of operations. Bridges were built with chambers to facilitate the destruction in case of Russian attack, and bridging equipment was prepositioned to support crossing rivers heading east. Bridges in the Baltics and Poland are neither marked nor prepared for demolition, nor is equipment identified or prepositioned to facilitate crossing rivers. Although these seem like minor issues, they represent not only the conceptual underpinnings of combat but also the degradation of NATO capabilities across the board in air, maritime, and land operations.<

NATO needs to return to the basics, dust off the old manuals from the Cold War, and think through what is really required to successfully defend Eastern Europe. Only then will NATO be able to provide a realistic deterrent to Russia.

The North Atlantic Treaty Organization is the world’s most successful military alliance, but it finds itself under pressure from within and without. NATO countries need to reexamine their roles in NATO’s goal to safeguard the Allies’ freedom and security by political and military means via collective defense as well as understanding that there are global actors who seek to destroy the Alliance. NATO has changed significantly since the end of the Cold War. Many of those changes have been for the good, but some have not. Issues remain. Reorganizations and global deployments have improved NATO’s capabilities, but at a cost to the fundamental capability to perform high-end kinetic operations. Like the U.S. military, NATO has to recover from crisis management and regain capabilities lost during the last 15 years, while maintaining the lessons learned from what could be called the Crisis Management Era.

About the author:
*Dr. G. Alexander Crowther
is a Senior Fellow in the Center for Strategic Research, Institute for National Strategic Studies, at the National Defense University.

Source:
This article was published in the Joint Force Quarterly 83, which is published by the National Defense University.

Notes:
1 See “About NATO,” available at <https://nato.usmission.gov/our-relationship/about-nato/>.

2 “Basic Document of the Euro-Atlantic Partnership Council,” May 30, 1997, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25471.htm?mode=pressrelease>.

3 “Study on NATO Enlargement,” September 3, 1995, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm?>.

4 Treaty of Washington, April 4, 1949, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_17120.htm?>.

5 “Operations and Missions: Past and Present,” July 12, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_52060.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

6 Ibid.

7 “Operation Unified Protector Final Mission Stats,” November 2, 2011, available at <www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2011_11/20111108_111107-factsheet_up_factsfigures_en.pdf>.

8 Resolute Support Mission in Afghanistan,” June 13, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_113694.htm>.

9 United Nations (UN) Security Council Resolution 2189, S/Res/2189 (2014), December 12, 2014, available at <www.un.org/en/ga/search/view_doc.asp?symbol=S/RES/2189%20(2014)>.

10 UN Security Council Resolution 1244, S/Res/1244 (1999), June 10, 1999, available at <https://documents-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N99/172/89/PDF/N9917289.pdf?OpenElement>.

11 Warsaw Summit Communiqué, Issued by the Heads of State and Government Participating in the Meeting of the North Atlantic Council in Warsaw 8–9 July 2016, Paragraph 91, “We have transitioned Operation Active Endeavour, our Article 5 maritime operation in the Mediterranean, which has contributed to the fight against terrorism, to a non–Article 5 Maritime Security Operation, Operation Sea Guardian, able to perform the full range of Maritime Security Operation tasks, as needed.” Available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_133169.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

12 “Operation Allied Provider,” September 30, 2014, available at <www.shape.nato.int/page13984631>.

13 “Counter-Piracy Missions,” July 12, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_48815.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

14 European Union, “Countering Piracy off the Coast of Somalia,” available at <http://eunavfor.eu/>.

15 Combined Maritime Forces, “CTF 151: Counter-Piracy,” available at <https://combinedmaritimeforces.com/ctf-151-counter-piracy/>.

16 “Air Policing: Securing NATO Airspace,” June 29, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_132685.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

17 “Study on NATO Enlargement,” September 3, 1995, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_24733.htm?>.

18 “Factsheet: NATO Enlargement & Open Door,” January 2016, available at <www.nato.int/nato_static_fl2014/assets/pdf/pdf_2016_01/20160120_1601-factsheet_enlargement-en.pdf>.

19 “10 Things you need to know about NATO,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/126169.htm>; Macedonia is another example of the perceived fecklessness of some members. Greece refuses to accept the name, insisting on calling it the “Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia” (FYROM). Greek officers assigned to NATO go so far as to word search every document that they receive and provide feedback reminding authors of the requirement to call Macedonia “FYROM,” wasting a large amount of person-hours in bureaucratic wrangling.

20 Warsaw Summit Communiqué, paragraph 78.

21 “Cooperative Security as NATO’s Core Task: Building Security Through Military Cooperation Across the Globe,” last updated September 7, 2011, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_77718.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

22 “Signatures of Partnership for Peace Framework Document,” January 10, 2012, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natolive/topics_82584.htm>.

23 Ibid.

24 “Partners,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/51288.htm>.

25 Ibid.

26 Ibid.

27 Ibid.

28 “NATO Organization,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/structure.htm>.

29 “Policy Guidelines on Counter-Terrorism: Aware, Capable and Engaged for a Safer Future,” May 24, 2012, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_87905.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

30 Paul D. Shinkman, “Reported Russian Cyber Attack Shuts Down Pentagon Network,” U.S. News & World Report, August 6, 2015, available at <www.usnews.com/news/articles/2015/08/06/reported-russian-cyber-attack-shuts-down-pentagon-network>.

31 Ruben F. Johnson, “Experts: DNC Hack Shows Inadequate U.S. Security Against Russian Cyber Attacks,” Washington Free Beacon, July 27, 2016, available at <http://freebeacon.com/national-security/experts-dnc-hack-shows-u-s-no-defense-russian-cyber-attacks/>.

32 “Cyber Defense,” July 27, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_78170.htm>.

33 Warsaw Summit Communiqué, paragraphs 70 & 71.

34 “Funding NATO, Indirect Funding of NATO,” available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_67655.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

35 General David Petraeus, USA, interview on Afghanistan, August 31, 2010: The Afghanistan mission “is certainly one team in which some of the different members have national caveats. . . . In Bosnia we had a matrix on the desk—I was the chief of operations there—and we had a matrix on the desk that had all the nations down one side and the missions and geographic areas across the top, and there were caveats, there were limits. That’s natural, actually, again, that’s the way these play out. I would point out though that virtually every one of the troop-contributing countries here has sustained tough losses and tough casualties, and indeed some of the smaller countries, if you look at their losses per capita, Denmark, for example. You’ll see again that there is a great sharing of the hardship and sacrifice in this effort, without question.” Available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/opinions_65854.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

36 The author was a special assistant to the Supreme Allied Commander Europe at the time.

37 “Troop Contributions,” June 27, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50316.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

38 Military Doctrine of the Russian Federation, December 25, 2014: “Build-up of the power potential of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and vesting NATO with global functions carried out in violation of the rules of international law, bringing the military infrastructure of NATO member countries near the borders of the Russian Federation, including by further expansion of the alliance.” Available at <http://rusemb.org.uk/press/2029>.

39 “NATO-Russia Relations: The Facts,” December 17, 2015, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_111767.htm?selectedLocale=en>.

40 Founding Act on Mutual Relations, Cooperation and Security between NATO and the Russian Federation signed in Paris, France, May 27, 1997, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_25468.htm>.

41 “NATO-Russia Relations: A New Quality: Declaration by Heads of State and Government of NATO Member States and the Russian Federation,” May 28, 2002, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/official_texts_19572.htm>.

42 “The purpose of the [NATO-Russia Council] has been to serve as the principal structure and venue for advancing the relationship between NATO and Russia. Operating on the basis of consensus, it has sought to promote continuous political dialogue on security issues with a view to the early identification of emerging problems, the determination of common approaches, the development of practical cooperation, and the conduct of joint operations, as appropriate. Work under the [NRC] has focused on all areas of mutual interest identified in the Founding Act. New areas have been added to the NRC’s agenda by the mutual consent of its members.” See NATO-Russia Council, April 15, 2016, available at <www.nato.int/cps/en/natohq/topics_50091.htm>.

43 Ibid.

Germany: Officials Doubt Islamic State’s Claim Of Responsibility For Knife Attack

0
0

Daesh (Islamic State) has taken credit for a fatal stabbing attack in Germany two weeks ago, but authorities in Hamburg said they are not so sure.

German officials were working Sunday to validate a claim by the militant group that an attack on a couple by a lake was perpetrated by a “soldier of the Islamic State (Daesh).”

On October 16, two teenagers were sitting near the shore of the Alster Lake in Hamburg when a man they described as Middle Eastern looking came up to them, stabbing a 16-year-old boy several times and shoving a 15-year-old girl into the water. The girl got away and called police, but the boy died later that night as a result of his injuries.

The attacker fled and has not been caught while police in Hamburg, who are working with German counter terror officials, have chased down leads.

Daesh posted a statement on the website of its news agency taking credit for the attack, calling the attacker “a soldier of the Islamic State (Daesh)” who “carried out the operation in response to calls to target the citizens of coalition countries.”

Police officials say the attack appears to have been random, but they remain unconvinced the militant group is actually behind the murder despite their statement taking credit for it.

“We are checking this to determine its authenticity, but the statement doesn’t match the results of our investigation,” a Hamburg police spokeswoman told The Wall Street Journal. “There are at least contradictions between our investigation and what they are saying.”

Original source

Pentagon Says US, Russian Jet Incident Over Syria Not Hostile

0
0

By Terri Moon Cronk

The Oct. 17 incident in which American and Russian aircraft flew within a half mile of one another over Syrian battlespace was inadvertent contact and not hostile, Pentagon Press Secretary Peter Cook told reporters today.

The flight was disclosed during a teleconferenced news briefing out of Baghdad Oct. 28 with Air Force Col. John Dorrian, Combined Joint Task Force Operation Inherent Resolve spokesman.

‘Unusual Occurrence’

Cook called the proximity of the two planes — which Dorrian described as a Russian fighter jet and a coalition larger-framed aircraft — was an unusual occurrence.

“Obviously, it’s a concern for us. [The] emergency line of communication was used and there was discussion afterward, and it’s been determined by our folks that they saw this as an inadvertent contact,” the press secretary said, adding, “This was not something they saw an intentional act of hostility.”

The incident will be a continued focus of conversation according to the memorandum of understanding the United States and Russia have over Syrian airspace safety, he said.

Closest In Proximity To Date

“We continue to have those conversations with the Russians,” Cook noted. “But I think it’s fair to say that this was the closest in terms of proximity that we had come to date, and that is why there was a particular cause for concern.”

Cook reiterated that the United States engaged in conversations with the Russians to gain a better understanding of what happened. “And we’ll continue to have those conversations with the Russians to try to make sure something like this can’t happen again,” he said.

Defense Secretary Ash Carter and other DoD officials were notified of the occurrence, Cook said.

“There has been professional handling of it [on both sides],” he said. “And, we continue to believe that is the best way to handle these issues going forward.”

“The Russian jet passed in front of the coalition jet close enough that the jet wash from that flight was felt within the larger aircraft,” Dorrian said last week. “So, that’s closer than we’d like. There was an immediate [radio] contact between the aircraft, and then follow-up through the de-confliction channel that we’ve been working with the Russians [on] for quite some time.”

CNN Fires Pundit Brazile Who Gave Hillary Clinton Debate Questions In Advance

0
0

Democratic party chair Donna Brazile is no longer at CNN, as WikiLeaks revealed that she sent debate questions to Hillary Clinton’s campaign at least twice ahead of the debate. Confirming Brazile’s dismissal, CNN said it was “completely uncomfortable” with her conduct.

Brazile’s role as a Democratic pundit at CNN was suspended in July, when she took on the role of interim chair for the Democratic National Committee following the scandal-ridden departure of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. She resigned from the network on October 14, after revelations that she had given advance notice to the Clinton campaign of questions to be asked at a CNN-hosted debate.

“We are completely uncomfortable with what we have learned about her interactions with the Clinton campaign while she was a CNN contributor,” the network said in a statement Monday, announcing Brazile’s dismissal and maintaining that they never gave her any questions or other materials in advance of debates.

Emails published by WikiLeaks earlier show otherwise, however. A March 12 email from Brazile to Clinton’s communications director Jennifer Palmieri – published by WikiLeaks on October 11 – was titled: “From time to time I get the questions in advance,” and gave the campaign notice of a question about the death penalty at the upcoming CNN-hosted town hall between Clinton and her rival for the Democratic nomination, Bernie Sanders.

Another email, published Monday, shows Brazile giving advance notice to Palmieri and Clinton campaign chief John Podesta about the upcoming debate in Flint, Michigan. Brazile was vice chair of the DNC at the time.

“One of the questions directed to HRC tomorrow is from a woman with a rash,” says the subject line of Brazile’s email dated March 5, followed by: “Her family has lead poison and she will ask what, if anything, will Hillary do as president to help the ppl of Flint.”

Both CNN and Brazile emphatically denied any wrongdoing prior to Monday’s release.

“To be perfectly clear: We have never, ever given a town hall question to anyone beforehand,” said CNN.

“As it pertains to the CNN Debates, I never had access to questions and would never have shared them with the candidates if I did,” Brazile said in a statement earlier this month.

On Monday morning, before CNN acknowledged her October 14 resignation, Brazile tweeted about “campaign hell” and quoted a Miami Herald article indicating that Donald Trump’s campaign had a “back channel” to WikiLeaks co-founder Julian Assange through political operative Roger Stone.

A Pardon For Hillary Clinton – OpEd

0
0

Thing are looking dicey again for Hillary Clinton, with Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) Director James B. Comey having informed members of the United States Congress on Friday that the FBI is reopening its investigation of the former Secretary of State for mishandling classified information.

This decision, Comey explained via a letter, is due to the discovery of new emails “that appear to be pertinent to the investigation.” Yet, no matter what the FBI may uncover, Fox News Senior Judicial Analyst and former New Jersey state Judge Andrew Napolitano said in a Fox Business interview with host Stuart Varney on Monday that Clinton may be able to avoid prosecution.

Napolitano says in the interview that Clinton, if she wins the presidential election, could use the presidential pardon power to pardon herself in regard to legal violations for which she may otherwise be charged. Napolitano also explains that, even should Clinton not win the election, President Barack Obama could pardon Clinton before Obama leaves office, much like President Gerald Ford pardoned Richard Nixon — Ford’s immediate predecessor in the presidency.

Watch Napolitano’s complete interview here:

Napolitano is a member of the Ron Paul Institute Advisory Board.

This article was published by RonPaul Institute.


History Of Russia’s 1917 Revolution Now In Danger? – OpEd

0
0

On February 21, 1918, faced with a German advance, Lenin proclaimed that “the socialist fatherland is in danger” and that it was the duty of all those loyal to the workers’ state to come to its defense. Now, 98 years later, some Russian historians are suggesting that the history of the 1917 revolution is under threat and must be defended.

In an article in today’s “Kommersant,” Irina Nagornykh and Viktor Khamrayev report that the scientific council of the Russian Security Council have discussed preparations for the centennial of the Russian revolution and the need to oppose efforts to distort the meaning of that and other events in Russia history (kommersant.ru/doc/3131019).

The experts in that body are calling for the establishment of a new government center to conduct that effort, a center which would take up the role of the commission for preventing attempts at the falsification of history that was disbanded in 2012. But both the Russian Historical Society and the Presidential Administration are opposed to that step.

Participants at the experts council said that “the basic threats” to the understanding of Russian historian events were “the information campaigns of foreign governments, the historical illiteracy of young people, and the disappearance of historical scientific-popular books as an independent literary genre.”

They suggested that the most often targeted events in Russian history are “the nationality policy of the Russian Empire (with speculation on ‘the colonial question’), the nationality policy of the USSR, the role of the USSR in the victory over fascism in World War II, the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact, and the USSR and the political crises” in Warsaw Pact countries.

Those taking part in the meeting suggested that they were particularly concerned about what was likely to happen next year, the centenary of the Russian revolution. And because of this threat, they urged that the Kremlin set up a system to monitor Western efforts in this regard and then coordinate the response.

But two important players in this discussion told the “Kommersant” journalists that they saw no need for such an institution. Yury Petrov, head of the Institute of History of the Russian Academy of Sciences, said that historians have the situation under control. As evidence of this, he pointed to their response to recent discussions about the1916 rising in Central Asia.

And a “Kommersant” source in the Presidential Administration said that there was no reason for the government to create such a structure. It would have to get involved if and only if there were a violation of Russian law such as the defense of historical monuments.

(Taiwan) Is Not Made In China – OpEd

0
0

By Thomas Shattuck*

(FPRI) — Recent incidents continue to demonstrate how the People’s Republic of China is attempting to isolate Taiwan from the international community. These actions (both on the micro and macro level) bode ill for how China is going to engage with Taiwan under President Tsai Ing-Wen, whose election Beijing opposed.

Reports from a Shanghai bookstore show the nonsensical lengths that some people in China will go to “exclude” Taiwan. Bookstores are ripping “Taiwan” out of the Merriam-Webster dictionary before customers have the opportunity to purchase it. Other shops simply black out Taiwan-related entries. This “correction” removes any hint of recognition of a “Republic of China” or “Taiwan,” at the expense of other words beginning with the letter “T.” It is a crude method of censorship that boggles the mind—if Merriam-Webster produces dictionaries with apparently offending entries, why does the Chinese government allow them to be sold? It already bans Western social media websites and movies that promote “Western values.” Why risk the embarrassing news story? Ridiculous does not come close to describing these actions.


The dictionary incident follows another high profile kerfuffle over a popular Chinese television show—a game show where foreign students compete based on their Mandarin abilities—which omitted Taiwan from a map of China. Since China views Taiwan as a part of it, this omission sparked outrage online. Hunan Television, the channel on which the offending show aired, released a statement: “We feel a deep sense of dereliction of duty at the ‘problem map’ incident and feel deeply pained.” The station even clarified that all employees believe that Taiwan is not independent but part of China. The harsh reaction from these netizens shows how sensitive of a topic Taiwanese identity is on the Mainland. The choice of wordage in Hunan Television’s statement escalates the severity of the issue: being “deeply pained” and admitting a “dereliction of duty” are words one would not expect to find over such an omission. Taiwan’s existence as a de facto independent entity angers Chinese citizens who are fervently nationalist, and incidents like the “problem map” only remind the global community how seriously the “Taiwan Question” is treated on the Mainland.

While the two above examples show controversies stemming from Chinese citizens and businesses, another fresh controversy demonstrates that bookstores and netizens appear to take their cues from authorities in the Chinese Community Party (CCP). In September 2016, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), which is a part of the United Nations, rejected Taiwan’s request to participate in its 39th Assembly in Montreal. At this assembly, nations discuss aviation policy, and despite Taiwan’s central location within East Asia, ICAO still decided not to accept its request. According to Airports Council International, “More than 1.53 million aircraft carrying 58 million passengers passed through the Taipei Flight Information Region last year. In addition, Taiwan Taoyuan International Airport was ranked 11th and sixth busiest airport in the world in terms of passenger and cargo volumes, respectively.” This high level of air traffic alone should qualify it for a seat at these assemblies. Taiwan had participated in the 38th assembly in 2013 with the hope of continued participation. In 2013, China “asked for Taiwan to be invited.” This year, due to harsh Chinese backlash from Taiwan electing Tsai as president, China pressed ICAO not to allow Taiwan to join the assembly, and ICAO’s spokesperson said that it was “follow[ing] the United Nations’ ‘One China’ policy.” Countries from all across the globe have expressed their support for Taiwan’s participation in ICAO meetings and discontent with ICAO backing down due to Chinese pressure. Stickers saying “The sky is not made in China” have appeared at ICAO headquarters in Montreal in response to Taiwan’s exclusion. China hopes that by further excluding Taiwan from participation in international organizations it can force President Tsai to publicly adhere to the 1992 Consensus. However, such stories create sympathy for Taiwan and its people, and they also further perpetuate the perception of Chinese aggression in the region. China’s own actions paint it in a bad light and generate international support for Taiwan.

In early October 2016, Pew reported (ironically) that 77% of Chinese people think that “their way of life needs to be protected against foreign influence, and such sentiment is up 13 percentage points since 2002.” Considering these events, China and Chinese citizens are the ones negatively influencing the world around them, squeezing and alienating Taiwan and forcing China’s will on international organizations.

No matter what China does—short of war or extreme coercion—Taiwan will still be there as a (de facto) independent entity.

About the author:
*Thomas J. Shattuck
is the Assistant Editor and a Research Associate at FPRI. He received his BA in History and English from La Salle University in 2013 and his MA in International Studies from National Chengchi University in 2016. Thomas also received a Fulbright grant to teach English in Kinmen, Taiwan for the 2013-14 academic year.

Source:
This article was published at FPRI.

Russia And NATO Holding Parallel Drills

0
0

After hearing of Russia’s war games in Serbia, NATO rushed to Serbia’s neighbor Montenegro to hold an emergency exercise drill as the two Balkan neighbors seem to be heading in different directions strategically.

The five-day drill in Montenegro that started Monday includes fighting floods and chemical attacks. It will involve 680 unarmed personnel from seven NATO countries and 10 partner states.

The 13-day armed exercise in Serbia, dubbed “The Slavic Brotherhood 2016,” begins Wednesday. It will include 150 Russian paratroopers, 50 air force staffers, 3 transport planes and an unspecified number of troops from Serbia and Belarus, Russia’s Defense Ministry said.

Both Serbia and Montenegro – a single state before their western sponsored split in 2006 – are traditional Russian Christian Orthodox allies. But since the split, the US led NATO alliance managed to grab a hold of Montenegro by bribing their influential politicians, much to the dismay of the entire country.

This included an invitiation for Montenegro to join NATO despite the fact Montenegro has no sizeable army and no air force. There has been strong opposition from Russia as well which has a problem with NATO’s perpetual expansion. Serbia has no plans to join NATO, the Serbs seem to have trouble forgetting the bombing of their schools, bridges and hospitals by NATO back in 2001 which killed hundreds of civilians.

Montenegrin officials following the example set by Clinton’s presidential campaign, have accused Russia of standing behind an alleged coup on election day earlier in October to topple the pro-Western government because of its NATO bid. Each time Montenegrins rise to protest their corrupt Government installed with US meddling, Moscow seems to be the handy scapegoat utilized by Montenegrin officials to stay in power and clamp down hard on protesters.

International Observes Say Georgia’s Runoff Elections Were ‘Smooth And Professional’

0
0

(Civil.Ge) — Georgia’s October 30 runoff elections were “competitive and administered in a manner that respected the rights of candidates and voters”, OSCE/ODIHR-led international election observation mission said in its preliminary conclusions on Monday.

Along with long-term and short-term observers from OSCE’s Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights (ODIHR), the mission also included short-term observers from the OSCE Parliamentary Assembly (OSCE PA); the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) and the European Parliament.

“Election day procedures were conducted in a smooth and professional manner,” the mission said.

“The overall assessment of the process by IEOM observers was positive, as Precinct Election Commission (PEC) members were better prepared and adherence to procedures improved, particularly during the counting. However, overcrowding inside polling stations, the presence of unauthorized persons and them interfering in the work of PECs again had a negative effect. Large crowds were gathered outside many polling stations, with observers noting possible intimidation in a few cases,” the mission said in its preliminary conclusions.

It also said that opening was assessed “positively” in all but two out of 63 polling stations observed. The mission evaluated voting as good or very good in 97 per cent of the observed polling stations; it noted that “overall, the counting has improved as compared to the first round.”

The preliminary report lists some procedural errors observed in the recording of the number of voters, invalidation of unused ballots before counting and packing of unused and spoiled ballots.

“Electoral contestants were able to campaign freely and without restrictions or incidents. A few reported physical altercations are being investigated by law enforcement,” the mission said.

“The campaign was more subdued with candidates putting a focus on direct contact with voters,” according to the preliminary conclusions.

The international observation mission also noted that “news coverage of the main political parties by monitored broadcasters was more balanced than during the first round.”

“While the Georgian Public Broadcaster did not conduct election debates for the second rounds, several other broadcasters tried to organize debates but found candidates were not interested in participating,” the mission noted. “Candidates and party representatives rarely presented their electoral programmes, instead discussions continued to be dominated by the topic of one party possibly having a constitutional majority.”

The mission notes that “the principle of transparency and the right to effective redress were often not respected in the investigation and adjudication of election disputes by election commissions and courts.

“All this weakened confidence in the election administration,” it said.

International observers also noted about the lack of regulations for the second round that “gave room for subjective interpretations and inconsistencies in the application of the law.”

The OSCE/ODIHR will issue a comprehensive final report, including recommendations for potential improvements, some eight weeks after the completion of the electoral process.

Spain Mulls Participation In Canadian Battalion In Latvia

0
0

Spain’s Minister for Defence, Pedro Morenés, has said that “Spain is considering participation in the Canadian battalion in Latvia”, following NATO’s requests to Spain during the meeting of NATO defence ministers held on 26 and 27 October in Brussels. The meeting analysed the future allied policy of dissuasion and defence and the strengthening of cooperation with the European Union.

The Minister for Defence noted that “Spain has been asked to make a number of contributions” within the framework of the advanced presence in the countries of Eastern Europe. Among the requests is to send a company to form part of the battalion led by Canada in Latvia. “Its composition and objectives will depend on how the battalion is constituted, but it will be made up of between 100 and 130 troops,” he said. However, Morenés stressed that “following parliamentary approval, it is up to the next government to take the appropriate decisions, which have already been well studied and planned.”

Spain has also been asked to participate in the battalion that NATO is to deploy in Romania, although the minister said that this “is still to be defined”.

In addition, Morenés highlighted the importance that 360º collective defence has for stability on the Southern Flank.

In this respect, the Minister for Defence said that since the Wales Summit, Spain has supported a strengthening of the Alliance that guarantees the protection of the allied territory and population against the challenges and threats with a 360º vision, given that “a 360º development is the best way of helping to tackle all the risks and threats.”

“The risks and threats we are facing are increasingly serious, and represent not only threats of a military nature, but also in other areas that affect society,” he continued. This means greater involvement by NATO in the matter of dissuasion and collective defence to the threats from the south, not limited to only cooperative security and “partnered” activities or the imbalance of the alliance to the east to the detriment of 360º balance.

With respect to relations between NATO and the European Union, Morenés stressed that the general idea is that “a Europe that is strong in defence, solid, credible and well led, is being built up as an essential contribution to an increasingly strong NATO.” He noted that “Spain has given signs of its solidarity, with a presence in far-off locations”, while it is “participating in all the European Union operations.”

The Minister for Defence spoke in favour of boosting cooperation between NATO and the EU as the best way of achieving a more effective Euro-Atlantic security, whose complementarity must prevent duplications of capacities or unnecessary efforts. His message was one of unity and political cohesion.

“A stronger Europe cannot mean a weaker NATO; and NATO cannot be strengthened by weakening Europe” he explained, while “each organisation must guarantee the other of its responsibilities with respect to collective security.

Viewing all 73339 articles
Browse latest View live




Latest Images